• 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!

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

That's asinine. What is the government supposed to do? Let's take your standard right here and apply it to a traditional war. Would the government have to gather evidence, present that evidence to the court, get an arrest warrant, arrest the enemy, bring the to court, put on a trial of their piers and then, if found guilty, put them back on the battle field and kill them? Is that how you envision this? These people are actively engaging in a war against the United States. They shouldn't be given special treatment just because they are American.

No one is advocating that on the battlefield, we have rules of engagement and rules re. POWs that apply to those situations. We have the ability to have a fair trial in these other cases.


The question is: How do you know that these people are guilty? I would not except the word of a government employee (FBI, CIA etc.) or an informant alone as proof. Both have a financial incentive to make the accused appear guilty. There is a reason why many of the prisoners in Guantanamo have been released.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

No one is advocating that on the battlefield, we have rules of engagement and rules re. POWs that apply to those situations. We have the ability to have a fair trial in these other cases.


The question is: How do you know that these people are guilty? I would not except the word of a government employee (FBI, CIA etc.) or an informant alone as proof. Both have a financial incentive to make the accused appear guilty. There is a reason why many of the prisoners in Guantanamo have been released.

The same way we know any other enemy combatant is guilty...they are on the enemies side! Why is that so hard to understand?
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ


"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

1.That is too much power to put in one person's hands.
2. That declaration should be considered unconstitutional due to being vague and overly broad. (By the way, notice that the word "knowingly" is not included.)
3. That resolution is being used to imprison and kill people with absolutely no connection with the 9-11-01 attacks, such as the people killed by drones in Yemen.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

The same way we know any other enemy combatant is guilty...they are on the enemies side! Why is that so hard to understand?

That is relatively easy to determine in the battlefield-they are shooting at you, they wear a uniform, they are on the other side of a battle line, they are located in a military facility etc. It is not so clear in any other situation. That is why we have trials.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

1.That is too much power to put in one person's hands.
2. That declaration should be considered unconstitutional due to being vague and overly broad. (By the way, notice that the word "knowingly" is not included.)
3. That resolution is being used to imprison and kill people with absolutely no connection with the 9-11-01 attacks, such as the people killed by drones in Yemen.

Correct, and not only that, as FDR noted in the last century, the President is ALREADY empowered by the USC to wage war. He cannot declare war, for only Congress can do that.

But as C-in-C he can wage war at any time he wishes. That is a well known fact.

So the AUMF is nothing but sophistry, intended to mislead the gullible and the media. Mission Accomplished, as 11 years later people are still citing such sophistry as being legit. Egads, we have the government we deserve. :doh
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

That is pure government sophistry sir, nothing more.

Next you're going to tell me that since LBJ declared war on poverty or illiteracy that the constitution can be suspended? :lamo

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unconstitutional. I'm all about supporting the Constitution. But, the Constitution says there needs to be a declaration of war and nothing more. It doesn't put any real limitations on congress or the President after the declaration made. Maybe that's a short coming, but that's how it stands today. Don't like it? Change it.

I'd rather focus on the things that are really unconstitutional, like welfare, medicare, etc.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unconstitutional. I'm all about supporting the Constitution. But, the Constitution says there needs to be a declaration of war and nothing more. It doesn't put any real limitations on congress or the President after the declaration made. Maybe that's a short coming, but that's how it stands today. Don't like it? Change it.

I'd rather focus on the things that are really unconstitutional, like welfare, medicare, etc.

You're missing the larger point sir--there IS NO DECLARATION. That's the point. The cowards in Congress got into all this play-acting, writing memos to impress the gullible media.

The last declaration of war was December 8, 1941.

AUMF is not a declaration of war. It is a bull==== statement about facts that already exist. By rights, the President has the constitutional power to invade any country he wants, but that does not mean that he would be acting legally or morally when doing so.

There is no declaration of war. With Congress' blessing and funding, we have been engaged in illegal military aggression against numerous countries for 11 years now.

You are kidding yourself with your claim that you care about what's 'really' unconstitutional.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

You're missing the larger point sir--there IS NO DECLARATION. That's the point. The cowards in Congress got into all this play-acting, writing memos to impress the gullible media.

The last declaration of war was December 8, 1941.

AUMF is not a declaration of war. It is a bull==== statement about facts that already exist. By rights, the President has the constitutional power to invade any country he wants, but that does not mean that he would be acting legally or morally when doing so.

There is no declaration of war. With Congress' blessing and funding, we have been engaged in illegal military aggression against numerous countries for 11 years now.

You are kidding yourself with your claim that you care about what's 'really' unconstitutional.

Oh, we've been engaged in illegal military aggression for much longer than that. At first, we didn't call them "wars", as they weren't declared and were therefore seen as unconstitutional. The war in Vietnam, for example, the first war we actually lost and a real turning point in US history, wasn't called a war at the time, as Congress never did declare war on Vietnam.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Should a convicted child rapist?

What about someone for being on federal land? Felony Right? Now after he or she serves their time. Why shouldn't they be allowed to own a weapon?

Naturally rape is a crime of violence so they would not apply.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Should a convicted child rapist?

If you answer my question, I'll answer yours. ;)
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

No one is advocating that on the battlefield, we have rules of engagement and rules re. POWs that apply to those situations. We have the ability to have a fair trial in these other cases. The question is: How do you know that these people are guilty?

Quite right. Including in the United States.

But here is a snapshot of what is happening.

And Your Little Dog, Too - Deroy Murdock - National Review Online
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

our military makes that decision on our behalf every day
just because it is someone of American birth who has decided to be our nation's enemy does not change a thing

Wrong. If they are an American citizen they have the right to due process. The Government is not the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to the incarceration of U.S. citizens. They must prove in a court of law, with properly obtained, non-coerced, evidence that the said person is guilty of treason. Constitution and Bill of Rights trump the government. Enough said.
 
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americ

Yesterday Cornel West told Tavis Smiley that we must all face the truth. Let us not deceive ourselves he said, Obama is every bit the War Criminal that Bush or Nixon was.

Killing people all 'round the globe, with no war declared, is a war crime.

Good to see West speak the truth about Obama.
 
Back
Top Bottom