Page 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2129303132 LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 315

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

  1. #301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    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.

  2. #302
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,692
    Blog Entries
    10

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    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?
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    "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.

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    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.

  5. #305
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,315

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    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?

  6. #306
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,315

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    "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.

  7. #307
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,692
    Blog Entries
    10

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    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?
    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, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  8. #308
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,315

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    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.

  9. #309
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,607

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    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.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #310
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    Should Martha Stewart be able to possess a firearm?
    Should a convicted child rapist?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 31 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2129303132 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
  •