• 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!

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

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

To answer your question properly requires that you understand one of the most important underlying principles of our constitution--that ours is a government of enumerated and limited powers. That is, our government cannot do anything it wants to, and it cannot pass any law it wants to.

As mentioned in Article I Section 8, the last sentence empowers the government to Make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers....

If one examines those foregoing powers, one discovers that there is no power for the President to avoid having to comply with due process. There is no power for the President to kill people. There is no power for the President to do what Obama is doing.

So, on topic, what Obama is doing violates the letter and spirit of the US Consitution. By his actions, he is a domestic enemy of the document.

NDAA and the Unpatriot Act are in the same class--violation of the document.

In short, I don't care. I'm not a strict constitutionalist. I don't place value in the constitution in and of itself. I value the constitution because I think it is a very useful and well-written document for establishing reasonable powers and limits on the government. But the constitution is not a flawless, holy document. Times change. There are issues addressed in the constitution that are completely obsolete and meaningless today. And we face other issues today that are not addressed in the constitution, issues that the founding fathers could not have possibly anticipated. Regardless of whether you agree with it, the powers granted to Congress in section 8 have been interpreted quite broadly - in part, to give our government fluidity and the ability to adapt with the times. So, I'm not interested in debating whether the AUMF is constitutional or not because it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is whether or not it's a good thing.

Besides, whether or not the AUMF is constitutional or not is irrelevant until a federal court rules on its consitutionality. Our government is set up in such a way that all legislation is assumed constitutional until a court says otherwise. So, despite what you say, the AUMF and the Patriot Act are currently legal and are going to be implemented and observed as if they were legal until a ruling comes down overturning them.

Purely from a strategic perspective I am highly supportive of the drone strikes. Pivoting away from heavy-handed, full-scale invasions and relying more on special forces operations and focused surgical strikes on terrorist leadership is absolutely necessary and has been quite effective so far. The Al-Qaeda leadership in AfPak has been decimated, and is the major reason Al Qaeda has been forced to retreat west into Yemen and the Maghreb. As with any military action, blowback is a legitimate concern. The drone strikes are extremely unpopular amongst Pakistanis, for example. But in Yemen we are not witnessing the same popular backlash, partly because the strikes have become more effective with fewer civilian casualties as our grasp of the technology improves.

Despite what everybody's been saying in this thread, the Obama adminstration has in fact made an effort to lend transparency to his drone strike strategy. Obama has declassified the drone program in Yemen (though not in Pakistan) and has made public the details of the review process that is followed to determine if an Al Qaeda suspect is dangerous enough to warrant a strike, which is appears quite rigorous.
 
In short, I don't care. I'm not a strict constitutionalist. I don't place value in the constitution in and of itself. I value the constitution because I think it is a very useful and well-written document for establishing reasonable powers and limits on the government. But the constitution is not a flawless, holy document. Times change. There are issues addressed in the constitution that are completely obsolete and meaningless today. And we face other issues today that are not addressed in the constitution, issues that the founding fathers could not have possibly anticipated. Regardless of whether you agree with it, the powers granted to Congress in section 8 have been interpreted quite broadly - in part, to give our government fluidity and the ability to adapt with the times. So, I'm not interested in debating whether the AUMF is constitutional or not because it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is whether or not it's a good thing.

Besides, whether or not the AUMF is constitutional or not is irrelevant until a federal court rules on its consitutionality. Our government is set up in such a way that all legislation is assumed constitutional until a court says otherwise. So, despite what you say, the AUMF and the Patriot Act are currently legal and are going to be implemented and observed as if they were legal until a ruling comes down overturning them.

Purely from a strategic perspective I am highly supportive of the drone strikes. Pivoting away from heavy-handed, full-scale invasions and relying more on special forces operations and focused surgical strikes on terrorist leadership is absolutely necessary and has been quite effective so far. The Al-Qaeda leadership in AfPak has been decimated, and is the major reason Al Qaeda has been forced to retreat west into Yemen and the Maghreb. As with any military action, blowback is a legitimate concern. The drone strikes are extremely unpopular amongst Pakistanis, for example. But in Yemen we are not witnessing the same popular backlash, partly because the strikes have become more effective with fewer civilian casualties as our grasp of the technology improves.

Despite what everybody's been saying in this thread, the Obama adminstration has in fact made an effort to lend transparency to his drone strike strategy. Obama has declassified the drone program in Yemen (though not in Pakistan) and has made public the details of the review process that is followed to determine if an Al Qaeda suspect is dangerous enough to warrant a strike, which is appears quite rigorous.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit you don't care about the document. That explains your perverse values and moral code. You demonstrate so very well that we americans have the government we deserve.
 
Thanks for being honest enough to admit you don't care about the document. That explains your perverse values and moral code.

That's it? That's the best you can do? A terrible misrepresentation of what I said? Typical. :roll:
 
That's it? That's the best you can do? A terrible misrepresentation of what I said? Typical. :roll:

Just trying to keep it civil.

I took an oath to defend the document from enemies both foreign and domestic, so I'm sensitive about it. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest reason we are in the mess we are in is because we have not been governed in accordance with the document and its principles. We have forsaken government by law and the rule of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom