• 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!

Impeachable Offense

Is denying Americans the right to life without due process an impeachable offense?

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
digsbe said:
I think it depends on the situation. If an American citizen joins a terrorist organization and conspires to kill Americans or has killed Americans I'm fine with them being targeted and killed as an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...

Still an American citizen. They still have the right to due process.
 
Henrin said:
Still an american citizen. They still have the right to due process.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think as an American enemy combatant your citizenship shouldn't give you immunity.
 
digsbe said:
I disagree, I think as an American enemy combatant your citizenship shouldn't give you immunity.
Click to expand...

And yet the constitution makes no such distinction.
 
Henrin said:
And yet the constitution makes no such distinction.
Click to expand...

One could argue that the killing is done in self defense. Would it be alright for a private citizen to kill an American terrorist as an act of self defense. They are an enemy combatant, as an American they have also committed treason.
 
Actually, this thread raises another important question that I don't see anyone ever ask. Why is the default position people hold for the punishment for treason alway seems to be death? Furthermore, why is everyone always so hostile about it? What are you guys? Puppets of the state?
 
I think this thread really proves my point about why this will not be impeachable.

It's not that Obama knew he could get away with it legally.

It's that he knew he could get away with it politically.

Legally the Obama administration have not provided a legal justification and framework for these drone strikes I believe satisfies in any way, shape or form serious legal questions about whether or not these were constitutional actions.

However, you listen to the overwhelming consent voiced in this thread because it had to do with terrorism and you'll find why he'll never be impeached over it.
 
Sheriffs all across the country hope not. Seems silly to impeach a sheriff when one of his deputies discharges his firearm against a criminal and kills the criminal.
 
Depends entirely on the circumstances. When you actively engage in actions against the United States, and attempt to harm your fellow citizens, you place yourself out of normal guidelines.
 
Does the Constitution provide for the death penalty or is this not addressed?

Real question. No sarcasm. It might help me understand.

Henrin said:
And yet the constitution makes no such distinction.
Click to expand...
 
I'm no Obama fan and I was initially negative about this strategy. I felt there needed to be a special court to insure that death warrants were not issued casually. I think they are now addressing that issue, no doubt due to my great wisdom, and are providing this.

There are numerous ruling by SCOTUS that have negated the purity of the 4th amendment. For Constitutional purists, this must be disturbing (check points are an example). I'm glad this is now out in the open.
 
obvious Child said:
Is denying Americans the right to life without due process an impeachable offense?
Click to expand...


Let's put it in context.
Nixon foiled LBJ's peace talks with Vietnam and extended the war killing more USA soldiers. That was OK.
Reagan sabotaged Carter's negotiations with Iran to free the hostages and Used lots of death and destruction in Nicaragua to finance it. That was OK.
Bush1 suckered Saddam into attempting to reclaim his oil lands from Kuwait. led to 1st Iraq war. Thousands of dead Iraqis. That was OK.
Bush 2 (shrub) invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands and 4,000 dead Soldiers. That was OK.
Obama helped invade Libya and lots of death resulted. That was OK.
Am I missing something here, or is this just a partisan turd toss.
 
While many threads on here are "partisan turd tosses" I think our purpose here is to examine the rightness or wrongness of the specific actions of pre-emptive justice abroad. So far, I've seen both sides presented but not in the "turd toss" manner.

Bush 2's action were not OK with me and a lot of other people. So please be fair.



DaveFagan said:
Let's put it in context.
Nixon foiled LBJ's peace talks with Vietnam and extended the war killing more USA soldiers. That was OK.
Reagan sabotaged Carter's negotiations with Iran to free the hostages and Used lots of death and destruction in Nicaragua to finance it. That was OK.
Bush1 suckered Saddam into attempting to reclaim his oil lands from Kuwait. led to 1st Iraq war. Thousands of dead Iraqis. That was OK.
Bush 2 (shrub) invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands and 4,000 dead Soldiers. That was OK.
Obama helped invade Libya and lots of death resulted. That was OK.
Am I missing something here, or is this just a partisan turd toss.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Does the Constitution provide for the death penalty or is this not addressed?

Real question. No sarcasm. It might help me understand.
Click to expand...

The death penalty is fine in terms of due process. Though it does violate the right to life.
 
As we see from the voting, there is no firm consensus on this topic. That's healthy (I think).

Henrin said:
The death penalty is fine in terms of due process. Though it does violate the right to life.
Click to expand...
 
Slyfox696 said:
Sheriffs all across the country hope not. Seems silly to impeach a sheriff when one of his deputies discharges his firearm against a criminal and kills the criminal.
Click to expand...

The drone strikes were ordered by _ _ _ _ _.
 
Henrin said:
And yet they did not rescinded their citizenship at any stage of your scenario. I realize you want to kill them, so you're looking for a way to get past due process, but that is just your own twisted mind getting the better of you.
Click to expand...

Being an enemy combatant without surrendering is resisting arrest, is it not? Isn't deadly force authorized in eliminating the threat of someone who is armed, dangerous, and cannot be apprehended, in wartime or otherwise?
 
MadLib said:
Being an enemy combatant without surrendering is resisting arrest, is it not? Isn't deadly force authorized in eliminating the threat of someone who is armed, dangerous, and cannot be apprehended, in wartime or otherwise?
Click to expand...

That's a stretch you have to at least make the attempt to apprehend a suspect, not just drop a bomb on his head from a robot plane.
 
MadLib said:
Being an enemy combatant without surrendering is resisting arrest, is it not? Isn't deadly force authorized in eliminating the threat of someone who is armed, dangerous, and cannot be apprehended, in wartime or otherwise?
Click to expand...

Are you really comparing a life and death situation that a police officer has to make decision on with the president ordering someone to be killed?
 
Henrin said:
The drone strikes were ordered by _ _ _ _ _.
Click to expand...
The deputies were ordered to the scene by _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

Henrin said:
Are you really comparing a life and death situation that a police officer has to make decision on with the president ordering someone to be killed?
Click to expand...

Do you really not understand the comparison? In both instances, we have an American citizen who poses an immediate and credible threat to the safety of other Americans, a citizen who refuses to surrender to the proper authorities.
 
Slyfox696 said:
The deputies were ordered to the scene by _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Click to expand...

He didn't order the deputy to shoot. Guess who did?

Do you really not understand the comparison? In both instances, we have an American citizen who poses an immediate and credible threat to the safety of other Americans, a citizen who refuses to surrender to the proper authorities.
Click to expand...

No, I don't understand a self defense issue where the officer has a gun point at him being compared to a national security issue where no one has a gun pointed at anyone.
 
Henrin said:
He didn't order the deputy to shoot. Guess who did?
Click to expand...
He ordered the deputy to subdue the suspect. You're splitting hairs and you know it.

No, I don't understand a self defense issue where the officer has a gun point at him being compared to a national security issue where no one has a gun pointed at anyone.
Click to expand...
So if a guy has a gun, it's okay to kill him to save Americans, but if the guy is actively engaging in warfare against Americans, arming those who would do harm against us with explosives, then we should politely ask him to stop?

I'm sorry, but I find your logic to be rather strange.
 
MaggieD said:
We don't have a right to life per se.
Click to expand...

I extremely disagree with that. We do have a right to life, it is a natural right.

MaggieD said:
(You looked that up, didn't you! I had to do the same. Ha! "Life, Liberty and all that.)

To have it out in the open is certainly precedent. I'm not sure it's ever been admitted to before. But I'm sure it's been done.

To answer your question, there are times when I think they do have that right. There are times when American citizens trump their citizenship by becoming enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

In regard to the bolded, al Awlaki was still a US citizen, legally speaking, when he was killed. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport)
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I extremely disagree with that. We do have a right to life, it is a natural right.

In regard to the bolded, al Awlaki was still a US citizen, legally speaking, when he was killed. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport)
Click to expand...

I couldn't argue much with life being a "natural right." It has nothing to do with government, however. As to Anwar al-Awlaki, as I said in my post, he was an enemy combatant. His being a citizen didn't change that.
 
If the government knows one of these turds is there, then due process could be a citizenship hearing to revoke citizenship prior to shooting. That would be due process enough for me.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If the government knows one of these turds is there, then due process could be a citizenship hearing to revoke citizenship prior to shooting. That would be due process enough for me.
Click to expand...

I think it falls into the category of defending the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom