You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I've done no such thing. I've clearly eluded to the lines being blurred in this regard suggesting that those in the Justice Department do need to tread lightly, exhausting all recourses before taking such drastic measures as drone strikes against U.S. citizens wherever they may be pursued for crimes committed (convicted or alledged).This question seems to espouse the idea that the Constitution may be disregarded, given time and circumstance, or that it no longer applies to you, if you commit crimes, or even suspected of being an enemy combatant.
In the sense that the Constitution is the foundation for our laws, yes it is the perverbial "line in the sand". However, I strongly disagree that "strict adherence to the law is political ideology". That's like saying that before the police can arrest you for jaywalking he must first inquire as to your political affilication and if such is different from his then you're liable to have the book thrown at you. A rather foolish notion don't you think?Strict adherence to the law is driven by political ideology. The Constitution was specifically meant to restrain government from tyranny. It makes no sense to ask why a criminal doesn’t turn himself in, and to say those who do not ask this question are more concerned with personal morality. Strict adherence to the law IS political ideology. The Constitution is the line in the sand whether you are a criminal or the government.
You don't declare war against a nation that harbors a "criminal" no matter the offense committed. However, you DO declare war against a nation who supports, aids and abides the criminal who has committed an act of war* against your country. No clearer example can be demonstrated in this than the connection between Osama bin Laden, Al-Quade and the Taliban as the governming body in Afghanistan. Notice the difference here.It is good to exhaust all avenues, but this basically claims that ‘anything goes’ once patience has run out.
Then if they are hiding him, not cooperating with his capture as he continues to even make attacks on the United States, then we know who we can declare war on (if nothing else, to expedite cooperation), don’t we? Especially if he is the true threat the government says he was.
The Taliban, a remnant of Al-Quade and Osama all fled to Pakistan but notice that the U.S. didn't declare war against that country. Ask yourself "Why not?" The answer commonly given is "because they have nukes" but that's the easy way out. Truth is, the Pakistan government gave assistance to the U.S. government as broadly as it could to fight the Taliban and Al-Quade strongholds in Pakistan. It was their military and portions of their Intelligence Agency that was uncooperative. I would encourage you to study-up on the matter before reaching any other conclusion and try to understand more on U.S./foriegn relations other than what you read in the headlines.
Again, I've done nothing of the sort. I've merely said it is a very thin line our government walks on this issue of drone strikes against its own citizens whether abroad or domestically, the latter Chief Justice Holder has stated would not happen under today's rule of law. However, Rand Paul was correct in bringing this matter to light despite using the wrong bullwhip in order to do it.So you espouse imperialist policies that make the whole world a battle field in which the American government has the right to fire missiles anywhere it chooses, even without a given countries cooperation. Try that crap in Russia or China and see what happens.
You have fine rationalization for the dismissal of the rule of law.
*Although the U.S. did not declare war against Afghanistan, the Taliban nor Al-Quade, the use of military force was authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the UN. (See Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist)
Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-16-13 at 03:16 PM.
Last edited by TML; 03-17-13 at 09:32 AM.
I'm gonna say this as clearly, bluntly, directly and as definitatively as I can so that there's no ambiguity among us or the reader. Get ready...pay attention 'cause it's about to get deep.
You seem to be locked into this war of words where "degrees" of criminal acts don't matter. "Criminal" equates to "terrorist" and I suppose that's a correct analogy. After all, regardless of what crime has been committed, it's still a violation of the law be it moral law, civil law, criminal law or whatever. All things being equal, I suppose you'd be correct. But you're wrong. Because the degree of the crime committed does matter. For example:
If a person goes out and writes a bad check under U.S. law, his "crime" is defined at a minimum by two things: 1) the exact value of the check that was written, i.e., $100 versus $10,000; and 2) the purpose for which said check was made out (and possibly cashed). So, if I go out and write a check for $100 to Wal-Mart but the check isn't in my name, the worse I get charged with is fraudulant use of a forged instrument...something like that. Typically, it's nothing more than a misdemeanor in most cases, but it could be classified as a felony depending on (among other things) if I'm a first time offender. But if I write a corporate check for $10,000 and I use the funds for my personal use, that's embezzlement. It IS a felony; I would go to jail without question.
Now, just so we understand each other: On the surface, both examples are identical - each stole money that wasn't theirs. Each committed a "crime". But there ARE degrees of wrong in moral law, as well as within civil and criminal law. Terrorism can easily be defined as "bullying". Both inflict "fear" unto another person or persons being assaulted. But when was the last time you saw someone be arrested for taking someone else's milk money? Answer: You haven't! But you know that those who commit acts of terrorism when capture are either killed or imprisoned. No two ways about it.
My point here is real simple: DON'T GET IT TWISTED.
My advice to you is also real simple: Leave your condemnation of the Administration and your defense for turncoats behind your firewall. If you haven't thought it through, you should neither say it nor type it. You see "tyranny" where most people see "treason". Put simply: If an American exercises his right to free speech but does so in a way that doesn't insite violence neither against his people nor his homeland, I say let him talk until he's blue in the face especially if he does so AT HOME. Here, in America, you have that right. As long as you don't yell FIRE in a crowded room, typically you're okay. But here's where most Americans draw the line. Pay attention...'cause freedom isn't free contrary to popular belief....
If you LEAVE your country and hide behind the very freedom that was once granted to you AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, and your FREE SPEECH or exercise thereof is used as a wedge between your fellow countrymen and the enemy whom you apparently now serve, you forfeit that right to speak your mind wherever you find a plateform to exercise your former Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Put in perspective: Once your words are used to empower the enemy in insurrection against your former country's national security interest, you've lost all credibility. Furthermore, once Al-awlaki refused to turn himself in after being given every opportunity to do so, i.e, via flyers, leaf-lets, Most Wanted posters (and I assume formal requests were issued as well, but I don't know that for sure, but let's assume they were anyway), then you're done. You're more than a mere fugitive from justice who fleed the country to beat a murder rape. You left OR stayed away to avoid trial for acts of treason.
One point I will give you and others is that it is not known if the government of Yemen gave formal consent for U.S. air/drone strikes to kill Al-awlaki. And I agree that such an abuse of foreign diplomacy can cause problems. But by all accounts, it would appear Al-awlaki was given ample opportunity to do the right thing and face his accusers as a right given him under the Constitution. Seems to me you have to decide which side of the Constitution you're on here: The side that says YOU have a duty to exercises your rights properly OR the side that affords ALL AMERICANS protection under the law...until they violate the law OR renounce their rights as citizens either by their own admission or due to their own actions. I say to you pick a side and stand firm, but choose wisely with the understanding that if you pick the wrong side you subject yourself to some harsh truth-telling. You've had yours today. And with that, I'm out.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-17-13 at 02:44 PM.
Then I will again say this as clearly, bluntly, directly and definitively as I can.
Article 3 Section 3 defines treason, not you. Article 3 Section 3 also prescribes the rules on which someone may be convicted of treason – in a court of law – which is the only place in which the standards for conviction are set forth in the Constitution itself… for a very specific crime. Unless they are actively engaged in a sudden attack, such as Benghazi for example, it is not lawful for the federal government to preemptively assassinate a Citizen on mere allegations. They do not lose their citizenship and the protections afforded to them unless on the grounds as described in 8 USC § 1481, which confirms the standards for being convicted of treason.