• 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!

Poll: Should President Obama Be Impeached? Read on...

Should President Obama be Impeached?


  • Total voters
    56
I agree with his actions and think he has done a great job with regard to fighting terrorism so obviously I dont think he should be ompeached...I just find the contrasting positions very interesting. What 'legal positions' would you like to see him offered regarding terrorists?

There should be a trial in absentia where a defense attorney is appointed for Awlaki. Obama would then have to prove three things to the judge and/or jury (all of whom have access to classified information): First, he would have to prove that Awlaki was guilty of a felony. Second, he would have to prove that Awlaki was a continued national security threat to the United States. Third, he would have to prove that Awlaki could not be apprehended and extradited to the United States by normal means. If the judge and/or jury agreed with Obama on all three of these points, then Obama would be free to hunt him down in Yemen.

At least, that would be my preferred legal outcome. I'm sure there are other variants on that which would be acceptable to me as well.
 
If he had been tried and found guilty, there would be very little discussion over this.

Yes there would. A conviction in absentia is not necessarily the same thing as authorizing the president to hunt someone down with a Predator drone. It would have certainly helped, but I don't think even this should be sufficient. Sending an arrest warrant to Interpol and an extradition request to Yemen is quite different than assassinating an American citizen with a missile in another country.

I'm not saying it shouldn't ever be done, I'm just saying we need to change our legal system to provide some oversight for situations like this.
 
Another question, if the President of the United States is able to unilaterally declare a US citizen living abroad as an enemy of the United States because he is releasing propaganda to America's enemies, and target him for assassination, how is that any different than the Russian government poisoning journalists living in England for writing things critical of Vladimir Putin?

I'm not suggesting that Awlaki is on the same moral level as Litvinenko...but without a trial and a conviction, that's nothing more than my opinion.
 
There should be a trial in absentia where a defense attorney is appointed for Awlaki. Obama would then have to prove three things to the judge and/or jury (all of whom have access to classified information): First, he would have to prove that Awlaki was guilty of a felony. Second, he would have to prove that Awlaki was a continued national security threat to the United States. Third, he would have to prove that Awlaki could not be apprehended and extradited to the United States by normal means. If the judge and/or jury agreed with Obama on all three of these points, then Obama would be free to hunt him down in Yemen.

At least, that would be my preferred legal outcome. I'm sure there are other variants on that which would be acceptable to me as well.
Would that same standard be applied to all terrorists? And it WOULD be sort of difficult to have said trial wouldnt it? i mean...other than having a defense attorney consistently saying 'un-uh!' how could they mount a credible defense? (that sounds sarcastic...its not meant to be-in our legal system if a defendent cant participate in their defense it doesnt work out very well).
 
I voted no, but that is only because you tied the vote to killing a terrorist. I would vote to impeach him though, just not for that reason. Obamacare alone would warrant impeachment, it is uncostitutional to penalize and fine me for not purchasing a product I may not use. You are not penalized if you do not carry auto insurance, if you do not drive, and therefore you cannot penalize me because I do not have medical insurance. So, YES, Obama should be impeached, but no, not for killing a terrorist.
 
Would that same standard be applied to all terrorists?

Only to American citizens living abroad.

And it WOULD be sort of difficult to have said trial wouldnt it? i mean...other than having a defense attorney consistently saying 'un-uh!' how could they mount a credible defense?

They could argue that although Awlaki is hardly an upstanding citizen, there's no evidence that he's actually been guilty of planning terrorist acts (as opposed to merely inspiring them) and therefore he shouldn't be targeted for assassination. It would probably be a tough defense to make, but it might be their best bet. And if they can't mount a credible defense, well, then that's probably more of an indication that he's guilty than that there is something wrong with the process.

(that sounds sarcastic...its not meant to be-in our legal system if a defendent cant participate in their defense it doesnt work out very well).

I agree, but it's better than the alternative which is to have no trial at all and allow the president to unilaterally assassinate American citizens who he deems to be enemies.
 
Last edited:
Obama should be impeached because...

1) He violated the War Powers Act.

2) He usurped the presidency.

And for selling arms to the Mexican drug cartels.
 
Coming soon to a election near you

 
Not for this. But in general, for the exceptionally grave damage he has done to the US economy, Yes! :)

The job market will be his biggest downfall, but killing a terrorist and traitor is nothing out of the ordinary.
 
I'm thinking that if a US citizen knows that he is wanted for a crime, he should turn himself in and be afforded a fair trial. If a US citizen knows he is wanted for a crime, but expends great effort 1.) to avoid capture and 2.) to continue in the unlawful offense, then he's got to expect that his death is something that may occur as the law enforcement agency in charge attempts to curb the offender's efforts.

However, if a US citizen desires to peacefully surrender and is hindered from such or is refused a fair trial after such, only then (in my somewhat pitiful opinion) have his rights been violated.

If Obama lied to Congress and the American people about this issue or his involvement in it, then he should be indicted. But, if he came to Congress and said, I'm authorizing our noble folks to use deadly force on this puke if he doesn't turn himself in, then while I find his policy to be terribly inconsistent to his spoken views and criticisms, I'm fine with the action taken.
 
LOL! Is this the new GOP alternative to not being able to find a candidate that can beat Obama in the upcoming election???

You guys are too much (all 6 of you, from the poll results I see)! LOL!
 
And for selling arms to the Mexican drug cartels.

Selling arms to the Mexican drug cartels? Nearly all of those guns are bought in the SW states with little to no gun control and then smuggled over the border. I don't know what makes you think Obama plays a part in that, unless you're talking about the sting operation that went bad a while back, something I am sure Obama personally knew nothing about.
 
Back
Top Bottom