• 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 .
Are wars. legal systems and accidents included? Because if they are, everyone would be impeached.
 
It should be.

I'd have to agree with you here. In terms of the actual "scandals" going on, this in terms of the highest law of the land is the worst. I don't see it ever happening, partially because the GOP won't impeach over a national security issue, but Obama just FLAT UP ADMITTED that we assassinated 4 Americans without due process.
 
Are wars. legal systems and accidents included? Because if they are, everyone would be impeached.

This is in the subtle context of drone assassinations. Furthermore, accidents aren't really denying in the sense that the government isn't actively taking your life.
 
When you phrase it that way, this sounds like an abortion thread. Let me phrase it my way. Ordering the killing of American citizens by the military without trial should not be allowed. Whether the appropriate way to enforce that is impeachment of the commander in chief, I don't know. If it takes something that drastic to put a stop to it, probably. But the US government should not be in the business of using the military to kill people without trial.

Are wars. legal systems and accidents included? Because if they are, everyone would be impeached.

I am 100% okay with holding our leaders criminally liable for starting wars. They should have to prove necessity in order to do so. Emergency situations to current hostile attacks are obviously necessary, as would actions to counter immediate threats of hostile action. Anything else should be much more rigorously scrutinized.
 
I'd have to agree with you here. In terms of the actual "scandals" going on, this in terms of the highest law of the land is the worst. I don't see it ever happening, partially because the GOP won't impeach over a national security issue, but Obama just FLAT UP ADMITTED that we assassinated 4 Americans without due process.

Obama has definitely normalized this type of "criminal justice".
 
When you phrase it that way, this sounds like an abortion thread. Let me phrase it my way. Ordering the killing of American citizens by the military without trial should not be allowed. Whether the appropriate way to enforce that is impeachment of the commander in chief, I don't know. If it takes something that drastic to put a stop to it, probably. But the US government should not be in the business of using the military to kill people without trial.

Under COTUS, technically the unborn aren't citizens and not granted such rights. Some states may attempt to change that, but right now, the unborn do not have a right to due process. I see the value in using drones to remove threats that are impractical to remove otherwise, but at the same time our highest law of the land flat up states you cannot do that.
 
OK, now that the topic is revealed I'll stay on topic.

No. Within the USA, I would be very upset if due process was eliminated, although I fear it may already have been.

Overseas, war is war. It doesn't matter who is killed by the military although presumably there should be some basis for the action. If you are actively engaged in warfare against us, I don't care what country you are a citizen of. Bombs away.

I don't have the impression that this has been a casual decision by the CIC. Drones are a tool of war. Will this come back to haunt us? Yes, I think so bvut not because we killed Americans but because we vuolated other countries sovereignty and someday they may return the favor.




This is in the subtle context of drone assassinations. Furthermore, accidents aren't really denying in the sense that the government isn't actively taking your life.
 
It will never be impeachable in these particular circumstances.

Now at the end of the day.

When it comes to impeachment and talk of impeachment, the far Right Wing generally has been playing semantics all these years.

But this one is a very valid concern.

How does the President get away with the very serious ramifications of ending a citizens life without due process.

Now sometimes it's done by law enforcement when that law enforcement faces imminent danger and has to waste a guy.

But in this particular case, this was a cold, hard decision made by the executive branch in essence to execute a citizen without a trial... grave questions must be asked about these actions and yet they're not being asked.

I believe in part.

There is a silent consent among many on this board and perhaps many in the US because the guy was an Islamic Terrorist.

The citizenship and constitutional aspects of this case fall away for quite a few people because of that.
 
Is denying Americans the right to life without due process an impeachable offense?

Not necessarily. If you are an imminent threat to someone else then due process goes out the window.
 
Not necessarily. If you are an imminent threat to someone else then due process goes out the window.

How do we define imminent? I see this whole assassination without due process taking us down a very, very dark road. I said it back in 2009 and I'll say it again. Obama is Bush's 3rd and now 4th term. Cheney would be salivating at death from above without due process.
 
How do we define imminent? I see this whole assassination without due process taking us down a very, very dark road. I said it back in 2009 and I'll say it again. Obama is Bush's 3rd and now 4th term. Cheney would be salivating at death from above without due process.

How can we provide due process to someone who cannot be captured?
 
That is true. DOI has no legal bearing, but my point is that the government is executing citizens without trial.

(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.
 
Last edited:
How do we define imminent? I see this whole assassination without due process taking us down a very, very dark road. I said it back in 2009 and I'll say it again. Obama is Bush's 3rd and now 4th term. Cheney would be salivating at death from above without due process.

Bush and Cheney had their opportunity and didn't exercise it much at all so that part of your comment is utter hogwash.

As far as determining imminence you take the situation at hand, look at the facts and circumstances then decide. It's not an exact science but it's not brain surgery either.
 
They were very slick in how they approached this subject of drone killing citizen or not outside the US as enemy combatant. Declaring a War on Terrorists and claiming that any member of a suspected terrorist group is subject to internment or bombing. It's unprecedented and IMO will not go down in history as an heroic venture.
 
That is true. DOI has no legal bearing, but my point is that the government is executing citizens without trial.

An impeachable offense is anything that the Congress says it is. That is the only legal aspect to it. No judicial review in Presidential impeachments. The House issues the articles, the senate hears the case prosecuted by the sponsors in the House and that is that.
 
Is denying Americans the right to life without due process an impeachable offense?

If you are talking about the drone attacks, the answer is no. These U.S. citizens became enemy combatants as surly as any Nazi soldier during WWII, but worse. They are traitors, subversives and saboteurs. As enemy combatants, citizenship become irrelevant. No one would hesitate to kill an American Citizen serving the Nazi's, these folks are in the same category.
 
That's a damn good question, but I don't see how that alone is a reason to effectively ignore COTUS.

At the point in which American citizens are actively engaging in warfare against us then they aren't just criminals. They have, for all intents and purposes, rescinded their own citizenship and are resisting arrest until the moment that they surrender to the US. I think that high treason should be tried just like any other crime, but if someone leaves the country to join a hostile force it is not only practical but reasonable to kill them without trial. If they are captured that's a different story.
 
That's a damn good question, but I don't see how that alone is a reason to effectively ignore COTUS.

I think we need to subject the concept itself to strict scrutiny. The State can restrict or deny any right so long as it can demonstrate a compelling State interest in doing so. That is a pretty high standard, but I think the State interest in defending the nation from terrorists roaming and plotting freely meets that criteria. I also think the fact that the actions required to provide due process in these situations constitutes an undue, and frankly unacceptable, burden also works in the State's favor. With that in mind, I do believe that there should be greater oversight and judicial review of each case. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not permit trial in absentia, or I would strongly support that option.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
At the point in which American citizens are actively engaging in warfare against us then they aren't just criminals. They have, for all intents and purposes, rescinded their own citizenship and are resisting arrest until the moment that they surrender to the US. I think that high treason should be tried just like any other crime, but if someone leaves the country to join a hostile force it is not only practical but reasonable to kill them without trial. If they are captured that's a different story.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom