Ron Paul on the Awlaki strike: “I think the impeachment process would be possible”

posted at 10:05 pm on October 3, 2011 by Allahpundit

I hope he and Kucinich push for a floor vote on the matter, just because it’d be fun to see how many votes there are on their side of this issue. Bear in mind that Romney, Perry, and now even Herman Cain — in an apparent flip-flop — support Obama on the drone strike, so GOP backing for impeachment would probably extend to Paul and maybe Justin Amash and that’s it. But let’s do it anyway, just to put Democrats on the spot. Progressives might grumble about drone warfare, but would Pelosi really let them cast a vote for impeachment? C’mon.

How about a compromise? No impeachment, but we get to see … the secret memo:

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration…

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

I’m glad there was no dissent because we know what happens to legal memos when they tell The One something he doesn’t want to hear. Speaking of dissent, be sure to read Matt Lewis’s tragically accurate take on the one unquestionable benefit of a second Obama term: Namely, killing terrorists will remain officially cool for another four years. In fact, at this point, I bet O’s kicking himself for having signed that order banning enhanced interrogation so soon into his presidency. He probably assumed that the left actually meant what it said when it screeched at Bush for five years about detainee rights; little did he know that most of them are content to let the president go around firing missiles at people, including American citizens, as long as there’s a “D” after his name. You gave them way, way too much credit, champ. But who knows? Maybe if he gives them something they really care about, like a new tax on rich people, they’ll look the other way at him rescinding the order. “The Buffett rule” in exchange for a little waterboarding? Something to think about, White House legal team.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’m not a legal scholar, but this and the fact that this guy was a scumbag who wanted nothing more than to wage war on American citizens is enough for me.

tommer74 on October 4, 2011 at 2:04 AM

The soldiers we executed in re: Ex Parte Quirin got military tribunals. Just sayin’….

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:11 AM

This statement regarding the USAAF/RAF carpet-bombing of German cities I’m WWII …

Right, but the intended targets were the factories and railyards – intent matters. If we were trying to target residential areas, that would indeed have been a war crime.

Inkblots on October 3, 2011 at 11:20 PM

… reveals a serious ignorance of history. The German civilians were also targets. Same goes for the Pacific Theater. We firebombed Japanese cities with the intent to destroy both military targets and civilians.

OhioCoastie on October 4, 2011 at 2:18 AM

The soldiers we executed in re: Ex Parte Quirin got military tribunals. Just sayin’….

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:11 AM

And the court was just sayin’…

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency.”

Awlaki got killed as a self-declared belligerent. Death is one of the consequences of military action. A military tribunal would only be applicable to those who are in custody.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 2:20 AM

… reveals a serious ignorance of history. The German civilians were also targets. Same goes for the Pacific Theater. We firebombed Japanese cities with the intent to destroy both military targets and civilians.

OhioCoastie on October 4, 2011 at 2:18 AM

Inkblots was referring to American civilians, not German/Japanese civvies.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM

In the civilized, Democratic world, how many wars are there when compared to the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries?

In Continental Europe, in places where we had near high water marks in arts, philosophy, music, literature and culture, we had basically endless war and bloodshed. What’s that landscape look like today? A lot better, right? Which country started that trend?

We did. Right at the end of WW2.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Even if you really do believe that the world is more civilized today (which is a very difficult argument considering the rise in crime, sexual immorality, disdain for religious faith etc. that grown to unheard of levels over the past decades), then what exactly does that have to do with taking spoils? We got to where we are today as a result of a number of things, none of which included; a failure to take spoils of war. Once the American and European economies crash and people are without hope, you will see how “civilized” westerners react.

NeverLiberal on October 4, 2011 at 2:29 AM

If we were trying to target residential areas, that would indeed have been a war crime.

Inkblots was referring to American civilians, not German/Japanese civvies.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:23 AM

No he wasn’t unless he meant the American residential areas of Hamburg. Since there was no such thing I doubt it.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Once the American and European economies crash and people are without hope, you will see how “civilized” westerners react.

NeverLiberal on October 4, 2011 at 2:29 AM

If not for the way we built up Germany, the Eurozone would have collapsed long ago, and we’d have gone right from global panic to global catastrophe.

BTW, you should do some more reading about 17th and 18th century Europe. Bastion of “Sexuality Morality”? Hardly.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:36 AM

No he wasn’t unless he meant the American residential areas of Hamburg. Since there was no such thing I doubt it.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 2:31 AM

Weren’t we talking about American citizens as collateral damage? The 5th Amendment doesn’t say anything about Germans.

If we veered off into International Law, then that’s another kettle of fish. But that wasn’t your point, was it?

That is exactly what the US Army Air Force did in WW2. They didn’t have the accuracy at the time to hit factories. Look into what happened at Hamburg during Operation Gomorrah. They carpet bombed German and Japanese cities and the US president ordered a nuclear strike against two Japanese cities.

BTW, American citizens were present in all of those cities.

sharrukin on October 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM

That’s what we’re referring to, sharrukin. Or at least, that’s what I’m referring to.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:40 AM

The problem did not arise because we took spoils, it arose because we left them with nothing and then left them to their own devices unchecked.

NeverLiberal on October 4, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Um… that bolded part is pretty much the definition of taking spoils.

Also, we saddled them with a debt to be paid. . . taking spoils long after the fact.

Leaving them to their own devices. . . that’s eventually what’s going to happen. . . unless you re-invade or make them allies.

We stopped taking spoils after WW1 because we realized it was merely kicking the can down the road to the next big conflict.

I think the legitimate question is, will we ever get the ROI from these Islamic countries that we got from Japan and Germany?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Time will tell. If you ask me tho’, I think we started the rebuilding too soon. We certainly didn’t deliver the culture crushing defeats that we did in Germany and Japan. We haven’t redefined the culture as we did in Korea.

I don’t see Afghanistan and Iraq as wars, I see them as battles. I feel that the war has started, but we still don’t see the scope or extent to which it will rage.

I can see a path where we do have a very good ROI in Iraq, and a fair to good one come from Afghanistan. I can likewise see a path that leads the world into some very dark times.

————–

And with that cheery thought. . . good night.

Jason Coleman on October 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

Or at least, that’s what I’m referring to.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:40 AM

No it wasn’t. You were referring to

OhioCoastie on October 4, 2011 at 2:18 AM

Which is why you quoted it.

Inkblots said…

Right, but the intended targets were the factories and railyards – intent matters. If we were trying to target residential areas, that would indeed have been a war crime.

They weren’t bombing American factories, or railyards and they weren’t bombing American residential areas.

He meant German residential areas and even a superficial reading of either post would tell you that.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 2:48 AM

If not for the way we built up Germany, the Eurozone would have collapsed long ago, and we’d have gone right from global panic to global catastrophe.

BTW, you should do some more reading about 17th and 18th century Europe. Bastion of “Sexuality Morality”? Hardly.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Again I repeat, I am not against building up a conquered foe if we feel its in our best interests to do so, as long as they pay us back. That does not change the fact that if they lost to us in war, then we are at liberty to take spoils of war. What exactly is wrong with that? Also, I never insinuated that our predecessors were sexually moral, only that the level that it has risen to today is unheard of. Especially its almost universal acceptance in the west of sodomy and transgender issues as normal. Not only is it promoted, but laws have been proposed to make it a hate crime to speak against it.

NeverLiberal on October 4, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Why did we build up W. Germany & Italy & Japan after WWII? Altruism? Hell no. We were trying to prevent WWIII with our erstwhile allies, the USSR & China. Get your history straight.

OhioCoastie on October 4, 2011 at 2:53 AM

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 2:48 AM

I don’t agree with everything Inkblots writes. I think intent DOES matter when it comes to American citizens.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Why did we build up W. Germany & Italy & Japan after WWII? Altruism? Hell no. We were trying to prevent WWIII with our erstwhile allies, the USSR & China. Get your history straight.

OhioCoastie on October 4, 2011 at 2:53 AM

If you prefer to look at everything that cynically, fine. I don’t see any in-congruence in both preventing future hostilities AND creating a better world by building up successful, Democratic governments in the wake of War.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:56 AM

Jason Coleman on October 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM

I agree that we’re much more likely to see a positive ROI in regards to Iraq.

I’m not sure we’ll ever get those kind of returns in Afghanistan, but then again, our Af/Pak engagement is really solely related to neutering the capabilities of AQ. Actually installing a working Democracy in Afghanistan would be the mother of all bonuses, but as we both agree, it’s quite the longshot.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM

I think intent DOES matter when it comes to American citizens.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 2:53 AM

That is a standard that has never been applied before when Americans are in the line of fire and I fail to see any convincing reason that it should be applied now. The court has made it clear in the 1942 ruling that a citizen does not retain protection of citizenship when he is a hostile belligerent.

The only argument left is the argument that he wasn’t a hostile belligerent which directly contradicts his own testimony.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Um… that bolded part is pretty much the definition of taking spoils.

By spoiling them, I am referring to spoiling them of their riches(which depending on the country, may not be very much), not of their means to making a living.

Also, we saddled them with a debt to be paid. . . taking spoils long after the fact.

There is nothing wrong with requiring them to pay us back part of what we lost as a result of what they started, but it should be done in a way that is not overly burdensome and has a definite timetable that they will be free from debt.

Leaving them to their own devices. . . that’s eventually what’s going to happen. . . unless you re-invade or make them allies.

We stopped taking spoils after WW1 because we realized it was merely kicking the can down the road to the next big conflict.

We can leave them to their own devices once we are confident that they will not cause trouble again, until then, we call the shots. Again, I am not saying that we should leave the countries we defeat without the means to make a living, only that we allow the soldiers to spoil them of their riches if they so choose to. For instance, Iraq does not have much money to spoil, so instead, we should be taking ownership over their oil for a set time till we decide to sell it back to them.

NeverLiberal on October 4, 2011 at 3:20 AM

That does not change the fact that if they lost to us in war, then we are at liberty to take spoils of war.

I had to come back on this one because it kinda pissed me off.

Americans don’t take “spoils of war”. We never have. You can spout some left claptrap if you want about our taking of land from the Native Americans or acquiring territories overseas in the Span-Amer war, but it’s all BS compared to what really is meant by “spoils of war” in your biblical sense.

We’ve always left the areas we went to war and the people we went to war with better off than before we came (WHEN WE COULD).

The American Experiment is a force for good, I firmly believe that. I believe that the concept of America is embodied by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Where we’ve gone and dropped these concepts on people, the people have done well. Where we failed to drop those concepts, the people have done far worse.

We have never taken spoils in the manner that spoils were taken biblically, and I don’t want to be a part of an America that would do such a thing. The fact that you would even put it into these terms is actually a bit disturbing. Really???? You’re expecting biblical spoils?

Do you even have any idea what kind of abject horror that entails?

Even 18th and early 19th Century “spoils” taken in Europe should positively turn the stomach of an American who believes that all mankind is created equal and possesses certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We fight despots, dictators, corrupt ideologies and to advance democracy, we don’t fight “the people” and Americans have no interest or right to loot what little the Iraqi everyman has left.

So you’re honestly suggesting that we, America, go in and LOOT Iraq and Afghanistan for all it’s worth?

Seriously?

Dude, don’t talk to me. Ever.

Jason Coleman on October 4, 2011 at 3:37 AM

So you’re honestly suggesting that we, America, go in and LOOT Iraq and Afghanistan for all it’s worth?

Seriously?

Dude, don’t talk to me. Ever.

Jason Coleman on October 4, 2011 at 3:37 AM

No, I am not suggesting that we spoil ALL of Iraq and Afghanistan for all its worth, I am suggesting that we spoil the ones that fought against us and lost. There are many in Iraq and Afghanistan that wanted nothing to do with what was going on and they should be left alone. The ones that should be spoiled are the ones that supported and actively aided the effort against the U.S. You can hold this holier than thou attitude about our history, but the truth is that we did spoil our enemies. The American soldiers did spoil Germans in WWII and the military was fine with it. American soldiers were going into upper class German houses and coming out with as much as they could carry. A whole bunch of American vets came home with samurai swords they took off the Japanese (some of which were extremely expensive). I never said anything about pulling up tractor trailers and filling them up with everything the country has, just that we should let the soldiers go in and take as much as they can carry home from those who fought against them and lost.

NeverLiberal on October 4, 2011 at 4:06 AM

I don’t know about spoils, but enough to break even would be nice. Loser pays?

Ronnie on October 4, 2011 at 4:25 AM

I respect Ron Paul’s consistence, but a consistent loon is still a loon. Go away Ron, you’re scaring the womenfolk.

SKYFOX on October 4, 2011 at 6:37 AM

I’m not sure I agree with Ron Paul on this, but I sure wish we had some Republicans with the courage Ron Paul has! He doesn’t freaking care who thinks what of him and he follows his convictions! It is so amazing to me that nutcases and the corrupt continually have more courage and convictions than the righteous seem to have!

I do have my own concerns. I seriously believe Obama keeps crossing lines with his own ultimate goal in mind. Even things like the raid on Gibson. The increasing use of SWAT. If all these things are allowed to continue, there can only be one outcome. The eventual targeting of political opponents. We see this all the time in other countries. Today Obama makes history by using his federal police force to raid the business’s of Republican donors and not too many seem to care so tomorrow it’ll be the headquarters of his Republican opponents and he’ll see how that goes.

JellyToast on October 4, 2011 at 6:39 AM

To be civilized one must set aside their negative civil liberties and rights to form society with their fellow man, and the place that this starts is in marriage. Marriage is the quintessential building block of society and when one sets aside violence against others and protects their family and works with others to make sure their families are protected then a brand new law is formed: the Law of Nations. That is the summary of 14th century legal scholarship of Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England and this is called the jus gentium.

To get CIVIL LIBERTY you must first have SOCIETY, and this is true anywhere that families are formed, thus it is a universal law that is not written down anywhere but re-appears when the move to create a family is done. You cannot get to civil laws before you get through the Law of Nations and the best summary of that was done BEFORE 1776 and was known to all the Founders and Framers: The Law of Nations by Monsieur de Vattel. de Vattel worked with Blackstone to ensure that the understanding of the Law of Nations was understood as a basis of British Common Law, which it was given the history of that Common Law already incorporating it.

Almost all of Book III in Law of Nations is taken up with the well understood differences between Public War, that is war done by Nation States, and Private War, that war done by individuals. And there is not one real good word about those doing Private War and that they may be hunted down in all instances on land and at sea. What we call ‘piracy’ is just another name for those doing Private War.

This concept was part of the US military Code from 1863-1895, and it was called the Lieber Code as it was prepared by Francis Lieber for this guy known as Abraham Lincoln as part of his General Orders 100. What sticks out is #82 and do note that its description for those doing it is universal, not specific to the South or those supporting them:

Art. 82.
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers – such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

Notice what sort of civil rights you get when you take up Private War against the US?

Zip.

You can die on the battlefield or you can face summary execution if caught.

If you are wanted for such crimes overseas by your own Nation you can turn yourself into civil authorities to get a trial as was the case with Capt. Morgan who found himself accused of Piracy and went home to stand trial… and was acquitted. For those who don’t give themselves up, they are preferring the laws of war of the most uncivilized form and place themselves outside of the reach of civil law by their ACTIONS. They have become, as Blackstone says about pirates when speaking of them in the Common Law, an enemy of all mankind. Thus the Law of Nations is universal and one must adhere to it, first, to get civil jurisdiction and the most basic thing that must, above all else, be done is to NOT MAKE WAR ON YOUR OWN.

I cry no tears for, to paraphrase Blackstone, they have reduced themselves to the savage state of nature.

Society didn’t do that to them.

The military didn’t do that to them.

Civil law didn’t do that to them.

They do it to themselves.

They want the law of the battlefield red of tooth and claw and are savages for wanting that.

Remember before you ever get to your civil rights you must first conform to the unwritten but written down Law of Nations. And the differences between those who do and those who don’t is self-evident by their actions.

ajacksonian on October 4, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Dr. Paul is consistent, I’ll give him that. But he hasn’t the first clue about what it means to defend a nation, and this is just another example of why he should never be this nation’s senior statesman, nor its Commander in Chief.

When an American citizen takes up arms against his nation during a determined conflict, and shows intent to destroy American lives, they have forfeited all privileges of citizenship, and are legal targets as enemy combatants. This isn’t for a court to decide, it’s a matter of war. You fight against the U.S. and you can get shot/stabbed/blown up. It’s really no more difficult than that.

Now, for the Obama administration, it should be more difficult than that, and Vice President Cheney is right, President Bush deserves a massive apology for all the vitriol aimed his way by Obama about his treatment of the war(s). Under Bush, we took a great many close looks at situations before engaging. Now, it’s pretty much greenlightgreenlightgreenlight…

Freelancer on October 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM

First – I agree with Dr. Paul.
Second – even if you don’t agree with his whole argument, is there not a part of you that agrees with the spirit of the argument? That this sets a tenuous precedent thatwe should be concerned with. The slippery slope is not always a falacy… and if the federal government can build an argument against which their is NO dissent about assassinating American citizens without due process – that we should be a little concerned about the laws being passed on Capitol Hill?
I understand the folks who disagree with Dr. Paul on the issue, I just wonder if we are becoming too callous to our governments heavy handedness.

therambler on October 4, 2011 at 8:37 AM

Obama is a leftwing extremist to the far left of the spectrum, Paul is a rightwing extremist to the far right of the spectrum. The majority of Americans are somewhere in between. Both of these radicals are unfit to lead. Scrutinize the candidates very closely as we cannot make the mistake this country made in 2008. Obama is the epitome of electing someone who is totally incompetent to lead. Making the same mistake in 2012 could be fatal to life as we know it.

volsense on October 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 2:20 AM

Your comments are recently, some of the best on this site. Maybe the best.

hawkdriver on October 4, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Eventually, a zit on your ass will just go away too…

kirkill on October 4, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I’m referring of course to Ron Paul’s crazy moral equivalency isolationism…it’s untenable.

kirkill on October 4, 2011 at 10:50 AM

1) Awlaki has been out of country for 9 years. Plenty of time to do the work to make this action legal.
2) Arguments stating him as a battlefeild leader, he was not on a battlefield, so the argument is false.
3) Arguments stating that he was a traitor, traitors get trials in our constitution, so the argument does not work.
4) Arguments stating that he was not a citizen due to his surrendering of it, then the government should have documented evidence that they accepted his surrender of citizenship and this would all be moot, so why have they not produced such documentation.
5) This leads to the real problem of the whole thing. If the President can unilaterally deny a citizen of their inalienable constitutionally guaranteed rights and kill that citizen with no legal proceedings or limits on that power other than what the people will tolerate, we are no longer a nation of laws and we are no longer governed, but are now subjects of our government and at the mercy of its whims.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I love Ron Paul and the Paulian’s logic here… it makes so much sense! US citizenship is a complete bar on taking any action against an enemy! Tons of terrorists will be a hustling to the courthouse, with their lefty liberal lawyer friends, to take out citizenship and thus become immune to any attacks.

Why?

Because once you say these “Citizens” who openly declare war against the US have rights, the question is, what rights? No one who supports Paul has answered me this: What rights of Awlaki did we violate? Did he have the right to:
Counsel
not be searched and seized without a warrant
no cruel and unusual punishment
right to a jury of his peers
right to an appeal
habeas corpus
right to face his accuser

and on and on? What rights do these traitors have? If we are concerned about these cretins rights, then as I understand it, you Paulians would be upset if we tried him in abstentia, since that violates his right to face his accuser.

If this guy stays in Yemen or Somalia, or goes some place with no extradition treaty, such as Cuba, then this guy is immune, for eternity? Because we would violate some of his constitutional rights as a citizen, NO MATTER WHAT we did! Find him guilty, can he appeal? No? We violated his rights!

There is no legal path we could take in this instance that wouldn’t violate Awlaki’s constitutional rights without his consent. Except total immunity from any action at all.

Care to explain how we could get this guy without a voluntary renunciation of citizenship, totally legal, without any violation of any rights? What possible path could we take? Trial in abstentia? Right to counsel, jury, appeal, facing his accusers–all violated. Appoint a lefty counsel? Gee, THAT is a great precedent: “Nation, in order to kill this scumbag, we have to as taxpayers pay for his attorney and wait ten years for all his appeals to be exhausted. Nothing we can do! Meanwhile, he just announced plans to murder twenty million of us…. so good luck, America! Got to protect his rights!”

Of course, any situation involving dragging him to court involves putting our troops in harms way to arrest him in the middle of a firefight (there were 20 bodyguards there!) So our soldiers have to die so you can say Awlaki got his rights! What about the rights of our soldiers? Too bad, so sad? They volunteered to die to protect terrorist scum? Gee, that is exactly what Washington, Jefferson, et. al. were thinking of!

Any other ways this guy could be killed without his cooperation and without violating any constitutional rights he has as a citizen?

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Any other ways this guy could be killed without his cooperation and without violating any constitutional rights he has as a citizen?

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM

There are laws that allow citizenship to be revoked. Use them.

There are laws that allow trials while the defendent is not present. Use them.

9 years Awlaki has been out of the country. Way more than enough time to do some level of due process that makes this legal. Doing it outside the law on the other hand endangers our republic. Tough call huh? Do it the legal way that is available, or do it the way that erodes our constitution.

People like you should get no vote.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

There are laws that allow citizenship to be revoked. Use them.

There are laws that allow trials while the defendent is not present. Use them.

9 years Awlaki has been out of the country. Way more than enough time to do some level of due process that makes this legal. Doing it outside the law on the other hand endangers our republic. Tough call huh? Do it the legal way that is available, or do it the way that erodes our constitution.

People like you should get no vote.
astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

So let me get this straight: I should lose my right to vote (my Constitutional right, mind you, as I’m over 18 and a full citizen) because I think that openly declaring war on the United States means someone forfeits their rights?

In other words, in your opinion I should lose my right to vote because I disagree with you. That doesn’t “erode the constitution.” Yet at the same time, you are hot and bothered by the idea that a guy who openly declares war on the US was killed in a military action, without a judge saying A-ok first.

Is it just me, or are you either a terrorist supporter or just one of the most hypocritical people I’ve ever met?

In any case, Awlaki was not a citizen. There’s nothing clearer.

Title 8, section 1481 of the United States Code. Subsection (a)(3) states that you voluntarily give up your citizenship when you: (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States…

Subsection 7 covers acts of treason and levying war. Both are grounds that Awlaki and Hanh could fall under. Thus, they voluntarily relinquished their citizenship. Thus, no protections ensued, they are fair game, and I shed no tear.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 12:40 PM

There is a process for all of your arguments, and none of them have been shown to have occured. I agree with you that he did give those rights up, but the government has a responsibility to follow the rules in verifying that he did. I agree he should have been killed. Where we disagree is the process for how hiw rights get stripped. You say it is automatic and with no check or balance. I say there is a process that should occur that has checks and balances.

Since you do not care about checks and balances, following rules and have no qualms about having constitutional rights abridged, why not your right to vote?

People like you are the reason we have Obama as president and had McCain as his compitition. A tiny bit of information, way too much confidence, and not a lick of wisdom. The complete opposite of our founders.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM

All right: What procedures do we follow? Does Alwaki have to be served notice of those hearings against him, just in case he doesn’t want to give up his citizenship? How is that notice served? Does he have the right to appeal any decision? By whom? Does he have a right to a lawyer on his own behalf?

If your answer to any of these is no, then you are depriving him of his constitutional rights. And you are no better than me. It’s like the story of the guy who offers a lady 20 million for sex, and she says yes… then offers her a $5 bill and she starts complaining about “who do you think I am?” He replies: We already know what you are, now we are just haggling over the price. You would deprive him of constitutional rights too… just not as many as me.

And if your answer is yes…. explain how, practically speaking, you are going to grant him those rights, without any immunity problems where we are wrong to kill him, no matter WHAT he does.

This is your bed, astonreii. Please make it and lie in it. Tell me what rights he has or does not. Remember, his Constitutional rights, which Congress and our government cannot take away. I want practical solutions here.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM

I already listed what I would be confortable with.

Trial in absentia for treason.
The paperwork where the government explicitely accepts Awlaki’s surrender of his citizenship.

Too hard to read what I write?

You really should abstain voluntarily from voting. Too bad your not wise enough to understand why.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Keep effing that football, Herr Doktor supporters.

catmman on October 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I see astonerii hasn’t answered my question. He gives two choices: trial in abstentia for treason, and a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship.

Absent those two choices, then, the United States cannot do anything to Awlaki. So let’s take those two options:

1)voluntary surrender of citizenship. News Flash: if the “surrender of citizenship” has to be paperwork, and without that, the government cannot attack you, what is a good jihadi to do? Unless they are Micheal Moore, they probably aren’t stupid enough to walk into a consulate and give up their citizenship. Ergo, this option won’t fly.

So we are left with 2) trial in abstentia for treason. Now, the Constitution requires either open confession or conviction on two or more witnesses. Option 2 says to me, “Kill all the witnesses.” Option one is… what? We have that here with Awlaki. He openly declared war against the US. So presumably the government could get a trial. Again, though… any smart, terroristic loving scum lawyer will be able to hold up the works easily. Does Awlaki get notice of his trial? An opportunity to defend himself? Or is this a secret proceeding, which would seem to raise all sorts of issues as well? Does he have the right to a lawyer? Who pays? On and on and on! Seems to me a secret trial for treason without an opportunity to defend myself raises all sorts of “ebul government overstepping!” myself, but perhaps you Ron Paulians are peachy keen on it.

You STILL haven’t answered the question, astonerii. What rights does Awlaki have? How do we not violate those rights? You have to answer, or its easy enough to conclude that in reality, you support terrorists.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I agree with Paul. We have a Constitution and a legal system for a reason, and neither should be ignored.

If we ignore the Constitution that allows us to live in freedom then the terrorists have won.

popularpeoplesfront on October 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Little information, too much confidence, and not a lick of wisdom.

Awlaki does not have to sign the paperwork. He is shown on tv saying it. The government makes it official. Simple, elequent, and something that can be verified and challenged.

Those are two that would make me confortable. I am sure there are other options. We have well over a million pages of law in this country. The bottom line is that there is a process. There is documentation of that process. There is knowledge of the process and documentations existence available for challenge. There is a process of challenge. There are written hard rules limiting the government’s ability to do this.

It is called the rule of law. If you do not care about the rule of law, why do you vote?

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:13 PM

astonerii, you still make no sense. This attack on Awlaki is bad, you say, because Awlaki deserves something. You can’t identify any rights he has, but you say the government was wrong, and because they did this to Awlaki, it’s only a hop, skip and a jump to blowing up Frank the Plumber in Peoria or something.

Yet, if the gubmint had only shown Awlaki’s confession to a judge, the judge says okay, then, by golly, LET THE MISSILE’S FLY!!!!!

Nothing about telling Awlaki he could, you know, challenge this judge’s ruling. Seems to me that if you pick the right judge, Frank the Plumber is dead anyway. No notice, etc. Oh, wait, well, Awlaki openly confessed, while Frank didn’t! Yep. So, why go through a pointless exercise here? Due Process is meant to allow a person to challenge the ruling, and possibly succeed. It’s just paperwork otherwise There’s no way that Awlaki could have challenged this ruling, since there’s no way we could have notified him of it.

So why push paper around when it won’t matter one little bit?

I wish you would show some of this concern for, you know, VICTIMS of these terrorist scum. The fact you don’t says volumes.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Having challengable processes and rules allows the citizens who the government represents review and challenge those processes rules making government accountable to the citizens. His father could have represented him, or a pro bono lawyer, or another citizen who feels the government is taking on powers the citizens did not authorize it.

Your argument is, well, obama said kill him so its alright. no limit, no review, no accountability.

DO NOT VOTE, you are entirely too lacking in any wisdom to make a correct choice.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Does Ron Paul consider Sherman’s march into Georgia to have been legal?

Really Right on October 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM

astonerii, did you even read my posts? I don’t think you have. At all. You are sitting there disqualifying people to vote for asking you questions you refuse to answer.

Once again, you contend this guy had rights. You fail to enunciate what rights he had, after repeated attempts to get you to do so. Therefore, I must assume you would grant him the full panoply of US Citizenship rights. And thus, you maintain that the government CANNOT treat a US citizen as anything other than a police matter, and most certainly not as a war powers matter.

Thus, you are granting full constitutional protection, with all the rights therein, to people who say they have declared war against us.
Therefore, as I understand you, until the United States government can get a conviction of treason or a judge to declare voluntary waiver of citizenship, this guy is immune from any and all actions the US can do, unless perchance they can arrest him. And, of course, read him his Miranda rights.

For such a “voluntary waiver” to be found, or for a trial for treason, the government must go through the entire panoply of a criminal trial. That includes all the delays inherent to those events. Does the government need to get a death sentence passed on Awlaki? Answer please. If this is solely in the realm of criminal law, as you appear to believe, then why not? What can the government do, since we have seen the legions of attorneys rushing to defend terrorists at Guantanamo?

Awlaki is immune, isn’t he, from any and all actions the US government wants to take, short of arresting him. And that is so easy in a country without any extradition….

Congratulations, astonerii, for gutting the war powers! For showing terrorists how to be immune to any and all efforts to stop them!

And to think that you think that those who do not want to grant terrorists full criminal procedural rights should lose their right to vote. Tell me, how is that wisdom?

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Does Ron Paul consider Sherman’s march into Georgia to have been legal?

Really Right on October 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM

I would not know. I detest Ron Paul’s politics in general. But on this, he seems to be correct.

Like I said about the other poster. You have very little information, way too much confidence, and not a lick of wisdom to make proper decisions. Like associating me with Ron Paul.

Do not vote, really, it will be better for the nation.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 2:54 PM

His life cannot be taken from him without due process of the law.

There you go. I thought you had that bit of information, I guess I was wrong. my bad. Now get lost loser.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM

I would not know. I detest Ron Paul’s politics in general. But on this, he seems to be correct.

Like I said about the other poster. You have very little information, way too much confidence, and not a lick of wisdom to make proper decisions. Like associating me with Ron Paul.

Do not vote, really, it will be better for the nation.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Didn’t you hear? Everyone who cares about the 5th Amendment is suddenly a “Ron Paul nut.”

Good Solid B-Plus on October 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM

So in short, you guys are perfectly okay with this “citizen” running around and beheading hundreds of people on camera while screaming “Death to America!” for the next 20 years, while the law firm of “L. Eft. Ness & ACLU” fights any judicial proceeding in the US with tooth and nail.

Because we all know how fast the wheels of justice can turn when a determined, resourceful defense attorney is involved.

And if I don’t agree with you, I shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM

And if I don’t agree with you, I shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM

No, it is the fact that you do not understand the difference between Rule of Law and Rule of Man that idicates that you are more damaging to our nation voting than you would be not voting. You are just simply one of those people that when presented with a question with a single option answer thinks you can just simply throw open a New York Times paper and look at the first word you see and that is the real answer.

As for Awlaki. I agree he should have been killed. I disagree that his rights to due process do not exist. This difference is the difference between living in a nation of free citizens and a nation ruled by in effect a tyrrant. It does not matter if that tyrrant is of the type of Bush, Obama, the Shaw or the virgin mary. It is no longer a nation of free citizens, but of subjects that are treated by the government on the whim of the ruler.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken except through due process. End of story. There was no asterisk present, no note on the side saying except Obama is allowed to circumvent this law, there is not even a note saying that during times of war it can be gotten rid of.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM

So astonerii, what about this scenario?

I go to Dearborn and me and ten others that I recruit there, all US Citizens, fly to Yemen, holding up a cruise ship on the way. When I get to Yemen, I pay $1 million dollars to a prominent law firm, which then sends a letter to the US State Department that I am emphatically a citizen and reserve all those rights.

I then start, on camera, and live, beheading people while yelling “Allah Ackbar” and my ten fellow citizens are manning the heavy weaponry, ready to shoot down any helicopter or military force that approaches. I end my broadcast each day by peeing on the US Flag, while yelling out “I claim my freedom of speech, but Death to America, and all it stands for!” I then give my coordinates, and tell everyone that for the next two weeks, or until they are all dead, I will behead people with my rusty saw blade, and oh by the way, my law firm is representing me back in the states.

So…. now what? Can a missile be sent my way? No, I’m a US citizen and that would deprive me of any due process. My law firm will have a few words on that, thank you. Can you imagine? Violations of constitutional rights galore! Heaven forbid! I have at least 30 days to respond to any attempt to take away my rights! Send in the Marines? Yep, they’ll get me and my buddies, but not without taking out a few dozen too.

So, I get to kill all these people… for “free.” Unless we kill a few marines off too. But at least we didn’t violate my constitutional rights of due process by something so vile and stupid as a Hellfire missile! That would be wrong!

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM

I got a better scenario. You decide to take a trip out of the country. You get to your destination and get shot by an American sniper and your body destroyed or dumped in the ocean never to be found. Your family tries to find out where you are, nothing. They go to the press, nothing. They ask the government to help find you, nothing. Twenty years pass, and some military guy writes a book about how he was charged with killing people the president silently, behind closed doors, stripped of their citizenship and then had targeted for assassination. I guess you vocally said the wrong thing and no longer were seen as a citizen anymore. But no one cares, because it was you, not them. I am sure the government had a good enough reason to kill you.

Awlaki is someone the government is none to happy to tell you they killed. Who says everyone targeted this way will be?

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Uh huh. And just WHY would I be targeted? Randomly? Part of a systematic campaign? Because I doubt Obama would just randomly kill one guy. If it is a lot of them, though… not too hard to piece together. “Hey, of the last 200 citizens missing overseas, all are tea partiers! All mysteriously vanishing!” A rash of disappearances would be noticed.

Plus, someone would squeal. Even Obama’s administration over fast and furious, someone squealed. An operation to kill US citizens directly, and overseas? Not going to go unnoticed. Especially not today.

But I suppose you have no problems with my scenario. I noticed you didn’t address it. I predict MY scenario will happen much sooner than your scenario.

Because if the President is going to kill me by assassination, I highly doubt any “due process” is going to concern him one way or another.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 4:06 PM

According to you there is no criteria to why you would be targeted, so it does not matter. Obama said it was ok to Kill that person, all I needed to know. That is your argument. As long as you are out of the country, we can just willy nilly strip you of your citizenship, no paperwork, no judge, no jury, no checks, no balances, no care and no reason. That is your current argument. So live with it loser.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Trial in absentia for treason.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 1:25 PM

In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited Rule 43 in the case of Crosby v. United States.[3] The Court unanimously held, in an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, that Rule 43 does not permit the trial in absentia of a defendant who is absent at the beginning of trial.

Trial in absentia is a constitutional violation.

Awlaki does not have to sign the paperwork. He is shown on tv saying it. The government makes it official. Simple, elequent, and something that can be verified and challenged.

Afroyim v. Rusk; “Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof.”

The question is did he ever actually say that he renounced his citizenship?

Depriving him of his citizenship without his voluntary renunciation would violate his rights.

It is called the rule of law. If you do not care about the rule of law, why do you vote?

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 2:13 PM

The law seems to be on the other side here.

The law also says…“Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency.”

The 1942 Ex Parte Quirin case also states…

It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States.

Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations.

Under the original statute authorizing trial of alien spies by military tribunals, the offenders were outside the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury not because they were aliens, but only because they had violated the law of war by committing offenses constitutionally triable by military tribunal.

We cannot say that Congress, in preparing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, intended to extend trial by jury to the cases of alien or citizen offenders against the law of war otherwise triable by military commission, while withholding it from members of our own armed forces charged with infractions of the Articles of War punishable by death.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Your comments are recently, some of the best on this site. Maybe the best.

hawkdriver on October 4, 2011 at 10:13 AM

I don’t think they hold a candle to what ajacksonian wrote in his 7:49 AM post.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Every answer you gave has the person getting some level of due process. Tribunal and so forth. So, I am still on the right side of the argument. Something needs to be done to target him for assassination. The question is what was done, and does it fit the constitution and current laws.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM

sharrukin, don’t bother. astonerii is of the opinion that unless someone has a ten year trial, the law cannot touch them and they can do whatever the heck they want. I’m sure astonerii recoils in horror at the fact that policeman occasionally shoot “suspects” in cold blood, as said suspect is waving guns around and ranting and raving. That’s a direct violation of the poor guys rights–he has the right to live! No jury took it away from him! The horror! Oh, and if you don’t agree that the police are wrong for protecting the poor girl that guy was about to murder, you are insane, a loser, and harming the nation to the extent you shouldn’t have the vote. Only those who think criminals shouldn’t be stopped, apparently, are allowed to vote.

Nevertheless, for the sane among us, your post is great.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Every answer you gave has the person getting some level of due process. Tribunal and so forth. So, I am still on the right side of the argument. Something needs to be done to target him for assassination. The question is what was done, and does it fit the constitution and current laws.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM

the offenders were outside the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury

If this applies domestically then you cannot with any honesty claim that Awlaki is guaranteed trial by jury when overseas.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM

sharrukin, don’t bother.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Well I think he is going way overboard in granting rights to known bad guys when those same rights are withheld from American citizens in the armed forces, and civilians domestically.

Martial law will suspend those rights on occasion, and as you point out a police officer can violate those rights, including your right to life when the situation is perceived to be dangerous. Those rights are conditional, not absolute, like everything else in the constitution.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM

There are laws that allow citizenship to be revoked. Use them.

There are laws that allow trials while the defendent is not present. Use them.

9 years Awlaki has been out of the country. Way more than enough time to do some level of due process that makes this legal. Doing it outside the law on the other hand endangers our republic. Tough call huh? Do it the legal way that is available, or do it the way that erodes our constitution.

People like you should get no vote.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

“I’m all broken up about this man’s rights” – Harry Callahan

Look, Vanceone showed you the law that clearly stated this terrorist had voluntarily committed the actions required to deny his own citizenship. The terrorist did this willingly, so all due process was followed. A Hellfire missile did the rest.

You are arguing a purist point of view, but you’ve already been shown the chapter and verse of why you’re wrong. Continuing to argue against it makes you look petty. Don’t like it? Call the ACLU, I’m sure they’d love to take your case.

Oh, and attempting to deny anyone’s right to vote makes you pure scum. Nothing personal though.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Thanks for your comments, sharrukin. I agree with your point, and yes, I should take my own advice and not feed the absolute purist here.

We had two scenarios presented, and he ignores my likely scenario completly, in favor of a scenario of an evil madman president. Not sure how “due process” would stop an evil madman president that is determined to cover up killing American citizens, though–no explanation of how that is to work, other than questioning the mystical power of due process means you hate America or something.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I could care less about Awlaki’s actions. I care about my government’s actions. If they documented everything, did it by the law, then provide the paperwork for it. If not, then it was not done legally.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Not sure how “due process” would stop an evil madman president that is determined to cover up killing American citizens, though–no explanation of how that is to work, other than questioning the mystical power of due process means you hate America or something.

Vanceone on October 4, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Thats a very good point. It isn’t as if the Obama administration hasn’t played Fast and Furious with the law in the past. They broke campaign laws before they were even elected. They have a lot of things with which to accuse, but this isn’t one of them.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM

asteronii = the Dwight Schrute of HA

Really Right on October 4, 2011 at 4:42 PM

I care about my government’s actions. If they documented everything, did it by the law, then provide the paperwork for it. If not, then it was not done legally.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Except the law states plainly that it was done legally. You are allowed to take military action against American citizens including taking their lives if they are belligerents, or even if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time through no fault of their own. They do not have any guarantee of trial by jury in such situations.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Oh, and attempting to deny anyone’s right to vote makes you pure scum. Nothing personal though.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I did no such thing. Saying I did makes you pure scum. nothing personal though.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:45 PM

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:45 PM

In a non hostile nation, hard to argue billigerent there. Remember, we do have freedom of speech. In order to determine his speech was not protected requires a trial. Hard to also argue wrong place at the wrong time when he was not in a war zone and was deliberately targeted.

Try again.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You guys all keep twisting yourself into knots trying to have your own rights taken from you. It just boggles the mind.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Try again.

No, I don’t think I will. It has already been explained to you.

In a non hostile nation, hard to argue billigerent there.

The 1942 Ex Parte Quirin case argued belligerancy inside the United States, so where do you get the idea that being in Yemen obviates that?

In order to determine his speech was not protected requires a trial.

No it doesn’t. Try running at a cop screaming ‘I’m going to kill you’ and see how that works.

Hard to also argue wrong place at the wrong time when he was not in a war zone and was deliberately targeted.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 4:50 PM

No it isn’t. Chicago wasn’t a war zone but the defendants in 1942 Ex Parte Quirin were still considered belligerents.

1942 Ex Parte Quirin…Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations.

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM

People like you should get no vote.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

You said it. You own it. Denying it now makes you look like an idiot. Not that you needed any help in that area.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM

You said it. You own it. Denying it now makes you look like an idiot. Not that you needed any help in that area.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Yeah, and you said I attempted to deny someone the right to vote. i did no such thing. There was not attempt made. I notice that all you people seem to enjoy arguing against straw men that just are not there. Is that because you cannot actually argue against someone with substance? I know someone else who loves him some straw men, his name is the Obama. I guess you must be much like Obama. I do not respect Obama, I do not trust Obama, funny thing is that I do not trust you either.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Every one of your arguments is flawed. I am done with you. Like several of the people here, you are not trying to debate, but to be a troll.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 5:51 PM

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 5:51 PM

You agree with Ron Paul on the killing of the US citizen but you ain’t a Ron Paul guy. Then you do you want to see as next POTUS, and protecting our rights? Ralph Nader? Glenn Greenwald? It’s got to be a short list of candidates.

Really Right on October 4, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Like several of the people here, you are not trying to debate, but to be a troll.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 5:51 PM

I posted the legal cases and even quoted them for you.

Your response is name calling.

Trial in absentia isn’t even legal and yet you are fine with violating his rights in that regard.

Involuntary renunciation of citizenship isn’t legal and is a violation of his rights.

And yet here you are claiming to be a defender of the rights of man?

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM

sharrukin on October 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM

It does not matter what the legal cases are. We have not been told what reasoning was used. We have been presented no documentary evidence that due process was done.

I already agreed that the government has the tools available somewhere to kill this man. The question is if they used them within the limits of the law. You have not one piece of evidence on your side, none at all. Just like Kelo, the government cannot just say, we are taking that piece of land and offer no reasoning for that choice. There is still a process, and every aspect that you have offered ends with, there still is a process. Now, the government needs to bring that process forward and the reasoning for the action that they specifically chose to use to do it.

Without that process, then the government can declare any person they want to be a target for assassination. The rule of law.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Really Right on October 4, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Any Republican would protect a citizen’s rights. They would be given no alternative but to use a very public process grounded solidly in constitutional law because the media would not allow it in any other way.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Yeah, and you said I attempted to deny someone the right to vote. i did no such thing. There was not attempt made. I notice that all you people seem to enjoy arguing against straw men that just are not there. Is that because you cannot actually argue against someone with substance? I know someone else who loves him some straw men, his name is the Obama. I guess you must be much like Obama. I do not respect Obama, I do not trust Obama, funny thing is that I do not trust you either.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM

I simply quoted you, nothing more. You said what you said, now you’re trying to make everyone here think you said something else. Would you like me to quote you again? Here it is….

People like you should get no vote.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Now, you’ve been read the text of the law that says you’re wrong. Then you were read legal precedent that also shows you are wrong. Then you denied saying something multiple people here have reposted, then you denied it again. If anyone here sounds like obama, it’s you.

Oh, and idiot was the nicest thing I could reasonably call you after that. Apologize for attempting to deny someone their right to vote and I’ll lay off. Don’t, and your quote will show up in any number of threads from here on out, just so everyone here will remember what a fascist you are.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

I simply quoted you, nothing more.

People like you should get no vote.

what you said it means.

attempting to deny anyone’s right to vote

Now, show me where my attempt is in that statement. Be concise as to how I actively attempted to deny his right to vote.

You cannot do that. Thus, you lied. It is what you do. You quote things out of context, overlook the fact that those findings still required the government to take actions to justify itself (due process of law) and then claim what exactly about me? Nothing material nor true.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

What is really remarkable about your argument about me denying someone their right to vote.

I wrote it out, and did nothing with it and you accuse me of doing it.

The government kills a citizen of the United States, tells you nothing about the legal reasoning on why they thought it was legitimate, and you say did their due diligence on the matter.

Amazing how you do acrobatic flips through tight spaces with dangerously sharp objects to justify the real taking of our constitutional rights. Its just amazing.

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Are you still at it? Just apologize for what you clearly did and all will be forgiven. You aren’t required to of course, but I’ve told you what the consequences will be.

Attempting to deny anyone the right to vote, then lying about it, then lying about it again, then accusing others of what you are clearly guilty of is leftism at it’s worst. Either you regret it or you don’t. If you don’t, I will have no choice but to remind everyone what you did, ruining the last of your credibility.

Since that doesn’t seem a big deal to you so far, I’m betting you will just double down on your stupidity.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM

I simply quoted you, nothing more.

People like you should get no vote.
what you said it means.

attempting to deny anyone’s right to vote

Now, show me where my attempt is in that statement. Be concise as to how I actively attempted to deny his right to vote.

You cannot do that. Thus, you lied. It is what you do. You quote things out of context, overlook the fact that those findings still required the government to take actions to justify itself (due process of law) and then claim what exactly about me? Nothing material nor true.

And your followup does not show me doing any such thing.

Are you still at it? Just apologize for what you clearly did and all will be forgiven. You aren’t required to of course, but I’ve told you what the consequences will be.

Attempting to deny anyone the right to vote, then lying about it, then lying about it again, then accusing others of what you are clearly guilty of is leftism at it’s worst. Either you regret it or you don’t. If you don’t, I will have no choice but to remind everyone what you did, ruining the last of your credibility.

Since that doesn’t seem a big deal to you so far, I’m betting you will just double down on your stupidity.

runawayyyy on October 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Why would I regret it, him and you are obviously too mentally deficient to be able to vote responsibly. I think you should abstain.

You did not show any proof I did what you said I did, and you keep saying it, so doesn’t that mean you fit the exact mold that you wrongly accuse me of fitting into? You seem only able to debate as a leftist progressive idiot unable to decipher plain written English. Is that what you want people to think about you?

astonerii on October 4, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3