talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Where? Point it out.

Article 3, Section 2, and the 5th and 6th Amendments.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

That is if the person is a prisoner -- if they are captured.

That is different from what we're talking about.

5th Amendment also applies to trial, if they are captured. He isn't captured.

6th Amendment also deals with prosecutions -- which ALSO deal with trials.
which *again* we are not talking about.

*IF* they capture this guy -- these things apply. But what we're talking about is that if they *cant* capture him they can take means to kill him.

Not very nice -- but not in violation of what you've listed here.

the implication appears to be that a good faith attempt at capturing the suspect is to be made

That still stands -- the order Obama signed was that **if they can NOT** capture him without putting the troops at unacceptable risk -- take him out.

No, it's if they committed a crime. When you commit a crime, you have to go to court to have it proved that you did it. Period.

Not true.

First of all, our wonderful former President GWB set a wonderous precedent of holding people indefinitely WITHOUT a trial or even charges being brought.

Although i didn't support that -- it is precedent.

Second, if Administration + Congress + Supreme Court support it... then it's allowed. Period.

That precedent only applies to enemy combatants, which are specified as foreigners, so it doesn't apply here. And I don't believe it's actually been ruled on by the Supreme Court. The case that was before them was testing something different than that.

The Supreme Court has **not** overturned it, and Administration + Congress have endorsed it.

Thus it IS Constitutional. By Definition.

No, if it hasn't been considered then it just hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet. That does not make it Constitutional. It makes it undecided.

Undecided = Constitutional if the practice is allowed to continue and Supreme Court refuses to hear it or rule.

The Supreme Court can only rule on things brought to them. It hasn't been brought to them yet AFAIK. Which means they haven't refused it either. Therefore, it's undecided, not Constitutional.

And your statement is logically false anyways. Undecided isn't undecided if the Court refused to hear it, as that's a decision.

Ok.....

if you say so....
because apparently that's all that's needed...

Intents and purposes, facts and reasons be damned.

Yes, logic is all that's needed. Your last statement is just more idiocy from you though.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only