• 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!

Payrolls in U.S. Climb 227,000; Jobless Rate Holds at 8.3%

Your second point was implemented under republicans who have no intention of getting rid of that rule. Your first point I've heard stated before, but as I said then, under the law he still had to get Congress approval after x number of days (2 months I believe) before the action becomes impeachable. It also follows just war theory and the evolution of presidential war powers since the 1950s. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress

Edit in the topic of the thread its a shame that I was right when I said the economy would be largely fixed by 2014... In 2008 :(

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Did Bush kill any American citizens while President?
 
Your second point was implemented under republicans who have no intention of getting rid of that rule. Your first point I've heard stated before, but as I said then, under the law he still had to get Congress approval after x number of days (2 months I believe) before the action becomes impeachable. It also follows just war theory and the evolution of presidential war powers since the 1950s. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress

Edit in the topic of the thread its a shame that I was right when I said the economy would be largely fixed by 2014... In 2008 :(

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

You are wrong.

My first point has nothing to do with the War Powers Act. Pay attention to what the Secretary of Defense just said last week. He said the President does not need congressional approval.....at all.

My second point was that the Director of the FBI, this current one, not one under Bush....Yes, I know you think everything is Bush's fault....does not know the Constitution.

Those are both Liberal and Conservative issues on which both sides agree. These people have got to go. NOW!
 
You are wrong.

My first point has nothing to do with the War Powers Act. Pay attention to what the Secretary of Defense just said last week. He said the President does not need congressional approval.....at all.

My second point was that the Director of the FBI, this current one, not one under Bush....Yes, I know you think everything is Bush's fault....does not know the Constitution.

Those are both Liberal and Conservative issues on which both sides agree. These people have got to go. NOW!

it has everything to do with the war powers act because Congress had failed to enforce is power since its inception, conceding more war powers to the president. It looked like that was going to change during the Libyan action, but offical war power action ended prior to the 60 day mark.


Your second point had everything to do with the PATACT which neither republicans nor democrats have any intention of over turning. The current FBI director is simply stating what is admissible under current law. Until the act is brought for review by the USSC, its admissible

Edit: you also need to quit assuming I support any of this nonsense. I'm simply telling people how it is.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
it has everything to do with the war powers act because Congress had failed to enforce is power since its inception, conceding more war powers to the president. It looked like that was going to change during the Libyan action, but offical war power action ended prior to the 60 day mark.


Your second point had everything to do with the PATACT which neither republicans nor democrats have any intention of over turning. The current FBI director is simply stating what is admissible under current law. Until the act is brought for review by the USSC, its admissible

Edit: you also need to quit assuming I support any of this nonsense. I'm simply telling people how it is.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Edit: you also need to quit assuming I support any of this nonsense. I'm simply telling people how it is.

"How it is?"

Doubtful, but I am glad you are with me and many Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and other Americans of all views that understand we need to get rid of this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle......NOW!
 
"How it is?"

Doubtful, but I am glad you are with me and many Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives and other Americans of all views that understand we need to get rid of this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle......NOW!

To bad every candidate has no intention of changing any of it except run Paul who, IMO, can be a, can be a nutcase when it comes to foreign policy, the presidents realm. don't get me wrong, I like him but he's... Too optimistic.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
To bad every candidate has no intention of changing any of it except run Paul who, IMO, can be a, can be a nutcase when it comes to foreign policy, the presidents realm. don't get me wrong, I like him but he's... Too optimistic.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Amazingly, we agree again.
 
You mean other than the 4,000+ troops killed in Iraq?

The key word there is troops. Obama actually had an American Citizen assassinated in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Due process

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama broke his oath to up hold the constitution and should be impeached for it.
 
The key word there is troops. Obama actually had an American Citizen assassinated in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.



Obama broke his oath to up hold the constitution and should be impeached for it.

What in the world are you talking about?
 
What in the world are you talking about?

I believe he's referring to Anwar_al-Awlaki who was an American citizen who was killed by the obama administration without a trial. They recently came out and stated that "due process" does not mean "judicial process". Due process is whatever they decide it is. It set a precedent for the government killing American citizens without a trial. Another direct quote "If we can kill an American citizen in Yemen, I don't know why we couldn't do it in Iowa."

