Page 21 of 62 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 619

Thread: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    your "gun to the head" scenario implies self defense.

    what sanctions are held as constitutional... and is targeted assassination one of them?
    No, it does not. A designated SWAT sniper has almost no concern for his safety in such a situation. No "self" about it. The President is tasked by the Constitution to provide for the Defense of America, and its assets.

    Read the above info and links for input on your second question. Some of you folks need to take a little time to read.

  2. #202
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Let me assist you Grasshopper. A "sanction" is another word for anything that constitutes a "death warrant". To be "sanctioned" is to be ordered killed.

    Secondly, and I thank Maggie D for first finding (and posting) this earlier in the thread. When the Obama Administration sanctioned Al-Dirtbag, Al's father actually filed suit against the US Government.



    What the US Judge is saying is that the Constitution grants that process to the Executive.
    I suggest you, and others, do a lil research on Ex Parte Quirin before attempting to utilize it to bolster your argument.

    the case has nothing to do with targeted assassination and everything to do with the legal validity of military tribunals.
    the court even said , in it's unanimous decision that the question of citizenship wasn't taken up because all parties named by the government had direct allegiance to a an enemy state ( Germany) and were directly aided and supported by the enemy state.

    to take a sentence fragment from a case that is not relevant to the issue at hand cannot be construed as " bringing facts".... it's bringing unrelated and irrelevant information, that's all, nothing more.

  3. #203
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    No, it does not. A designated SWAT sniper has almost no concern for his safety in such a situation. No "self" about it. The President is tasked by the Constitution to provide for the Defense of America, and its assets.

    Read the above info and links for input on your second question. Some of you folks need to take a little time to read.
    deadly force is authorized during the commission of a felony under certain conditions , sure..
    is SWAT the sniper allowed to summarily execute the perpetrator minutes, days,weeks, or months later?... the answer is no.

    ironic that you should mention "taking a lil time to read"....
    unlike you, I actually took the time to read your court case, ..the whole thing... and it's immediately evident that it has no bearing on this issue whatsoever.
    I was hoping it would stipulate that targeted assassinations of American citizens are valid.. but , alas, it didn't breach the subject at all.
    were we to be talking about Gitmo and military tribunals, the case would be relevant... but we aren't, so it's isn't.

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    That's an easy one, first you have to find him and hold him them you have to extradite him to Clubgetmo, where he will sit forever. Obama's way is to shoot first and ask questions later. Which I like, of course those on the left will hate him for it, but won't say anything. Just imagine the uproar from the left if Bush did what Obama just did.
    Why not prosecute him in absentia? Then, if found guilty for treason, he could be sentenced to death.

  5. #205
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    Why not prosecute him in absentia? Then, if found guilty for treason, he could be sentenced to death.
    ...that's what Yemen did....
    the US just put him on the hit list and left it at that.

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Phoney bloney. SCOTUS did not rule against such sanctions. What SCOTUS ruled with Bush was that enemy combatants within US custody had some minimal habeus corpus rights. Further, this is a 2010 decision, such that prior Bush decisions do not apply. If they did, then the Judge would have had precedent. He did not.
    What the court ruled is what the standards are for a citizen to lose their rights as a citizen.

    Conservatives are bringing facts, court rulings, and the direct quotes here to this debate. Libs (liberals and misguided libertarians) bring a bunch of made-up stuff.
    I agreed that his actions do not relieve him of the consequences of war. That would be an impossibility. I argued that it's wrong to specifically target a U.S. citizen without due process.

  7. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    deadly force is authorized during the commission of a felony under certain conditions , sure..
    is SWAT the sniper allowed to summarily execute the perpetrator minutes, days,weeks, or months later?... the answer is no.

    ironic that you should mention "taking a lil time to read"....
    unlike you, I actually took the time to read your court case, ..the whole thing... and it's immediately evident that it has no bearing on this issue whatsoever.
    I was hoping it would stipulate that targeted assassinations of American citizens are valid.. but , alas, it didn't breach the subject at all.
    were we to be talking about Gitmo and military tribunals, the case would be relevant... but we aren't, so it's isn't.
    Oh really !! Well, the Court case was cited in the hearings in the House. Further, it was also referenced by Charlie Dunlap, a Duke University Law School visiting professor, who said: "In this instance, that consequence is being targeted like any other enemy."

    Read more: Some question president's power to kill a US citizen overseas - KansasCity.com !!

    Secondly, Al-Dirtbag was adjudged to be actively plotting to kill Americans !! Plotting right now, as in yesterday, today, and tomorrow, if he was still breathing tomorrow!! That makes him a valid military target, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, were he still upright !! Woooo Hoooo !!

    You have cited nothing. You have linked nothing. Are you a Duke Law Professer ? A Federal Circuit Judge ? Eh ?

  8. #208
    I support ██ ███
    jasonxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,405

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Anyone wants a reading on it EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) or Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

    It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.

    This decision states:
    “ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
    I simply stand by the USC and 5th amendment of the Constitution.

    United States Code: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute

    (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
    and

    Constitution 5th amendment:
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    Last edited by jasonxe; 10-01-11 at 03:30 PM.



  9. #209
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    What the court ruled is what the standards are for a citizen to lose their rights as a citizen.

    I agreed that his actions do not relieve him of the consequences of war. That would be an impossibility. I argued that it's wrong to specifically target a U.S. citizen without due process.
    He got due process. Just not the due process that most folks find themselves receiving. Were he not an enemy combatant, in a hostile foreign war zone, but rather within US custody somewhere, then the "due process" is different. But he wasn't, so he was properly targeted, and killed. It was not only "due process", but it was a process very much due to him.

  10. #210
    200M yrs of experience
    Frolicking Dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southeastern USA
    Last Seen
    05-07-12 @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,166

    Re: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Conservatives are bringing facts, court rulings, and the direct quotes here to this debate. Libs (liberals and misguided libertarians) bring a bunch of made-up stuff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    I meant people are upset because military force was used by the CIA to kill a US citizen and member of Al Qaeda in a country that could not or would not arrest him and turn him over to the US for trial.The law used by GWB's administration to hold that both actions were legal is below. The SCOTUS held that this law did not apply to Padilla and Yaser because the US had the men in custody and could therefore offer them due process as citizens. Al Awlaki was not in custody and could not be brought into custody so it would seem this law authorizes the POTUS to use military force against him.
    Entire text available at: Authorization for Use of Military Force- Sept. 18, 2001
    I'm slightly liberal and I cited my source.
    I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was wedding between the religious fundamentalists and political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. ~ Billy Graham in Parade magazine February 1, 1981.

Page 21 of 62 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •