• 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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You are so uninformed it is pathetic:shock:

He was in Yemen. YEMEN! When the hell was Yemen a terrorist haven:lol:


Yemen is not a terrorist factory - CNN

Is Yemen a terrorist country

What's amusing is that you consider YOURSELF to be well informed. One of your links is two years old (that's prior to the Arab Spring and the ousting of Saleh - a rather important development in the status of Yemen don't you think?) and the other is a wiki-answers question :lamo

The fact of the matter is that the locus of terrorism has pivoted west away from AfPak (largely due to our military efforts) and towards the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb. Yemen has been in an effective state of turmoil since 2011 during which AQAP has been been able to capitalize and expand. The Yemen government has been warring against AQAP in the south for over a year now. AQAP is estimated to be in the thousands now rather than the hundreds it was in 2010.

Triage for a Fracturing Yemen - By April Longley Alley | The Middle East Channel

Losing Yemen - By Gregory Johnsen | Foreign Policy

Building a Yemeni state while lossing a nation - By Silvana Toska | The Middle East Channel
 
Nor does the government have control over where his father takes him.

His father was killed two weeks earlier. Not the same strike.

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.

Call me old fashioned, but I think when the government kills its own citizens and will provide no evidence or even an explanation of why, we shouldn't just blithely dismiss it as a "collateral casualty." They have some explaining to do. :roll:
 
Obvious back-pedaling:lol:

NOt at all. I'm merely stating that EVEN IF IT IS ONLY A FEW HUNDRED - and I don't concede for a minute that it is, it's now a few hundred minus a few.

You go ahead and shed your tears for terrorists and their sympathizers. I'll save mine for their victims.
 
What's amusing is that you consider YOURSELF to be well informed. One of your links is two years old (that's prior to the Arab Spring and the ousting of Saleh - a rather important development in the status of Yemen don't you think?) and the other is a wiki-answers question :lamo

The fact of the matter is that the locus of terrorism has pivoted west away from AfPak (largely due to our military efforts) and towards the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb. Yemen has been in an effective state of turmoil since 2011 during which AQAP has been been able to capitalize and expand. The Yemen government has been warring against AQAP in the south for over a year now. AQAP is estimated to be in the thousands now rather than the hundreds it was in 2010.

Triage for a Fracturing Yemen - By April Longley Alley | The Middle East Channel

Losing Yemen - By Gregory Johnsen | Foreign Policy

Building a Yemeni state while lossing a nation - By Silvana Toska | The Middle East Channel

I can tell you now that those sympathetic to the terrorist cause will simply ignore this post.
 
His father was killed two weeks earlier. Not the same strike.

So? The government is still not responsible for the boy being in Yemen or being at a location where the US is known to be actively conducting strikes against Al Qaeda.


Call me old fashioned, but I think when the government kills its own citizens and will provide no evidence or even an explanation of why, we shouldn't just blithely dismiss it as a "collateral casualty." They have some explaining to do. :roll:

What's there to explain? Civilians and other individuals that we do not intend to kill sometimes get killed by our attacks. It's unfortunate, and our military does its best to avoid such occurrences.

If there was a continued emerging pattern of US citizens being targeted and killed around the world, that would be pause for concern. I don't find one person whose father was known to be involved with terrorism and who, himself, may or may not have been actively involved with Al Qaeda who was killed in an air strike over a year ago with zero evidence that he was the intended target of said attack to be terribly alarming.
 
So? The government is still not responsible for the boy being in Yemen or being at a location where the US is known to be actively conducting strikes against Al Qaeda.




What's there to explain? Civilians and other individuals that we do not intend to kill sometimes get killed by our attacks. It's unfortunate, and our military does its best to avoid such occurrences.

If there was a continued emerging pattern of US citizens being targeted and killed around the world, that would be pause for concern. I don't find one person whose father was known to be involved with terrorism and who, himself, may or may not have been actively involved with Al Qaeda who was killed in an air strike over a year ago with zero evidence that he was the intended target of said attack to be terribly alarming.

The government IS responsible for breaking the law.

Do you think the government should be held accountable for its law breaking?
 
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.

The NYT is merely a mouthpiece for the federal government. As with so many newspapers, it is no longer practicing journalism as it was once known. It merely supports government decisions and actions.
 
The government IS responsible for breaking the law.

Do you think the government should be held accountable for its law breaking?

Which law was broken? The law that says it's illegal to kill americans who hang out with terrorists? Do you have a cite for that law?
 
Which law was broken? The law that says it's illegal to kill americans who hang out with terrorists? Do you have a cite for that law?

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board. Truly, shockingly, astonishingly stupid. The world that you live in which could produce such thoughts is terrifying indeed.

If the most basic notions of murder aren't enough for you, nor the horror contemplated by it being perfectly legal for the government to kill Americans who merely "hang out with terrorists" if can even be proven that they do, here's a refresher on the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
The government IS responsible for breaking the law.

Do you think the government should be held accountable for its law breaking?

What law did the government break?
 
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board. Truly, shockingly, astonishingly stupid. The world that you live in which could produce such thoughts is terrifying indeed.

If the most basic notions of murder aren't enough for you, nor the horror contemplated by it being perfectly legal for the government to kill Americans who merely "hang out with terrorists" if can even be proven that they do, here's a refresher on the 5th Amendment:

The government deprives people of their lives without due process of law all of the time. It's called war. Or a police shootout. Or any one of a number of other things that occur that cost low lifes their existance without a judge pronouncing a death sentence.

You want to sympathize with terrorists and their hangers-on, be my guest.
 
The NYT is merely a mouthpiece for the federal government. As with so many newspapers, it is no longer practicing journalism as it was once known. It merely supports government decisions and actions.

Yeah, and I understand unless Romney wins the election the UN is invading Texas.
 
What law did the government break?
I'm curious too. This question has been asked repeatedly (in so many words) throughout this thread and no one has provided an answer to it.
 
So? The government is still not responsible for the boy being in Yemen or being at a location where the US is known to be actively conducting strikes against Al Qaeda.




What's there to explain? Civilians and other individuals that we do not intend to kill sometimes get killed by our attacks. It's unfortunate, and our military does its best to avoid such occurrences.

If there was a continued emerging pattern of US citizens being targeted and killed around the world, that would be pause for concern. I don't find one person whose father was known to be involved with terrorism and who, himself, may or may not have been actively involved with Al Qaeda who was killed in an air strike over a year ago with zero evidence that he was the intended target of said attack to be terribly alarming.

Well, they need to explain themselves for their actions to determine if they were abusing their powers at the very least. Not just this incident, but all actions. Right now they have free reign to kill anyone they themselves accuse of being a terrorist with no oversight.

I apologize for wanting to keep the government in check. How Un-American of me. I should be labeled a terrorist now:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom