Page 9 of 28 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 279

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

  1. #81
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Penguin View Post
    Moreover, this sixteen year old's death is nothing new when compared to some of the brutality inflicted on unarmed, fully surrendered SS Troops by American paratroopers during WWII or the people of Dresden by British bomber pilots after it.
    Moral of Story: Don't start wars, you might get hurt.

  2. #82
    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 understand your point about personal responsibility.

    However, the larger point is the rule of law. The government is commanded by its founding document to follow due process before depriving anyone of liberty or life. It did neither.

    The federal government is clearly in violation of both US law and international law. The federal government cannot tell the citizen with whom he must associate or not associate.
    You'd have to prove that the government targeted Awlaki's son in order for it to be an illegal action instead of just another casualty of war. It's going to be difficult to prove that since Ibrahim al-Banna was the likely target as I mentioned before (with source provided).

    The federal government tells people who they can and cannot associate with all the time. From a legal standpoint if they have reason to suspect that you have provided any material support to a terrorist than you could face a very lengthy prison sentence. Reference: Material Support statute 18 USC 2339B

    18 USC 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations | LII / Legal Information Institute


    Material support entails: expert advice/assistance, training, service, personnel.

    None of that however applies to this case since Awlaki's son was not charged with those things but I did want to make the point that hanging out with targeted ranking members of a terrorist organization we have been fighting for over a decade does put you in some mucky legal waters.

    So we're back to the main issue here in that there has been no indication that Awlaki's son was in fact targeted and plenty of indication that a ranking member of al-qaeda was.
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  3. #83
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,630

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    You'd have to prove that the government targeted Awlaki's son in order for it to be an illegal action instead of just another casualty of war. It's going to be difficult to prove that since Ibrahim al-Banna was the likely target as I mentioned before (with source provided).

    The federal government tells people who they can and cannot associate with all the time. From a legal standpoint if they have reason to suspect that you have provided any material support to a terrorist than you could face a very lengthy prison sentence. Reference: Material Support statute 18 USC 2339B

    18 USC 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations | LII / Legal Information Institute


    Material support entails: expert advice/assistance, training, service, personnel.

    None of that however applies to this case since Awlaki's son was not charged with those things but I did want to make the point that hanging out with targeted ranking members of a terrorist organization we have been fighting for over a decade does put you in some mucky legal waters.

    So we're back to the main issue here in that there has been no indication that Awlaki's son was in fact targeted and plenty of indication that a ranking member of al-qaeda was.
    The government does all sorts of things, but that does not mean there is a legitimate legal foundation for its actions.

    I would remind you that while bullets are flying and people are being killed on both sides, there is no declared war in accordance with constitutional demands.

    That is rather the point--the government ignores the law.

    While you or others may be willing to accept and rationalize such behavior, that does not mean that such behavior is legal.

    When the AG offers up that "due process does not mean judicial process", the sophistry is getting rather thick.

  4. #84
    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
    The government does all sorts of things, but that does not mean there is a legitimate legal foundation for its actions.

    I would remind you that while bullets are flying and people are being killed on both sides, there is no declared war in accordance with constitutional demands.

    That is rather the point--the government ignores the law.

    While you or others may be willing to accept and rationalize such behavior, that does not mean that such behavior is legal.

    When the AG offers up that "due process does not mean judicial process", the sophistry is getting rather thick.
    Congress authorized the use of force against terrorists back in 2001 (AUMF). So whether or not anyone thinks it's morally right or wrong to target members of terrorist organizations behind the attacks on US citizens it is in line with constitutional law.
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  5. #85
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,554

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    Congress authorized the use of force against terrorists back in 2001 (AUMF). So whether or not anyone thinks it's morally right or wrong to target members of terrorist organizations behind the attacks on US citizens it is in line with constitutional law.
    This would be true if it weren't for that little branch of government known as SCOTUS. Congress can make a law, SCOTUS rules on its constitutionality. The fact that a law gets passed does NOT make it in line with constitutional law.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #86
    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 Hatuey View Post
    This would be true if it weren't for that little branch of government known as SCOTUS. Congress can make a law, SCOTUS rules on its constitutionality. The fact that a law gets passed does NOT make it in line with constitutional law.
    It would definitely change things if the US Supreme court overturned the joint resolution but it's been in place since 2001 and continues to this day. So my statement holds true unless I missed something?
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,554

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    It would definitely change things if the US Supreme court overturned the joint resolution but it's been in place since 2001 and continues to this day. So my statement holds true unless I missed something?
    Yes, you missed the fact that congress passing a law doesn't make it constitutional.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #88
    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 Hatuey View Post
    Yes, you missed the fact that congress passing a law doesn't make it constitutional.
    You responded to this statement made by me:
    Congress authorized the use of force against terrorists back in 2001 (AUMF). So whether or not anyone thinks it's morally right or wrong to target members of terrorist organizations behind the attacks on US citizens it is in line with constitutional law.
    It would only be incorrect if the US Supreme court ruled the AUMF as unconstitutional, they did not. It's been in effect and used since 2001 so when I asked if I missed something I was wondering if there was a significant court case that I had overlooked. Otherwise I don't see the point in all of the finger pointing and name calling. If the Obama Administration did something wrong here then evidence is needed. The fact that an American died in an attack on a known terrorist in a dangerous area of the world that the US had warned was dangerous for American citizens to be in is not in and of itself evidence of any illegal action taken on the part of the US federal government.
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,554

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Monserrat View Post
    You responded to this statement made by me:

    It would only be incorrect if the US Supreme court ruled the AUMF as unconstitutional, they did not. It's been in effect and used since 2001 so when I asked if I missed something I was wondering if there was a significant court case that I had overlooked. Otherwise I don't see the point in all of the finger pointing and name calling. If the Obama Administration did something wrong here then evidence is needed. The fact that an American died in an attack on a known terrorist in a dangerous area of the world that the US had warned was dangerous for American citizens to be in is not in and of itself evidence of any illegal action taken on the part of the US federal government.
    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.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #90
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    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.
    No, not the end of the story.

    "..................... Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S . 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.

    In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.



    Congress is enabled by the Constitution to make laws. These laws are presumed to be Constitutional until challenged and the court rules otherwise. You can reasonably believe that this is a strong presumption and the court is not eager to find congressional law unconstitutional. Example: Chief Justice Roberts turned himself inside out to find that Obamacare was constitutional.
    Last edited by Ray410; 11-06-12 at 02:13 AM.

Page 9 of 28 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •