Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 194

Thread: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

  1. #121
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Article I, Section 8 does not restrict declarations of war to nation states. It only states that "Congress shall have power...to declare war..." and "to...repel invasions..." To date, no U.S. Supreme Court case, much less decision, has limited that authority exclusively to nation-states.
    Well, then, let's see the declaration of war that authorizes us to go into Yemen and execute an American citizen without a trial.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Here's the ironic thing about you citing Ex Parte Quirin to me.

    Ex Parte Quirin in no way stated that a combatant was stripped of all his legal rights. There is still due process to be found, even there.

    Well, that, and while this cleric is about to be executed, Hans Haupt got his day in court.

    Funny, that.
    The key language is, "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency..."

    What are the consequences of belligerency?

    1. If an individual is a combatant under the laws of the war, he/she is a military objective. Military objectives do not enjoy protection as civilians. They can be targeted by military operations. The President's order is directed toward that end.

    2. If the individual is rendered hors de combat i.e., is captured, surrenders, or is injured, he can be tried under a military commission.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Well, then, let's see the declaration of war that authorizes us to go into Yemen and execute an American citizen without a trial.
    Congress has repeatedly authorized legislation to fund the conflict with Al Qaeda. By doing so, it has ratified the President's exercise of his authority as Commander and Chief. The Supreme Court has made no decisions to declare the conflict unconstitution and no such decisions are likely.

    Attacking a combatant is not an "execution" in the proper sense of the term. Authorization to target a combatant does not require a trial. The Laws of War apply in this case. The Supreme Court has spoken on that matter in the past and it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse its longstanding precedent.

    In sum, the President's authorization is constitutional.

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    No, my question presupposes that American citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections when pursued, captured, and detained by any authority of the United States.
    Do you believe there is anything an American citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights?

    The Constitution supersedes any treaty in matters of American law.
    But not in matters of warfare.

    Ergo, the Constitution applies and the Geneva Conventions do not when it comes to the treatment of American citizens by American authorities.
    The Constitution does not apply in war zones.

  5. #125
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Congress has repeatedly authorized legislation to fund the conflict with Al Qaeda.
    Can you produce an explicit declaration of war on Al Qaeda, or not?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  6. #126
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    Do you believe there is anything an American citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights?
    Nothing that applies to this situation, no.



    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    But not in matters of warfare.
    The Constitution supersedes any treaty which contradicts it in any way, at least the contradictory portions of the treaty in question.

    In other words, no treaty can ever supersede the Constitution without an Amendment stating such.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    It absolutely is the Constitution, which is why it is listed first, and not third, in Article VI.
    You misunderstand. Treaties made under the authority of the US government are "the supreme law of the land" per Article VI.

    The supremacy is implicit at first, because otherwise federal laws which are judged unConstitutional could not be struck down by the courts.

    The supremacy becomes explicit later in the Article, since it says judges are not bound by treaties in any instance where said treaties contradict the Constitution or federal law.
    I'll concede this point.

    5th Amendment. The government cannot deny a citizen of the United States of life, liberty or property without due process.
    The Fifth Amendment makes a specific exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces".

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    If I plan to walk into a building and mow down everyone in sight, and the feds caught wind of my plan, I'd be up on charges of conspiracy -- not killed on sight.

    I see no reason why this man, even if he in fact is planning to kill Americans, should be treated any different.
    Because he is an unlawful enemy combatant.

  9. #129
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    The Fifth Amendment makes a specific exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces".
    Specific with reference to the requirement for an indictment prior to a trial on a capital offense.

    Additionally, the prohibition against stripping life, liberty or property without due process proceeds that initial statement, which makes it clear that due process is still required.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #130
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    Because he is an unlawful enemy combatant.
    Where in the Constitution would you find such a classification?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •