• 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
MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Pretty strong opinions on the thread about al-alwaki's assassination in light of his being an American citizen. How about a poll: Should the President be impeached?

Early last year, the President put Al-alwaki on the CIA's Kill List, at their request. That was well reported in the news. Al-alwaki's father, together with the ACLU, brought a suit against the government on the grounds that Al-alwaki is a US citizen. The US District Court threw out the case:

"There are circumstances in which the (president's) unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is constitutionally committed to the political branches and judicially unreviewable," U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded last year. In his 83-page decision last December, Bates dismissed an effort by al-Awlaki's father and civil liberties groups to block, in essence, al-Awlaki's execution. While acknowledging many "stark and perplexing questions," Bates said he lacked the authority to get involved.

Read more: Some question president's power to kill a US citizen overseas - KansasCity.com
Click to expand...

Congressional hearings were held on the matter earlier this year:

At a U.S. congressional hearing this year, Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said, "I actually consider al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, with al-Awlaki as a leader within that organization, as probably the most significant threat to the U.S."
Click to expand...

U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed, Yemen says - Iowa State Daily: World

What've we got?
  • A US Citizen who was identified by the CIA as kill-worthy in the war on terror.
  • A Lawsuit brought about to "stay the execution" dismissed by the US District Court with an opinion that says that courts have no authority in the matter.
  • Hearings held making Congress aware of the kill order, apparently without uproar.
I vote "No" above. You?

G. W. Bush, September 2001: "We will never tire, and we will hunt them down."
 
No, from your link:

kansascity.com said:
More specifically, the Obama administration finds justification through the two-page Authorization for Use of Military Force introduced on Sept. 14, 2001, and signed by President George W. Bush four days later.

The bill authorized action against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided the (9/11) terrorist attacks." A decade later, the Obama administration contends that this wartime authority remains even if it's evolved for reasons the administration won't fully elucidate.
Click to expand...
 
Obama should be impeached because...

1) He violated the War Powers Act.

2) He usurped the presidency.
 
MaggieD said:
Pretty strong opinions on the thread about al-alwaki's assassination in light of his being an American citizen. How about a poll: Should the President be impeached?
Click to expand...

Not for this. But in general, for the exceptionally grave damage he has done to the US economy, Yes! :)
 
I would be happy with congress or the courts officially determining that the Constitution has supremacy over a presidential hit list.

don't care about impeachment.. I care about allowing Americans to be assassinated at the behest of the NSC without due process.
 
Frankly, while I understand everyones concerns, I have little sympathy for those who annoy bears and get mauled.

"That what you get" should have a stronger place in our jurisprudence.

Broke into someones house and got shot?

That's what you get.

Talk long **** about and actually attack the US.and get offed for it?

That's what you get.

Get your neck snapped when somebody catches you molesting a little kid?

That's what you get.
 
Voltaire X said:
Obama shouldn't be impeached as Bush wasn't for the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama should be impeached either for this, even though I don't like how he threw out the rule of law. However, I think it is fallacious to give Obama free passes just because George Bush sucked. Unfortunately, many progressives love to use George Bush as a standard for the Obama administration. I thought many progressives would hold Obama to higher standards than Bush, but Bush is the gift that just keeps on giving.
 
Obama simply did what Congress said he could do. It is Congress that should be held ultimately accountable.
 
No, he shouldn't be impeached. I think that this highlights a problem in our legal system that needs to be fixed. Obviously it isn't always possible to arrest someone and bring them to trial if they are living abroad, American citizen or not. So the options are kill them or leave them alone. I'm not comfortable with the president being able to unilaterally target American citizens for assassination, but our legal system didn't give him any other option.

What I would like to see is a "trial in abstentia" by a judge and jury who have access to classified information. Obama would then have to prove three things to the judge and jury: 1) Awlaki had committed a felony, 2) Awlaki was still a threat to the national security of the United States, and 3) Awlaki couldn't be arrested and extradited by normal means. If the judge/jury signed off on it, then Obama would have free reign to hunt him down with Predator drones. If they said no, then he wouldn't. Such a system wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a big step forward from what we currently have, where the president gets to pick and choose who he wants to kill without any oversight whatsoever.
 
Obama should be impeached just for his knowing about, and approval of the FAST AND FURIOUS ACT gone bad.
 
Kandahar said:
No, he shouldn't be impeached. I think that this highlights a problem in our legal system that needs to be fixed. Obviously it isn't always possible to arrest someone and bring them to trial if they are living abroad, American citizen or not. So the options are kill them or leave them alone.
Click to expand...

Or try him.......as you go on to note.

I'm not comfortable with the president being able to unilaterally target American citizens for assassination, but our legal system didn't give him any other option.

What I would like to see is a "trial in abstentia" by a judge and jury who have access to classified information. Obama would then have to prove three things to the judge and jury: 1) Awlaki had committed a felony, 2) Awlaki was still a threat to the national security of the United States, and 3) Awlaki couldn't be arrested and extradited by normal means. If the judge/jury signed off on it, then Obama would have free reign to hunt him down with Predator drones. If they said no, then he wouldn't. Such a system wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a big step forward from what we currently have, where the president gets to pick and choose who he wants to kill without any oversight whatsoever.
Click to expand...

HE HAS THIS OPTION. err, had this option.
 
Misterveritis said:
Not for this. But in general, for the exceptionally grave damage he has done to the US economy, Yes! :)
Click to expand...

and have the moron Biden as president? Hell no. Now if we could impeach both as a package deal that would be fine with me
 
MaggieD said:
Pretty strong opinions on the thread about al-alwaki's assassination in light of his being an American citizen. How about a poll: Should the President be impeached?

Early last year, the President put Al-alwaki on the CIA's Kill List, at their request. That was well reported in the news. Al-alwaki's father, together with the ACLU, brought a suit against the government on the grounds that Al-alwaki is a US citizen. The US District Court threw out the case:



Congressional hearings were held on the matter earlier this year:



U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed, Yemen says - Iowa State Daily: World

What've we got?
  • A US Citizen who was identified by the CIA as kill-worthy in the war on terror.
  • A Lawsuit brought about to "stay the execution" dismissed by the US District Court with an opinion that says that courts have no authority in the matter.
  • Hearings held making Congress aware of the kill order, apparently without uproar.
I vote "No" above. You?

G. W. Bush, September 2001: "We will never tire, and we will hunt them down."
Click to expand...

For having a terrorist/enemy combatant on foreign soil killed? Hell No. If was on American soil then that would be a different story.
 
Muhammed said:
Obama should be impeached because...

1) He violated the War Powers Act.

2) He usurped the presidency.
Click to expand...

How the **** did he usurp the presidency when he was lawfully elected?
 
I voted yes, I meant to vote no. Obama shouldn't be impeached for the killing of a terrorist leader.
 
MaggieD said:
Pretty strong opinions on the thread about al-alwaki's assassination in light of his being an American citizen. How about a poll: Should the President be impeached?

Early last year, the President put Al-alwaki on the CIA's Kill List, at their request. That was well reported in the news. Al-alwaki's father, together with the ACLU, brought a suit against the government on the grounds that Al-alwaki is a US citizen. The US District Court threw out the case:



Congressional hearings were held on the matter earlier this year:



U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed, Yemen says - Iowa State Daily: World

What've we got?
  • A US Citizen who was identified by the CIA as kill-worthy in the war on terror.
  • A Lawsuit brought about to "stay the execution" dismissed by the US District Court with an opinion that says that courts have no authority in the matter.
  • Hearings held making Congress aware of the kill order, apparently without uproar.
I vote "No" above. You?

G. W. Bush, September 2001: "We will never tire, and we will hunt them down."
Click to expand...

No, he should not be impeached because he did not target Al-alwaki because he was an American citizen or even because of his political views. Rather, he was targeted because he is a leader within a terrorist organization.

However, to be fair, I think the credibility of such "targeted killing" would have more legitimacy if such American citizens in terrorist organizations were tried for treason and found guilty.
 
For this ??? hell no
 
Redress said:
How the **** did he usurp the presidency when he was lawfully elected?
Click to expand...
By his own admission he is not a natural born citizen of the US, therefore he is obviously not constitutionally eligible to be president.
 
1Perry said:
Or try him.......as you go on to note.

HE HAS THIS OPTION. err, had this option.
Click to expand...

My understanding of US law (which admittedly is not totally clear) is that trials by absentia can be used to convict a fugitive of a crime...but there is no mechanism in our legal system to target a US citizen living abroad for assassination. I think we probably need something like this for practical reasons, but it should be reserved for people who are a threat to national security.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Not for this. But in general, for the exceptionally grave damage he has done to the US economy, Yes! :)
Click to expand...

Damn that Obama for making people in the 2002-2007 period for taking out such idiotic loans and for forcing banks to make those loans

I guess he has surpassed Barney Frank as the most powerful person in the world
 
Sorry, but stupid question. If you can eliminate a threat that is planning to kill thousands of innocent civilians for his own religious zealousness than you should do it. The President should only be impeached if he is the religious zealot attempting to kill US citizens, not protecting them.
 
P.s.

If you want Obama impeached for this, I would suspect you only want him impeached because you disagree with him. That is not what impeachment is for. No body on this forum would like to see Obama out of office more than me. But I'm not going to sacrifice the sanctity of the Constitution for one political victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom