(no subject)
7/4/10 08:56![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
thies.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsUsing 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)
(source)
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 14:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 18:24 (UTC)I said the opposite -- not sure what you're talking about.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 22:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 22:40 (UTC)And If Congress approves + Aministration approves + Supreme Court no overturn it...
THEN it is Constitutional. By Definition.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 23:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 00:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 17:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 17:42 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 17:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 18:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 17:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/4/10 18:19 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/10 23:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 01:00 (UTC)Thus it IS Constitutional. By Definition.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 02:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 03:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 06:40 (UTC)And your statement is logically false anyways. Undecided isn't undecided if the Court refused to hear it, as that's a decision.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 12:35 (UTC)if you say so....
because apparently that's all that's needed...
Intents and purposes, facts and reasons be damned.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/10 17:33 (UTC)