Was he a terrorist? Almost certainly. But who is to decide these things? It's a sad day when the government can be judge, jury and executioner for it's own citizens.

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?
 
I believe he's referring to Anwar_al-Awlaki who was an American citizen who was killed by the obama administration without a trial. They recently came out and stated that "due process" does not mean "judicial process". Due process is whatever they decide it is. It set a precedent for the government killing American citizens without a trial. Another direct quote "If we can kill an American citizen in Yemen, I don't know why we couldn't do it in Iowa."

Was he a terrorist? Almost certainly. But who is to decide these things? It's a sad day when the government can be judge, jury and executioner for it's own citizens.

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

This is one of many issues that I believe both Liberals and Conservative can come together to fight. This is a bad, very bad policy. Once the government thinks they can start killing American citizens because they deem them to be a threat, we, both Liberal and Conservatives, are in deep ****.
 
This is one of many issues that I believe both Liberals and Conservative can come together to fight. This is a bad, very bad policy. Once the government thinks they can start killing American citizens because they deem them to be a threat, we, both Liberal and Conservatives, are in deep ****.

I'm not agreeing.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a known member in al Qaeda and plotted against the US. People are gunned down all the time without trial . Their only provable crime, running from the law. That's Anwar al-Awlaki
 
This is one of many issues that I believe both Liberals and Conservative can come together to fight. This is a bad, very bad policy. Once the government thinks they can start killing American citizens because they deem them to be a threat, we, both Liberal and Conservatives, are in deep ****.

I agree. I think Juan Cole has a good idea re: creating a procedure for trial in absentia to cover these sorts of cases: Al-`Awlaqi Should have been Tried in Absentia | Informed Comment
 
I agree. I think Juan Cole has a good idea re: creating a procedure for trial in absentia to cover these sorts of cases: Al-`Awlaqi Should have been Tried in Absentia | Informed Comment

He basically was tried in absentia, by the military.

How's this for a weak argument?

But the United States is not at war with Yemen, and al-`Awlaqi is not in the Yemeni military anyway. The idea that, legally speaking, the US could be at war with small terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda strikes me as a non-starter. A rhetorical flourish such as the “war on terror” is not a legal statute or article in the constitution. The killing of al-`Awlaqi differs from that of Usamah Bin Laden because in the latter case a US expeditionary force was confronted with someone who appeared to be going for a weapon, whereas al-`Awlaqi was simply targeted.

Of course we were at war with al Qaeda and bin Laden, of which al-Awlaqi was a member. It's not like other alQ members weren't targeted and killed by missiles.
 
He basically was tried in absentia, by the military.

How's this for a weak argument?



Of course we were at war with al Qaeda and bin Laden, of which al-Awlaqi was a member. It's not like other alQ members weren't targeted and killed by missiles.

That is something that I would rather see a jury decide in a public trial than a bunch of shadowy figures in the depths of the Pentagon.
 
This is one of many issues that I believe both Liberals and Conservative can come together to fight. This is a bad, very bad policy. Once the government thinks they can start killing American citizens because they deem them to be a threat, we, both Liberal and Conservatives, are in deep ****.
Too many shades of grey in that case. I do agree that it may set a dangerous precedence, but the mitigating factors don't make it as black and white some think


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
What in the world are you talking about?

Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American and Yemeni imam who was an engineer and educator by training.Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[24] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft in Yemen to search for and kill him,[34] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[35] before he was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[36] Two weeks later Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen.[37][38][39] Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar, made an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders.[40]

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[

They were assassinated with due process even though they were American citizens and entitled to protections guaranteed in the Constitution.
 
Too many shades of grey in that case. I do agree that it may set a dangerous precedence, but the mitigating factors don't make it as black and white some think


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

It's fairly black and white. You are either for the USA Constitution or you are not. Choose.
 
It's fairly black and white. You are either for the USA Constitution or you are not. Choose.

If the people he joined were a nation he would be considered a detector and would lose his rights under the constitution.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom