Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 279

Thread: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

  1. #151
    Professor
    Monserrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    I did not say it was unconstitutional. I said it was superfluous sophistry and apparently a perverse effort at dictatorial powers. Certainly it appears that way 10 years later.

    I also said it was an abdication of responsibility and power by Congress. That might be interpreted as unconstitutional, but it is certainly poor governance.
    What about it makes you refer to it as superfluous sophistry and what bearing does it have on this topic in your opinion?
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  2. #152
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    What about it makes you refer to it as superfluous sophistry and what bearing does it have on this topic in your opinion?
    Repeating post 147 here, Article II makes the President the C-in-C. He can do as he pleases with the military. As FDR put it, "I cannot declare war, but I can wage war." I understand that, and so should any semi-literate congresscritter. The Constitution was written in a time when Congress met for only a few months out of the year, so I understand and support that function for the President.

    The AUMF was therefore redundant and superfluous. It was an unnecessary statement, and its motivation was clearly political, so that the Global War On Terror could be prosecuted.

    As the congress was passing that measure, it was also REFUSING to investigate the events of 11 September, and getting rid of the forensic evidence at WTC at almost light speed, in violation of intelligent investigation of the biggest attack on US soil in the history of the country. Similar behavior to its investigation of the Murrah Building event, but I digress.

    So, why must a big show be made (AUMF) to give the President powers he already clearly possesses? To impress the gullible, is the correct answer. The gullible and the uninformed.

    This is relevant to the thread topic because the AUMF is frequently brought up by those defending the illegal actions of Obama in killing the young man about which this thread was started.

  3. #153
    Professor
    Monserrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    Repeating post 147 here, Article II makes the President the C-in-C. He can do as he pleases with the military. As FDR put it, "I cannot declare war, but I can wage war." I understand that, and so should any semi-literate congresscritter. The Constitution was written in a time when Congress met for only a few months out of the year, so I understand and support that function for the President.

    The AUMF was therefore redundant and superfluous. It was an unnecessary statement, and its motivation was clearly political, so that the Global War On Terror could be prosecuted.

    As the congress was passing that measure, it was also REFUSING to investigate the events of 11 September, and getting rid of the forensic evidence at WTC at almost light speed, in violation of intelligent investigation of the biggest attack on US soil in the history of the country. Similar behavior to its investigation of the Murrah Building event, but I digress.

    So, why must a big show be made (AUMF) to give the President powers he already clearly possesses? To impress the gullible, is the correct answer. The gullible and the uninformed.

    This is relevant to the thread topic because the AUMF is frequently brought up by those defending the illegal actions of Obama in killing the young man about which this thread was started.
    The President cannot do what he pleases, it's within the powers of the legislative branch to declare war (with exception if immediate action is necessary), what makes the AUMF absolutely necessary is that this is not a typical war (not technically a war) so what the AUMF is doing is giving the president the authority to act in response to what happened on 9/11 and allowing military force to be used to protect the US. I do agree that it is redundant but also is necessary.

    I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, there's a separate forum for that and I've already been through that extensively in the aftermath of 9/11 and found absolutely no evidence to support the claims being made.

    Regarding this thread you and others still claim wrongdoing on the part of the US government and no one has been able to provide any proof whatsoever that illegal actions were committed. The reason I brought up the AUMF was to provide legislation supporting this administration in going after terrorists who are a threat to our own national security. The attack that killed the son of Awlaki was not targeting the 16 year old, they were going after a known terrorist in Yemen who was a ranking member of al-qaeda. In war including this "war" a lot of innocent people suffer and die it's sad, it's not something that we should just brush off but it's reality. In order for the current administration to have committed an illegal act they would have to have been targeting an american citizen (which they were not). I suppose you could make a case over the legality of it if they knew an american citizen would be killed as a result of the action but still no one has provided any evidence that even that were true.
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  4. #154
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    The President cannot do what he pleases, it's within the powers of the legislative branch to declare war (with exception if immediate action is necessary), what makes the AUMF absolutely necessary is that this is not a typical war (not technically a war) so what the AUMF is doing is giving the president the authority to act in response to what happened on 9/11 and allowing military force to be used to protect the US. I do agree that it is redundant but also is necessary.

    I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, there's a separate forum for that and I've already been through that extensively in the aftermath of 9/11 and found absolutely no evidence to support the claims being made.

    Regarding this thread you and others still claim wrongdoing on the part of the US government and no one has been able to provide any proof whatsoever that illegal actions were committed. The reason I brought up the AUMF was to provide legislation supporting this administration in going after terrorists who are a threat to our own national security. The attack that killed the son of Awlaki was not targeting the 16 year old, they were going after a known terrorist in Yemen who was a ranking member of al-qaeda. In war including this "war" a lot of innocent people suffer and die it's sad, it's not something that we should just brush off but it's reality. In order for the current administration to have committed an illegal act they would have to have been targeting an american citizen (which they were not). I suppose you could make a case over the legality of it if they knew an american citizen would be killed as a result of the action but still no one has provided any evidence that even that were true.
    Are you denying that the President is C-in-C?

    Where is this exception that you mention?

    If you agree that it is redundant, and understand the meaning of the word, then you have admitted my point. Further, if you admit that it is redundant, then it cannot be necessary.

    These are the errors in logic inherent in attempting to defend fraud and deception.

    As for the events of 11 September, it sounds like you are very much like most americans--completely misinformed about what happened that day, and what did not happen that day.

  5. #155
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I don't know what is worse...that the Obama Administration seems to believe that it can order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens without any trial (or even any good reason), or that no one seems to care about it. It's hard to imagine an executive power that has more potential for abuse than this...and yet astonishingly, there seems to be a widespread bipartisan consensus that secret "kill lists" are A-OK.
    Um, duh? It's Obama. Why would the media get upset about a little ole thing like using the US military to hunt down and kill American minors without trial?


    Reality Imitates Farce

  6. #156
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Um, duh? It's Obama. Why would the media get upset about a little ole thing like using the US military to hunt down and kill American minors without trial?


    Reality Imitates Farce
    What's even more troubling is that when the NYT ran its piece on the inner workings of the Obama team prosecuting these things, it was said that "due process" was satisfied by the deliberations of the President and his team . . . and this was presented as a good thing, or uncontroversial at the very worst.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #157
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    What's even more troubling is that when the NYT ran its piece on the inner workings of the Obama team prosecuting these things, it was said that "due process" was satisfied by the deliberations of the President and his team . . . and this was presented as a good thing, or uncontroversial at the very worst.
    lol. oh man.


    seriously, can anyone now honestly tell me the MSM isn't completely in the tank for this guy? can you imagine the blood spurting from their eyes if George Bush had tried this?

  8. #158
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Again, for the third time - SOMETHING BEING MADE INTO LAW, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL. You're playing the circular logic game. It's constitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. That's simply not the case. Something being made into law, does not mean it's constitutional. End - of - story.
    So? Nor is it unconstitutional until it's been ruled unconstitutional. The law under consideration is currently valid and being implemented and enforced AS IF IT WERE CONSTITUTIONAL and will continue to be so until a court rules otherwise. So your point is frivolous and meaningless.

  9. #159
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Dude was 16 years old, it's not like he had a choice where he lived.
    Nor does the government have control over where his father takes him.

    Several people have pointed out that there is no evidence that the 16 year old was in fact the target of the attack that killed him. Until you provide evidence to the contrary the kid was merely a collateral casualty and this whole thread is effectively moot.

  10. #160
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The burden of proof should not be on me. This kid was an American citizen who should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The Obama Administration hasn't even accused him of any wrongdoing. The burden of proof for a president to order the death of an American citizen should be far higher than "I think he's a bad guy." And it should CERTAINLY be higher than "I think he might be a bad guy, but who knows?" This kind of **** should, at the very least, be routed through a federal judge with evidence that 1) he had broken the law, 2) he was an ongoing threat to the United States, and 3) he could not be extradited as a practical matter.
    Americans soldiers are sometimes killed in friendly fire incidences, etc. Does that indicate to you that the government has a policy of targeting its own soldiers? Of course not. So why does the fact that this boy was killed in an attack indicate to you that the government had a policy of targeting him?

Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •