• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

impeachment is not the only remedy... not sure why you are trying to pidgeonhole everyone into either supporting impeachment or the status quo.
those are options, sure, but they aren't the only options.

and no, not everything the President does is subject to congressional review.... every now and then Congress wants answers and the Prez says no... that's when the courts get involved.

Everything the President does is subject to Congressional review, if they so choose. Impeachment is the ultimate review. If the President refuses to release documents or fails to provide answers, he can be impeached.
 
Your position is insane. No where did I even imply such. For instance, when someone kills you, they are still prosecuted by the state, acting on your behalf. The exceedingly valid legal point is that a "right" is defined only when someone tries to take it from you. That is when you find its boundaries, by challenging the action in Court. If you go to check a right, or the Court to seek its terms, they look to exisitng rulings.
my position is insane?.... hate to tell you bro, but that wasn't my position... that was me representing your position as you typed it out.
choose your words more carefully if you don't want confusion.
I still think your position on rights is garbage.. but this really isn't the thread to hash that out.
The "lack of standing" was not the plaintiff's. It was acknowledging a "lack of standing" by the judiciary in recognition of the Constitutiuonal power of the Executive, and the law-making power of the Legislative.
Judge bates did, in fact, rejected the fathers standing to bring suit... among other things.
i'm having trouble finding hte actual 83 page decision that is supposedly out there.... but the NYT states
The judge largely agreed with the government’s arguments. First, he rejected the father’s standing to sue, saying Mr. Awlaki could pursue such a case himself if he surrendered to American authorities — adding that there was no indication that Mr. Awlaki had sought the lawsuit.
Ruling Allows U.S. Effort to Kill Awlaki in Yemen - NYTimes.com



It was included in earlier posts by me and others. I do not know how much you will find on such, but here is a blurb:
yeah, that's the stuff i was going off when i tried ot find out about this hearing... no luck, not enough information.
the closest thing i've come across is a hearing in March about the legalities of using predator drones to target people... but Blair wasn't a witness at tht hearing, so i think it's the wrong one.
I'll let you know if i find the right one






I believe John Adams would be most approving. For starters, he had endured the Revolution, where then Tories had fought for the King. They were targeted all the same. I realize that was pre-Constitution. However, Adams showed a distinct break with how some here now view the Constitution with the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, where American citizens were imprisoned soley for being what we would call being vocally critical of elected officials. A far lower standard than conducting military operations against "Americans" while a member of the military of the enemy, and from a physical position of being on enemy soil.
.. he was also know for his defense of the british soldiers over the boston massacre.. in which he displayed his respect for the rule of law over the passions thrown at an enemy.
either way, it's pure speculation, on our part, as to who would be supportive of this or not

Frankly, I believe I just shredded every aspect of your argument.
i'm sure you believe that... and i'm sure i'm not interested in your personal opinion of your own arguments.
 
Everything the President does is subject to Congressional review, if they so choose. Impeachment is the ultimate review. If the President refuses to release documents or fails to provide answers, he can be impeached.

2 words for you... Executive Privilege
it's an established component of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

in short, your position is incorrect.
 
2 words for you... Executive Privilege
it's an established component of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

In short, your position is incorrect.

Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offense - there is no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; these are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory - although, because the process is so cumbersome and time-consuming, it is rarely used and is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

American constitution - Impeachment

Nuh-uh. The President can be impeached for anything, including utilizing his Executive Privilege. If that weren't the case, the President would answer to no one.

In 1973, the House Judiciary Committee found that executive privilege does not extend to an impeachment inquiry, and in fact cited refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by Congress in the course of an impeachment inquiry in its Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon.”Article III charged that President Nixon, by failing, without lawful cause or excuse and in willfull disobedience of the subpoenas of the House, to produce papers and things that the Committee had subpoenaed in the course of its impeachment inquiry, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the constitutional power of impeachment vested in the House.”

Executive privilege does not apply in an impeachment inquiry « Takoma Park Impeach Bush & Cheney
 
Last edited:
my position is insane?.... hate to tell you bro, but that wasn't my position... that was me representing your position as you typed it out.
choose your words more carefully if you don't want confusion.
I still think your position on rights is garbage.. but this really isn't the thread to hash that out.

Bull**** Thrilla. You chose to restate something in quotes which I did not say. I then proceeded to shred what you did. Having to rephrase and misquote others, as you did, so as to then ridicule, is low-brow in my book.

Judge bates did, in fact, rejected the fathers standing to bring suit... among other things.
i'm having trouble finding hte actual 83 page decision that is supposedly out there.... but the NYT states

Ruling Allows U.S. Effort to Kill Awlaki in Yemen - NYTimes.com

But the Judge went further, did he not ? Did he not state that the Judiciary lacked standing in the exercise by the Executive in performing the duties of CIC ? :)

yeah, that's the stuff i was going off when i tried ot find out about this hearing... no luck, not enough information.
the closest thing i've come across is a hearing in March about the legalities of using predator drones to target people... but Blair wasn't a witness at tht hearing, so i think it's the wrong one.
I'll let you know if i find the right one

Regardless, and a point I think often missed here, is that Congress has kept itself well-briefed, and more importantly, has not been constrained in acting in a number of ways here. And it has chosen not to attempt to take from the President this authority. We have no evidence that the President has acted as a "loose cannon". Further, like it or not, we know that the military must at times react very quickly to targets-of-opportunity, and not as we see within the criminal justice system. I want commanders who do not dither at key moments.

.. he was also know for his defense of the british soldiers over the boston massacre.. in which he displayed his respect for the rule of law over the passions thrown at an enemy.
either way, it's pure speculation, on our part, as to who would be supportive of this or not

Which would bolster my point, if anything, that being the ability of the military to act more spontaneously than normal due-process would invite. The Brits were the military, responding to a threat. However, in that incident, Adams acted as a lawyer, not as an elected official, much less a debate about Constitutional rights. I raise the Founders as it was liberals, or libertarians, earlier in the topic, who claimed the Founders would be appalled at the sanction of the dirtbag. I clearly beg to differ ;)

i'm sure you believe that... and i'm sure i'm not interested in your personal opinion of your own arguments.

It was my masterpiece to gloat over. My endzone shuffle :)
 
Last edited:
you didn't address a single thing I said... not one.
You have to start by measuring with the right ruler. Having begun wrong there is no way to correct your error. Piece by piece won't do it.
 
If the right is hell-bent on impeachment, let them go for it. I predict it will work out about the same as trying to impeach Clinton did in 1999. The voters got sick of the GOP putting their partisanship ahead of the country's welfare and turned control of the Senate over to the Dems and severely reduced the GOP majority in the House in 2000.
 
I served as well my friend. With the best.

I do not know that we will ever be privy to all here. However, there is a process. I do not have the time to dig, but at least a few of the earlier links reference findings presented by the CIA. There was at least one House hearing on this last year when Al-Dirtbag was designated for sanction. Every Court that hs looked at this so far has ruled that the Executive does have this authority. And lastly, we need to be more finite in the use of the word "assassinate". Military targets are just that, they are "targeted". While "assassinate" can be used to describe almost any killing where we actually aimed at the victim, it usually apples to political killings, not military.

My feeling was that Ron Paul was being political in using the word "assassinate" to describe a military hit, as he is in campaign mode, and that it was a poor choice on his part. His sole point of contention seemed to be that this perp had been a citizen. The armed enemy, on foreign soil, beyond our ability to easily arrest, is a 100% prime grade-A target for killing by any means possible, IMMHO.
Glad you too made it back safe. Ive never been all that comfortable with the "thanks for your service" comment.
 
not bad at all... but you are certainly in no position to insinuate that i'm some sort of sissy peace-nic... not even close.

like you, i come from military lineage... except my family was rooted in the Corps.. all the way back to my great grandfather
I hung up my rifle ( the first time) in 1993 ..after serving 23 years.
when I enlisted, I ,too, was considered "support".. MOS 5923.. (HAWk missile Hi-power illuminator radar tech).. my first deployment was to Monkey Mountain.. outside of Da Nang... as a boot, i didn't get to do my actual job though.. i spent time in Graves and registration at Da Nang proper ( with nightly excusions to dogpatch for whiskey and wimmin)... I reenlisted for infantry.. and that where I hung my hat until the Corps decided to promote me enough times as to ensure I didn't carry a rifle anymore, but to lead Marines instead.

after 23+ years, 5 Combat actions ribbons, 2 purple hearts, and over 50 months ,total, of actually fighting Americans enemies, I think i've earned ..at the very least.. the right NOT to be called a sissy by Air Force support staff.

so, now I think we can stow the bullsh*t and get to debating like adults.
I dont consider military or civilian personnel 'sissies.' Your comment about the support staff gig is a little comical...but I really dont care enough about your opinion to explain why. I do however think people that believe we can negotiate peacefully with terrorists are empty headed fools best left to planting daisy gardens. I think people that cling to some notion that because a terrorist was born in the US we should target him with the same extreme prejudice that we do all other terrorists proves they cant be trusted with national security. I think its silly to presume that charging him in absentia with anything would have some sort of impact...other than...you know...making us feel all better about ourselves. Dood was a terrorist. Heavy emphasis on the 'was' part.
 
If the right is hell-bent on impeachment, let them go for it. I predict it will work out about the same as trying to impeach Clinton did in 1999. The voters got sick of the GOP putting their partisanship ahead of the country's welfare and turned control of the Senate over to the Dems and severely reduced the GOP majority in the House in 2000.

I have not heard anyone calling for impeachment over this.
 
Bull**** Thrilla. You chose to restate something in quotes which I did not say. I then proceeded to shred what you did. Having to rephrase and misquote others, as you did, so as to then ridicule, is low-brow in my book.
you are free to correct my representation of your words... but don't try to tell me my position is insane.... I gave no position.
you said rights don't take form until someones tries to take them away and you seek redress.... implying that if you do not seek redress, the right never takes form.
I added in that dead men tell no tales... meaning dead men can't seek redress. .. and if they don't seek redress, their rights never take form.

But the Judge went further, did he not ? Did he not state that the Judiciary lacked standing in the exercise by the Executive in performing the duties of CIC ? :)
yes, yes he did.... I haven't stated otherwise... but you incorrectly stated that the plaintiff wasn't found to be lacking standing.
but it's nice to see you almost come close to admitting that you were incorrect.




Regardless, and a point I think often missed here, is that Congress has kept itself well-briefed, and more importantly, has not been constrained in acting in a number of ways here. And it has chosen not to attempt to take from the President this authority. We have no evidence that the President has acted as a "loose cannon". Further, like it or not, we know that the military must at times react very quickly to targets-of-opportunity, and not as we see within the criminal justice system. I want commanders who do not dither at key moments.
congress has kept itself well briefed?... that has yet to be shown.

and i don't think the President is acting as a loose cannon... I completely understand where he is coming from... i understand his responsibilities and where his head and heart is .... so don't take this as me trying to insult Obama personally or politically , i'm not.... i don't give a rat's ass who sits in the daddy chair and makes hit lists with Americans on it, i don't like it.
I do not believe the President should possess an unchecked power to kill Americans citizens based on undisclosed standards and undisclosed evidence.... that is an awesome power that no one branch should posses.
I find myself , begrudgingly no doubt, agreeing with the ACLU on this particular issue.

this issue has absolutely nothing to do with targets of opportunity.. it has everything to do with targeted killings


Which would bolster my point, if anything, that being the ability of the military to act more spontaneously than normal due-process would invite. However, in that incident, Adams acted as a lawyer, not as an elected official, much less a debate about Constitutional rights. I raise the Founders as it was liberals, or libertarians, earlier in the topic, who claimed the Founders would be appalled at the sanction of the dirtbag. I clearly beg to differ ;)
your speculation is valid.. but it's still speculation at the end of the day.... i'm not even sure why you brought up the founding fathers personal opinions on the matter
It was my masterpiece to gloat over. My endzone shuffle :)
it's gonna be a long hard day for you if that was your masterpiece.
first things first, you gotta score before you can dance.:lol:
 
I dont consider military or civilian personnel 'sissies.' Your comment about the support staff gig is a little comical...but I really dont care enough about your opinion to explain why. I do however think people that believe we can negotiate peacefully with terrorists are empty headed fools best left to planting daisy gardens. I think people that cling to some notion that because a terrorist was born in the US we should target him with the same extreme prejudice that we do all other terrorists proves they cant be trusted with national security. I think its silly to presume that charging him in absentia with anything would have some sort of impact...other than...you know...making us feel all better about ourselves. Dood was a terrorist. Heavy emphasis on the 'was' part.

I just had to add this. I think it fits here.



I got la*d once by singing this song (in the right setting).
 
I've never been all that comfortable with the "thanks for your service" comment.

Really?? Every time I see someone in uniform, I go up to them, look 'em right in the eye, stick out my hand and say, "Thank you very much your service." Should I be saying something else that would be more meaningful?
 
LOL. Awesome. Ruff, tuff Marine!
The Air Force are not sissies either. Although in one joint assignment it was made clear to me by an Air Force sergeant (E7, I think) that they considered it to be a field deployment if they were further than 2 kilometers from a golf course or NCO club.

I started out in air defense as a Chaparral platoon leader. It was a couple of weeks back. From there I transferred into military intelligence. I dabbled in nuclear command and control (I especially liked targeting). And in my final assignment training.
Oh hey...I dont mind the notion that AF personnel are a little more pampered than non AF personnel. I recall joint exercises in Spain where the soliders we were supporting stayed in remote locations and ate c rats and we stayed in 5 star hotels...yes...that makes me a *****. Or...smarter...I dont know...

During the secure comm days, I crawled around in deep cover with soldiers and marines providing intel on a couple different continents. If they were smart enough to operate their own equipment I could have stayed at nice cushy bases with cable dammit! There is some truth to the old comic strip where the soldier is in the rain and says "this sucks", the special forces soldier says "God I love how this sucks", the marine says "God I wish this would suck more!" and the Airman says "What? Cable is out??? This Sucks!!!" Its all good. I work with soldiers daily now and iots always good for a luagh. The interservice rivalry is always good fun. Doesnt bother me in the least.
 
Really?? Every time I see someone in uniform, I go up to them, look 'em right in the eye, stick out my hand and say, "Thank you very much your service." Should I be saying something else that would be more meaningful?
I just say, "Thank you." They always know what I mean.
 
impeachment is not the only remedy... not sure why you are trying to pidgeonhole everyone into either supporting impeachment or the status quo.
those are options, sure, but they aren't the only options.

and no, not everything the President does is subject to congressional review.... every now and then Congress wants answers and the Prez says no... that's when the courts get involved.
That qualifiacation part is the part that intrigues me. You consider the action unconstitutional...an execution...murder...oh...but hey...not that we should hold the president accountable to your beliefs.
 
Really?? Every time I see someone in uniform, I go up to them, look 'em right in the eye, stick out my hand and say, "Thank you very much your service." Should I be saying something else that would be more meaningful?
I am just speaking for me Maggie. If you do that with me Im likely to just say "thank you so much for voting, being involved in your community and taking care of business at home!" We all do our part the way we do it best. Without each other...both sides would fail.
 
That qualifiacation part is the part that intrigues me. You consider the action unconstitutional...an execution...murder...oh...but hey...not that we should hold the president accountable to your beliefs.

McCain/Feingold was as unconstitutional as they come and the courts ruled so but nobody called for anyone's removal or impeachment.
 
I dont consider military or civilian personnel 'sissies.' Your comment about the support staff gig is a little comical...but I really dont care enough about your opinion to explain why. I do however think people that believe we can negotiate peacefully with terrorists are empty headed fools best left to planting daisy gardens. I think people that cling to some notion that because a terrorist was born in the US we should target him with the same extreme prejudice that we do all other terrorists proves they cant be trusted with national security. I think its silly to presume that charging him in absentia with anything would have some sort of impact...other than...you know...making us feel all better about ourselves. Dood was a terrorist. Heavy emphasis on the 'was' part.

how cute... I don't even get civility or a simple thank you for your service like you give other vets.... all because I don't agree with you over this issue.
but instead, I somehow want to peacefully negotiate with terrorists ( something i've never said) and should go plant daisy's in a peace garden.. 'cuz i can't be trusted with national security.

you continually ignore my opinion that i don't really care about this particular dude.. i've said numerous times that i welcome his demise.
but somehow you conflate my questioning of our government's legal mechanism of dealing with terrorism with supporting this dude.

in short, i'm just a terrorist sympathizing empty headed fool to you.....you've made your opinion clear.

you might find my support comment comical, but i come from an Infantry background.. and if you ain't humpin' a rifle, you're support.
don't get me wrong , there's nothing wrong with support.. been there done that too... but don't be levying idiot charges of being some sort a sissy to a grunt.


No biggie, you won't be the first Air Force vet I don't get along with... won't be the last either.
 
McCain/Feingold was as unconstitutional as they come and the courts ruled so but nobody called for anyone's removal or impeachment.
I think both men should go.
In 2010, Feingold lost his campaign for re-election to the US Senate to Republican Ron Johnson.
Now the RINO has got to go.
 
I think both men should go.
In 2010, Feingold lost his campaign for re-election to the US Senate to Republican Ron Johnson.
Now the RINO has got to go.

Indeed he does. By election.
 
you are free to correct my representation of your words... but don't try to tell me my position is insane.... I gave no position.
you said rights don't take form until someones tries to take them away and you seek redress.... implying that if you do not seek redress, the right never takes form.
I added in that dead men tell no tales... meaning dead men can't seek redress. .. and if they don't seek redress, their rights never take form.

And maybe a few here have learned something in giving thought to how I stated the tangible embodiment of a "right".

Most of us will never be caught up in a legal proceeding where we realize that our "right" will be defined by the verdict of the Court. However, to think otherwise is to ignore the purpose of the SCOTUS. Recent decisions that impact our expectations of "rights" more than others have dealt with such as eminent domain (property rights) and such as DC gun laws (right to bear arms). Those folks in Connecticut had a certain belief in their property rights until SCOTUS said otherwise ;)

However, many of us may someday be involved in a contractual dispute, possibly with litigation, or know someone who is so involved. Which gets to my point. The contract is just a piece of paper, in which you may have put faith, supposedly defining your "rights" in an agreement, but which will only be given substance in Court. In essence, it only means something when things go "wrong". Otherwise, both parties act in accordance with what they perceive to be their best interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom