• 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 am as liberal as any lib on this board and I have no problem saying that when it comes to the horrid practice pf drone strikes, particularly signature strikes, Obama is orders of magnitude worse than Bush was. Bush was certainly worse in other areas, but when it comes to wonton use of the drones, the Obama administration reigns supreme.

For every actual terrorist we kill with them I wonder how many we create?

I am not a liberal, nor a conservative for that matter, but I have to agree that in many, many cases, drones strikes are a bad idea.
 
This is quite the conundrum. On one hand, I absolutely support the use of drones to take out terror targets. On another hand...well...I have a really hard time caring all that much about terrorist affiliates. On yet another hand I couldnt give a good damn if the targets are 6 or 16 if they are actual terror targets and I could care FAR less if they are Americans in Yemen. Missiles from drones dont stop and ask for ID, nor do they have a divert and self destruct guidance system when the targets are minors. I would love to give blanket support of the Obama administration for continuing the war against terrorists. And yet...

There is nothing to indicate that the targets of this specific attack were actually terror targets. Thats a bit bothersome. And Gibbs glib remarks sound like any and every typical kneejerk Obama supporter that excuses justifies and rationalizes any and every act done by Obama. The comment 'he should have picked a better daddy implies the attack was justified not because they were actual targets but because his father was. That would be the equivalent of a SWAT team kicking in the door of a known gang bangers house and killing him, then, two weeks later going in and killing his teenage son for no other reason than his daddy was a known gang banger.

My problem is (if I'm being honest) that I REALLY have a hard time getting very worked up about terror targets being taken out in Yemen. If most people are honest, Id say that is truly what it comes down to. Its not a whole lot different than the people that get a raging hard-on over the thought of protesting GITMO but not giving half a damn about the administrations use of black ops prisons in the ME. Everyone has a little bit of hypocrite in them.
 
After reading through the post and the article, I have a question. The article points out he was killed by a drone strike, however, it never actually says he was the target of the drone strike. It may lead you to think that, but doesn't say it outright.

Was he the intended target of the strike or was he collateral damage when the drone struck at another target?

We do not know. The Obama Administration will neither confirm nor deny that he was the intended target, except to say that he "should have had a more responsible father." As far as I'm concerned that's an unsatisfactory answer; we shouldn't just take it on the president's word (even if he were to make such a statement).
 
We do not know. The Obama Administration will neither confirm nor deny that he was the intended target, except to say that he "should have had a more responsible father." As far as I'm concerned that's an unsatisfactory answer; we shouldn't just take it on the president's word (even if he were to make such a statement).

I see. Not that I needed another excuse, because next Tuesday I intended to vote to fire the current President anyways, now I just have one more item on a very long list of reasons to get rid of Obama. I never liked the drone policy to begin with and definitely haven't liked his expansion of it.

Using drones to strike individuals, besides the increased collateral damage, is too heavily reliant on good intelligence and our track record on that is not very good.
 
Let's take a look at the bigger picture, here. Drone strikes do not suddenly, magically give the Executive Branch the power (not necessarily legal, but de facto) to kill anyone on the planet at a whim; the President already has that power by merit of his position as Commander in Chief. Before drones, he/she would have ordered an assassin with a regular old M40 to post up behind the target and kill him/her; in other words, the Drone is only another part of an already large and effective arsenal that is at the President's disposal.

All moral and legal issues aside, then, all that is occurring is the forward march of technology enabling different methods of killing. 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.

Again, if we put aside our moral lenses, what this sixteen-year-old boy's death shows is that war is still a dirty, dangerous, unpredictable affair in which plenty of 'good' people die and plenty of 'bad' people live fulfilling lives of 'Evil'-- on both sides, no less.

-Duxwing

Are you serious?

He has already done, many times and for a few years now, what you describe as "giving him the power". The really old timers had a word for it, usurp or usurpation of powers. That's how long it's been around--tyrants claiming the right to kill anybody for anything, once they devise the sophistry.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
"..................... 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.

That's pretty clear, man. Sorry.

You obviously missed the important part of the letter you quoted:

Read Attorney General Holder's Letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Here - Eric Holder - Fox Nation

1. The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond
dispute.
See generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130
S. Ct. 3138 (20 10); FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). The Supreme
Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case,
Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012
the Court held that " t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is.”
Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177.

Read more: Read Attorney General Holder's Letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Here - Eric Holder - Fox Nation


Maybe you should read letters a little more carefully and find out what the definition of "presumptively" is. Again, constitutionality is NOT decided by Congress, it's decided by SCOTUS.
 
Do you actually not understand the Presumption of Constitutionality? It sounds like you do not.

I definitely do far more than you understand delegation of powers.
 
I definitely do far more than you understand delegation of powers.

OK, then state in simple terms what the Presumption of Constitutionality means with regards to laws passed by Congress. It really doesn't sound like you understand.
 
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 and subsequent posts on this thread indicate that you do not have much knowledge of the US Constitution and the principles and philosophies upon which it was founded. Hatuey tried to explain, but you resist.

And in this post, you suggest that you are content to have the federal government determine your moral code. You seem fine with the federal government telling you what is right and what is wrong.

Sad state of affairs, and very much what Franklin was talking about--" a Republic madam, IF you can keep it."
 
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.

You are correct in your statement about presumption of constitutionality, but you're missing the larger point.

That presumption can easily be nothing but sophistry, and is not much more than a poor effort to streamline government, which happens to be a good goal. But in the end, it presumes that Congress does not err, rather the way Catholics believe that the Pope does not err.

It is a fallacy to think that Congress does not err. Anybody who pays attention just a little bit knows that Congress errs more often than not. Bismark compared the legislative process to making sausage, and he was not far off.

The AUMF is pure sophistry. The President is ALREADY the C-in-C, and can do as he pleases with the military. FDR even talked about it. "I cannot declare war, but I can wage war."

The GWOT is a fraud of epic proportions, promoted by all 3 branches of the federal government.
 
"The second notable statement concerns the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki."

Doesn't sound like an American to me.

One thing you 3rd world Muslims need to understand is that there is a big difference between an "American Citizen" and an "American."

One scene that is firmly etched into the minds of all actual Americans is the picture of the pretty young American girl, dressed up in her nicest clothes for work, probably excited about her first job, jumping to her death out of the window on the 24th floor of the World Trade Center because the fire caused by the Muslims was burning her. Americans love their children and American fathers are particularly protective of their young daughters. We spend all of our time worrying about them and trying to protect them from evil.

You will not be forgiven by Americans for your barbarous behaviour, nor do we care about Al-Alawki's kid. You will never be welcome in America. This is not the place for you to whine.

Believe it.

This thread is about the abuse of executive powers. But you can't hold back your hatred for an entire peoples from the action of a few:lol:

His father was born in the USA. He was born in the USA. He is an American. But he does not "sound like an American"? So for him to "sound like an American", he needs to have one of the following names:

Jake
Connor
Tanner
Wyatt
Cody
Dustin
Luke
Jack
Scott
Logan
Cole
Lucas
Bradley
Jacob
Garrett
Dylan
Maxwell
Hunter
Brett
Colin

See, this is the type of narrow-mindedness that makes America look so bad:(
 
"The second notable statement concerns the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki."

Doesn't sound like an American to me.

One thing you 3rd world Muslims need to understand is that there is a big difference between an "American Citizen" and an "American."

One scene that is firmly etched into the minds of all actual Americans is the picture of the pretty young American girl, dressed up in her nicest clothes for work, probably excited about her first job, jumping to her death out of the window on the 24th floor of the World Trade Center because the fire caused by the Muslims was burning her. Americans love their children and American fathers are particularly protective of their young daughters. We spend all of our time worrying about them and trying to protect them from evil.

You will not be forgiven by Americans for your barbarous behaviour, nor do we care about Al-Alawki's kid. You will never be welcome in America. This is not the place for you to whine.

Believe it.

What a racist piece of crap post. Not to mention a very ignorant one.
 
Back
Top Bottom