Romney needs to withdraw. open the convention.

[Liability]

romney is getting destroyed with all this bain stuff. open the convention so we can choose a better candidate.

^ Dumbest political advice of the current political looney season.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If the American citizen is engaging in terrorist activities on American soil, then killing him would be constitutional. When he is riding in a jeep in Yemen, not so much.

Sadly, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

As long as that "one" isn't in Yemen somewhere.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Bain thing is backfiring on the Obama camp.
Obama spent $100's millions of stimulus money on green projects that were produced overseas.

romney should be 15 ahead right now. his problem is he has no natural base of support to defend him.

Where do you base the idea Romney should be 15 ahead?

Obama is the Incumbent, it is him that should be worried he is not leading by Much.

 

[Si modo]

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

How does Habeus Corpus come into play in this?

The law says that, too..

And, it has never been challenged as unconstitutional.

The law says what, too?

So, what else would you like to compare?

Every other similar instance of the government willfully killing citizens without a jury trial to convict said citizens of a crime.

Good grief!

Habeus corpus is what REQUIRES a person to be brought in front of a judge or some sort of court.

My reference to the law, is to the USC which expands on the Constitution (Article 1, section 9, in case you are curious). Constitutionally, the write of habeus corpus is suspended ONLY in rare instances.

We do NOT suspend such inherent rights of citizens in any circumstances, except as allowed.

Habeus corpus was clearly suspended for those three citizens. That IS unconstitutional, on its face, UNLESS the narrow circumstances in which it was done apply.

I'm wondering what the circumstances were that allowed for this denial of inherent rights of these three citizens. If only the administration would be transparent. The ACLU is currently suing, so maybe Obama can cook something up before he is ordered to be transparent about the circumstances.

 

[Avatar4321]

insult me and the site because they produce facts you dont like about the guy you hated six months ago and now carry all his water for


you people are moralless

says the person lying and repeating lies.

 

[Charles_Main]

If the American citizen is engaging in terrorist activities on American soil, then killing him would be constitutional. When he is riding in a jeep in Yemen, not so much.

Ok I am dying for you to explain how think that is true?

The Government can easily argue that he was Engaging in Terrorist Activity simply by being in that Jeep in Yemen and with the people he was with.

Where he is when you kill him has no bearing on it at all.

It's all still strictly speaking NOT constitutional.

 

[8537]

For the sake of good reality TV, I hope the RNC takes SarahGOP's suggestion!

A lot more folks would watch if it was shitshow. Maybe the RNC could pick the VP in a 12-week series akin to The Bachelor...or Survivor.

 

[CandySlice]

Bain isn't hurting Romney at all....

In fact, most conservatives KNOW better than to listen to the left-wing media....most of what comes out of them are later proven to be lies anyway. And a lot of the dems have realized they were duped in 2008 and they aren't going to let that happen again.

I agree. All this tempest in a tea pot because Obama has NOTHING to run on. I mean nice try, Obama, but why didn't you put some of that effort to bring Romney down into our economy and the debt? THAT would have been impressive!

 

[Charles_Main]

A guy has bank accounts in Switzerland and Investment vehicles in the Cayman Islands. He claims to have completely departed from a company in 1999 despite attending meetings, being paid as CEO and being listed as the only shareholder as late as 2002....

Oh sure, pointing this out will definitely hurt the Obama campaign. I mean lets face it, who doesn't park money in the Cayman Islands?

The only people that Care about your Hate the Rich, Class warfare Bull shit, is your Base. A recent poll says 75% of Americans could care less about how Rich a Candidate is, and Most see little difference between Romneys Hundreds of Millions and Obama's 14 Million.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

If the American citizen is engaging in terrorist activities on American soil, then killing him would be constitutional. When he is riding in a jeep in Yemen, not so much.

Sadly, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

As long as that "one" isn't in Yemen somewhere.

Here, educate yourself.

Targeted killing order and lawsuit against the U.S.

In July 2010, his father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, contracted the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to represent his son in a lawsuit that sought to remove Anwar from the targeted killing list.[224] ACLU's Jameel Jaffer said:

the United States is not at war in Yemen, and the government doesn't have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. Among the arguments we'll be making is that, outside actual war zones, the authority to use lethal force is narrowly circumscribed, and preserving the rule of law depends on keeping this authority narrow.[225]

Lawyers for Specially Designated Global Terrorists must obtain a special license from the U.S. Treasury Department before they can represent their clients in court. The lawyers were granted the license on August 4, 2010.[226]

On August 30, 2010, the groups filed a "targeted killing" lawsuit, naming President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as defendants.[227][228] They sought an injunction preventing the targeted killing of al-Aulaqi, and also sought to require the government to disclose the standards under which U.S. citizens may be "targeted for death". Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit in an 83-page ruling, holding that the father did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, and that his claims were judicially unreviewable under the political question doctrine inasmuch as he was questioning a decision that the U.S. Constitution committed to the political branches.[35][229][230][231]

On May 5, 2011, the U.S. tried to kill Anwar Aulaqi by firing a missile from an unmanned drone onto a car in Yemen but Aulaqi survived the attempted killing.[232] A Yemeni security official said that two al-Qaeda operatives in the car died.[233]
Death

On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Aulaqi and three other suspected al-Qaeda members.[234][234][235][236] A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle.[237] According to U.S. sources, the strike was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA. U.S. President Barack Obama said:

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[8537]

A guy has bank accounts in Switzerland and Investment vehicles in the Cayman Islands. He claims to have completely departed from a company in 1999 despite attending meetings, being paid as CEO and being listed as the only shareholder as late as 2002....

Oh sure, pointing this out will definitely hurt the Obama campaign. I mean lets face it, who doesn't park money in the Cayman Islands?

The only people that Care about your Hate the Rich, Class warfare Bull shit, is your Base. A recent poll says 75% of Americans could care less about how Rich a Candidate is, and Most see little difference between Romneys Hundreds of Millions and Obama's 14 Million.

It's not about how rich he is. It's about Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island investment vehicles.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

If the American citizen is engaging in terrorist activities on American soil, then killing him would be constitutional. When he is riding in a jeep in Yemen, not so much.

Ok I am dying for you to explain how think that is true?

The Government can easily argue that he was Engaging in Terrorist Activity simply by being in that Jeep in Yemen and with the people he was with.

Where he is when you kill him has no bearing on it at all.

It's all still strictly speaking NOT constitutional.

If he is not actively attacking American citizens, then it's hardly covered under common defense, is it?

Or does the common defense written in the Constitution cover Yemeni citizens too?

 

[Si modo]

ACLU Sues U.S. for Information on Targeted Killing Program
By Nathan Freed Wessler, Fellow, ACLU National Security Project at 12:28pm

Today we filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to demand that the government release basic — and accurate — information about the government’s targeted killing program.

Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate. Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading.

Our suit overlaps with the one recently filed by The New York Times insofar as it seeks the legal memos on which the targeted killing program is based. But our suit is broader. We’re seeking, in addition to the legal memos, the government’s evidentiary basis for strikes that killed three Americans in Yemen in the fall of 2011. We’re also seeking information about the process by which the administration adds Americans to secret government “kill lists.” We think it’s crucial that the administration release the legal memos, but we don’t think the memos alone will allow the public to evaluate the lawfulness and wisdom of the program.

We know something about the fall 2011 strikes from media reports. On September 30, the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) jointly carried out the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico, using missiles fired from unmanned drones in Yemen. A second U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, was killed in the same attack. Two weeks later, Anwar al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, a 16-year-old U.S. citizen born in Colorado, was killed in another U.S. drone strike elsewhere in Yemen. The administration has not adequately explained the legal basis for these strikes, and it has not explained the factual basis, either.

Soon after the fall 2011 strikes, we submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice (DOJ). Three months later, we have yet to receive a single document in response. Outrageously, the CIA and the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel responded by refusing to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to our request. Essentially, these agencies are saying the targeted killing program is so secret that they can’t even acknowledge that it exists.

This response is incredible, in the original sense of that word—it simply lacks credibility. The press has reported since early 2010 that Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and JSOC, and articles have discussed in detail the secret process by which he was placed there. After the killings of the three U.S. citizens last fall, newspapers reported extensive details about the strikes, including how the CIA and JSOC coordinated and the number of drones involved. [/B]The Times described a “secret” OLC memo that lays out the Administration’s legal justifications for placing al-Awlaki on the kill lists and killing him. Much of the reporting was based on statements by government officials, albeit officials who were unwilling to be quoted for attribution.

Some officials, including President Obama, have spoken on the record about the program. They have publicly claimed responsibility for killing al-Awlaki, and they have more generally defended the government’s right to kill citizens after a secret non-judicial process. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged on 60 Minutes that the U.S. can and does carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens subject to the recommendations of the CIA Director and the Secretary of Defense and pursuant to the President’s authorization. And this week, President Obama publicly defended the CIA targeted killing program in a live internet interview [starts at minute 26:30].

The government’s self-serving attitude toward transparency and disclosure is unacceptable. Officials cannot be allowed to release bits of information about the targeted killing program when they think it will bolster their position, but refuse even to confirm the existence of a targeted killing program when organizations like the ACLU or journalists file FOIA requests in the service of real transparency and accountability. ....​

ACLU.org

 

[Stephanie]

A guy has bank accounts in Switzerland and Investment vehicles in the Cayman Islands. He claims to have completely departed from a company in 1999 despite attending meetings, being paid as CEO and being listed as the only shareholder as late as 2002....

Oh sure, pointing this out will definitely hurt the Obama campaign. I mean lets face it, who doesn't park money in the Cayman Islands?

The only people that Care about your Hate the Rich, Class warfare Bull shit, is your Base. A recent poll says 75% of Americans could care less about how Rich a Candidate is, and Most see little difference between Romneys Hundreds of Millions and Obama's 14 Million.

It's not about how rich he is. It's about Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island investment vehicles.

OK, when you all start worrying about all the Democrats who have this, then we'll get excited over it.

 

[salem.hills]

For the sake of good reality TV, I hope the RNC takes SarahGOP's suggestion!

A lot more folks would watch if it was shitshow. Maybe the RNC could pick the VP in a 12-week series akin to The Bachelor...or Survivor.

I hope Holder eventually spills beans that he was under Obama's direction. And Mitt doesn't pardon either. Its very possible first we are going after treason charges for Obama's minions that threw the Pakistani doctor under the bus, despicable is the word that best fits these traitors.
BTW the reason the documents are because mg hid is the guns have been linked to shooting of reservists helping border patrol. Just a rumor from military friend. Good luck sleeping in prison Holder

 

[GuyPinestra]

all the lawyers and advisers said he was within his duties as president...it wasn't done on a whim....have you read anything on it that the advisers said? of course, Bush's advisors said he too had done nothing unconstitutional with preemptive war....going to war against a country that was not at our door step, trying to kill us.... that was a new precedence for us.....but apparently not unconstitutional according to his advisers...

As I said, judge, jury, and executioner. It's unconstitutional. We have three branches, and that's to ensure that one branch does not usurp the responsibilities and powers of the others. It protects all of our rights. Except when we have a POTUS who doesn't know what the Constitution is.

After the 9-11 attacks, all commercial flights were grounding and fighter jets were scrambled and were prepared to shoot down commercial aircraft if found in the air, and not responding to military demands. Fortunately, things did not come to that. But if they had, would you have objected that it was unconstitutional?

Actually, there was one 747 in the air after that day. It was owned by the Bin Laden family and it flew around picking up family members to hustle them out of the country.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Habeus corpus is what REQUIRES a person to be brought in front of a judge or some sort of court.

No. Habeus Corpus is a judge's demand that a person be brought before the court so that the court can determine the detainer's legal standing to hold said person. A person files a petition to request the writ be issued when they are in custody. Habeus Corpus does not, and cannot, apply to someone who is not in custody. You're completely off base here and need to educate yourself more before you bother trying to continue this uneducated position.

Habeas corpus | LII / Legal Information Institute

Habeas Corpus Defined and Explained

 

[Katzndogz]

I suppose it could be this part...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I'd agree, that part definitely seems to be relevant. So, tell me, how does that part apply less to an American citizen actively engaged in terrorist activities against the US, yet more to innocent citizens who happen to be unfortunate enough to be on a hijacked plane?

If the American citizen is engaging in terrorist activities on American soil, then killing him would be constitutional. When he is riding in a jeep in Yemen, not so much.

And you're right, it is unfortunate for those folks on the plane, but the attack has to be stopped to prevent far more deaths on the ground. Sadly, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

If an American citizen is engaging in terrorist activities on American soil, it's just workplace violence and he's given the liberal ho hum, like Nidal Hassan was.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

As I said, judge, jury, and executioner. It's unconstitutional. We have three branches, and that's to ensure that one branch does not usurp the responsibilities and powers of the others. It protects all of our rights. Except when we have a POTUS who doesn't know what the Constitution is.

After the 9-11 attacks, all commercial flights were grounding and fighter jets were scrambled and were prepared to shoot down commercial aircraft if found in the air, and not responding to military demands. Fortunately, things did not come to that. But if they had, would you have objected that it was unconstitutional?

Actually, there was one 747 in the air after that day. It was owned by the Bin Laden family and it flew around picking up family members to hustle them out of the country.

Bullshit.

snopes.com: Flights of Fancy

 

[Avatar4321]

A Cain Palin ticket would STILL be better than obama. A Putin/Jintao ticket would be better than obama. I'd be tempted to say a Bin Laden/Hussein ticket would be the only one worse, but we already have a Hussein on the ballot.

Bin Laden's dead. I think we could make an argument that a dead man could run the country better.