• 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

Henry David said:
Gunslinger Obama gives a very bad name to constitutional law professors.

And the great Liberal Left finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend lawlessness by the Executive Branch and the other two. It would be hard-pressed to have an open and honest discussion regarding just where in the US Constitution the President is authorized to kill people without due process.

The Attorney General must offer pure sophistry in claiming that due process does not include judicial process.

A very sad state for this country. :roll:
Click to expand...

And I bet you sat by smiling when Bush started torturing prisoners. The radical muslims who hate us have had a huge advantage that drones defeat. Is that why you find it so distressing? Drones have the potential of neutralizing these groups so they can do us no more harm. Is ending Bush's "unending war" too upsetting to you? Would you rather we commit troops to all those countries so they can act as targets for the terrorists?
 
Top Cat said:
My bad. You're right. Obviously you did read Wiggen's post. I get it now. Lack of comprehension is actually the issue. Duly noted. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Isn't it so much easier to snipe rather than explain whatever bee you've got in your bonnet? No wonder you've chosen to do it instead.
 
Henry David said:
The US Constitution, Amendment V and Amendment VIII. The document does not give the government the power to execute citizens or persons without due process.

The Fifth specifies the due process requirement.
Click to expand...

Is the US government violating the constitution when a miscoordinated airstrike accidentally kills a US soldier or an embedded journalist? Or, rather, are you truly unable to see a meaningful distinction between such a death and, say, the President ordering a political opponent to be hanged?
 
Henry David said:
In the previous post, I forgot to mention Amendment VI.

Your post here suggests that you are not quite aware of several things. The use of the word "person" in various parts of the Constitution, including those parts relevant to this discussion.

You also seem to suggest that you deny that the government is killing persons, including US citizens, without any sort of due process. In case you don't know it, the US government employs armed drones in different parts of the globe, and with those drones it kills all manner of innocent people.
Click to expand...

All manner of people? Oh noes!
 
hawke812 said:
I see you like to cherry pick certain information and take my posts out of context to better serve your agenda:lol:
Click to expand...

Yes. I pick the bits that are wrong and explain to why they are wrong. That's how this works.


hawke812 said:
Of course it sounds ridiculous when you give an extreme example and take it out of context. Anything would:lol:
Click to expand...

I didn't take anything out of context. You said the government could "kill anyone" they wanted. Apparently, you didn't say what you meant because now you're acknowledging how ridiculous such a concept is. So, what did you mean when you said the government could "kill anyone" if you didn't mean "kill anyone"?


hawke812 said:
Yes, the government has free reign to label anyone as a terrorist and kill them with no oversight right now. Even US citizens. Are you going to deny that?
Click to expand...

Look, you just said it again - the government can label ANYONE they want and KILL them.

Yes I'm going to deny that. Absolutely. Obama could not label Romney as a terrorist and kill him. His entire own party would turn on him. Biden would wrestle him to the ground in the oval office until the authorities got there if Obama did something as daft as that.
 
the_recruit said:
Yes. I pick the bits that are wrong and explain to why they are wrong. That's how this works.




I didn't take anything out of context. You said the government could "kill anyone" they wanted. Apparently, you didn't say what you meant because now you're acknowledging how ridiculous such a concept is. So, what did you mean when you said the government could "kill anyone" if you didn't mean "kill anyone"?




Look, you just said it again - the government can label ANYONE they want and KILL them.

Yes I'm going to deny that. Absolutely. Obama could not label Romney as a terrorist and kill him. His entire own party would turn on him. Biden would wrestle him to the ground in the oval office until the authorities got there if Obama did something as daft as that.
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't true (at least, for the average American).

Under the Patriot Act the definition of a terrorist is extremely vague.

("The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism." How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines "Domestic Terrorism" | American Civil Liberties Union)

[Please note how the DOJ is saying that "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy without breaking laws cannot be targeted." However, this is false.

FBI Raids Target U.S. Activists | The Stream - Al Jazeera English

http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_11/20011116.html ]

Obama could label someone a terrorist, kill them with a drone, and then hide behind national security. ("When it comes to countering terrorism, President Obama has hidden behind national security imperatives to shield administration policy in secrecy and pursue programs such as expanded drone use and thwarted accountability." President Obama: Recapture the Human Rights High Ground)
 
Wiggen said:
So is this. They began it on 9/11 and we're continuing it. Here's some advice for Americans. If you don't want to be blown to bits by a Predator, A) don't go to countries that serve as terrorist havens, and B) don't hang out with terrorists. It's really rather simple.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention "don't hang out with anybody NOT on the approved list" and things like that. Pure authoritarianism.

They began it? Who is they?
 
Wiggen said:
That's it? We have a list of Al Qaeda terrorists and some of them are Americans - and we intend to kill them? Wow. Color me shocked that we actually want to eliminate these bastards before they decide to hijack an airplane and fly it into a high rise building. Dear me!

I did like the part about 'eviscerating' Al Qaeda, however.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the relationships between CIA and AQ back during the days of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan?

Did you read or see Charlie Wilson's War?
 
iguanaman said:
And I bet you sat by smiling when Bush started torturing prisoners. The radical muslims who hate us have had a huge advantage that drones defeat. Is that why you find it so distressing? Drones have the potential of neutralizing these groups so they can do us no more harm. Is ending Bush's "unending war" too upsetting to you? Would you rather we commit troops to all those countries so they can act as targets for the terrorists?
Click to expand...

You would lose your juvenile bet above.

I find it distressing sir, because once upon a time I took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies domestic and foreign.

Those who do not follow the document are its enemies.

Drones have all sorts of potential, but the REALITY is that they are being used to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. That you support those crimes, or have deluded yourself into thinking that they are not crimes, speaks volumes. It is a personal problem for you.

The Global War On Terror is a fraud of epic proportions, and it never ceases to amaze how many people buy into it, lock, stock & barrel.
 
the_recruit said:
Is the US government violating the constitution when a miscoordinated airstrike accidentally kills a US soldier or an embedded journalist? Or, rather, are you truly unable to see a meaningful distinction between such a death and, say, the President ordering a political opponent to be hanged?
Click to expand...

The US government violates the Constitution in so many ways it is almost impossible to list them all.

You offer some rather superficial hypotheticals, and I'll not waste my time with them.

By invading both Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, the government has violated both the Constitution and international law by committing military aggression.
 
the_recruit said:
All manner of people? Oh noes!
Click to expand...

Does this suggest that you are uninformed of certain facts?

Or just that you would rather not discuss them? Are you saying you condone the murders by drone?

Or just that you believe without question every statement made by the DoD?
 
Truly amazing. If this were GWB, those opposing the current actions by Obama would be leading the charge. Those championing Obamas anti-terror efforts would be burning Bush in effigy. What a country.

Obama is right to continue the Bush policies re the war on terror. He is right to target specific terrorists. If they happen to have been born on American soil and 'choose' to go to foreign lands to fight for their 'cause', say hello to 'consequence'.
 
VanceMack said:
Truly amazing. If this were GWB, those opposing the current actions by Obama would be leading the charge. Those championing Obamas anti-terror efforts would be burning Bush in effigy. What a country.

Obama is right to continue the Bush policies re the war on terror. He is right to target specific terrorists. If they happen to have been born on American soil and 'choose' to go to foreign lands to fight for their 'cause', say hello to 'consequence'.
Click to expand...

Bush's "plan" was to place 200,000 Americans in the heart of the middle east to act as targets and recruiting aids for Alqueada, the neocons "partner" in their "unending war."
Rather than trying to destroy Alqeada and its leaders Bush's actions actually doubled their numbers while he was in office.
Obama has abandoned the recruiting for Alqueada by leaving Iraq and now Afghanistan in favor of actually targeting those that would do us harm.
The danger is that this plan way weaken Alqueda to the point where they are no longer a threat, I think that is the real "consequence" you are worrying about.
 
iguanaman said:
Bush's "plan" was to place 200,000 Americans in the heart of the middle east to act as targets and recruiting aids for Alqueada, the neocons "partner" in their "unending war."
Rather than trying to destroy Alqeada and its leaders Bush's actions actually doubled their numbers while he was in office.
Obama has abandoned the recruiting for Alqueada by leaving Iraq and now Afghanistan in favor of actually targeting those that would do us harm.
The danger is that this plan way weaken Alqueda to the point where they are no longer a threat, I think that is the real "consequence" you are worrying about.
Click to expand...

Mindless myopia is an illness but one you CAN cure. Just requires you to actually THINK. Lets he very honest. Bush signed the agreement to withdraw from Iraq in 2008. Obama did a good job not ****ing it up. Obama bashed the Bush surge in Iraq, then implemented a surge in Afghanistan. Problem is...there is no leadership and the surge has stalled. However...those two realities aren't what this thread is about. This thread is about Obama following and in fact stepping up the drone attacks on terror targets. This is about Obama rightfully targeting terror targets. This is about Obama it only following the Patriot Act but expanding its use. This is about Obama not only not closing GITMO, reversing field on constitutional rights for terrorists and civilian trial but in fact increasing black ops prison use. This is about Obama doing a good job and the knee jerk tendency of many conservatives to attack the job he is doing solely based on it being Obama and it is about the knee jerk liberal types that spent 8 years bashing Bush and now championing Obama when he does the same things Bush did. It's....sad really.
 
VanceMack said:
Mindless myopia is an illness but one you CAN cure. Just requires you to actually THINK. Lets he very honest. Bush signed the agreement to withdraw from Iraq in 2008. Obama did a good job not ****ing it up. Obama bashed the Bush surge in Iraq, then implemented a surge in Afghanistan. Problem is...there is no leadership and the surge has stalled. However...those two realities aren't what this thread is about. This thread is about Obama following and in fact stepping up the drone attacks on terror targets. This is about Obama rightfully targeting terror targets. This is about Obama it only following the Patriot Act but expanding its use. This is about Obama not only not closing GITMO, reversing field on constitutional rights for terrorists and civilian trial but in fact increasing black ops prison use. This is about Obama doing a good job and the knee jerk tendency of many conservatives to attack the job he is doing solely based on it being Obama and it is about the knee jerk liberal types that spent 8 years bashing Bush and now championing Obama when he does the same things Bush did. It's....sad really.
Click to expand...

The sad part is that you actually believe that Bush would have withdrawn all our troops from Iraq like Obama did. The neocons would never have let him and under a Republican adminsitration we would still have 20,000 troops there just like Romney suggested we should.
Remember, Bush promised an endless war and went to great pains to make sure that would be the outcome.
 
iguanaman said:
The sad part is that you actually believe that Bush would have withdrawn all our troops from Iraq like Obama did. The neocons would never have let him and under a Republican adminsitration we would still have 20,000 troops there just like Romney suggested we should.
Remember, Bush promised an endless war and went to great pains to make sure that would be the outcome.
Click to expand...

Do you not follow history or the news like...AT ALL? Maybe you missed that whole status I forces agreement signed in 2008 and ratified by the Iraqi parliament MANDATING troops be withdrawn from the cities in 2009 and the country by Dec 2011.

Yeah...I guess in your rush to slobber over Obama ya kinda miss the facts.
 
VanceMack said:
Do you not follow history or the news like...AT ALL? Maybe you missed that whole status I forces agreement signed in 2008 and ratified by the Iraqi parliament MANDATING troops be withdrawn from the cities in 2009 and the country by Dec 2011.

Yeah...I guess in your rush to slobber over Obama ya kinda miss the facts.
Click to expand...

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over 1 trilion dollars so far, and over 6,500 troops have made the ultimate sacrifice. Mitt Romney would have left 30,000 troops in Iraq. He called bringing them home “tragic”. Romney wants to leave our troops in Afghanistan and called Obama’s bringing 30,000 soldiers home Obama’s “biggest mistake.”
 
iguanaman said:
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over 1 trilion dollars so far, and over 6,500 troops have made the ultimate sacrifice. Mitt Romney would have left 30,000 troops in Iraq. He called bringing them home “tragic”. Romney wants to leave our troops in Afghanistan and called Obama’s bringing 30,000 soldiers home Obama’s “biggest mistake.”
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. You could have just said 'touché' and acknowledged how stupid your previous position was but instead wen a completely different route. Well...whatever works for you.
 
VanceMack said:
Mindless myopia is an illness but one you CAN cure. Just requires you to actually THINK. Lets he very honest. Bush signed the agreement to withdraw from Iraq in 2008. Obama did a good job not ****ing it up. Obama bashed the Bush surge in Iraq, then implemented a surge in Afghanistan. Problem is...there is no leadership and the surge has stalled. However...those two realities aren't what this thread is about. This thread is about Obama following and in fact stepping up the drone attacks on terror targets. This is about Obama rightfully targeting terror targets. This is about Obama it only following the Patriot Act but expanding its use. This is about Obama not only not closing GITMO, reversing field on constitutional rights for terrorists and civilian trial but in fact increasing black ops prison use. This is about Obama doing a good job and the knee jerk tendency of many conservatives to attack the job he is doing solely based on it being Obama and it is about the knee jerk liberal types that spent 8 years bashing Bush and now championing Obama when he does the same things Bush did. It's....sad really.
Click to expand...

Good post. Obama has done very few good things in his administration, and has had to work very hard to distract his base from those accomplishments because the base complained so loudly when Bush did them. And you are quite right about the lack of leadership, which is true at home and abroad.
 
VanceMack said:
Truly amazing. If this were GWB, those opposing the current actions by Obama would be leading the charge. Those championing Obamas anti-terror efforts would be burning Bush in effigy. What a country.

Obama is right to continue the Bush policies re the war on terror. He is right to target specific terrorists. If they happen to have been born on American soil and 'choose' to go to foreign lands to fight for their 'cause', say hello to 'consequence'.
Click to expand...

I think they should take to the next logical level, and target anybody at all who criticizes the government or its wars. And then, perhaps, to anybody who criticizes any government official.

And I'll double down, and say let's just eliminate trials completely. To paraphrase President Nixon, when the President does it, it's legal.
 
Henry David said:
I think they should take to the next logical level, and target anybody at all who criticizes the government or its wars. And then, perhaps, to anybody who criticizes any government official.

And I'll double down, and say let's just eliminate trials completely. To paraphrase President Nixon, when the President does it, it's legal.
Click to expand...
Right...because THAT is the next logical step...going from someone who leaves the US to train with terrorist groups and plan attacks against US citizens to someone that is critical of the government. :roll:
 
It is just "rule of law."

Obama had the law changed so he can order anyone killed or imprisoned - publicly or secretly - that he wants to. A first for any president. Therefore, anyone he has killed or imprisoned is justified by rule of law. Since voters just re-elected him, that also is the democratic will of the people. Voters ratified as democratic process the president can have anyone killed he wants to, so that is the legal justification, ie the president wanted him killed, thus meeting the legally justifiable reason and also in accordance with the democratic will of we the people.
 
Harshaw said:
Isn't it so much easier to snipe rather than explain whatever bee you've got in your bonnet? No wonder you've chosen to do it instead.
Click to expand...

In your case yes. Clearly it's a waste to engage with someone whose only tactic is to misconstrue.
 
Top Cat said:
In your case yes. Clearly it's a waste to engage with someone whose only tactic is to misconstrue.
Click to expand...

A "misconstruction" which you are apparently unable to describe. It seems your "only tactic" is to attempt to distract with vague innuendo.
 
Harshaw said:
A "misconstruction" which you are apparently unable to describe. It seems your "only tactic" is to attempt to distract with vague innuendo.
Click to expand...

Nothing vague about it. You failed to comprehend the post. Just grow a pair and sack up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom