Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?

[Little-Acorn]

As you know I am about as far as one can get from being a liberal but this authority resting solely in the President's hands is Unconstitutional because he has authority to use it on more than just the battlefield. Its too broad and appears to set no good guidelines or limitations necessary to prevent ABUSE!!--Tyr

Unfortunately wwe don't always have the luxury of choosing where the battlefiled is, and isn't.

Anywhere these traitors are making war against the United States, IS the battlefield. It's their choice. And the U.S. Armed Services ARE authorized to make war against them, as they make war against us, regardless of where the traitors have chosen to do it.

Letting them hide by choosing the "wrong" location, is equivalent to giving up. It's a ludicrous suggestion.

Do you think WAR is a place for niceties and parlor games, played with an enemy when he is actively trying to kill you?

[fj1200]

So Obama is allowing the TARGETED ASSASSINATION of American Citizens...

And you support him because.......?

Please point out where I support him?

[fj1200]

Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?


(patiently)

It's called "war".

Amazing how often liberals conveniently forget this, and forget the difference.

You don't put the enemy on trial. You kill him.

Keep in mind that these American citizens are making war against the United States. It was their idea. They declared themselves to be the enemy, and actively collaborated with other enemies. Such acts have consequences.

Would you feel better if they were killed by a rifleman from 200 yards away instead of a drone overhead?

Why?

Liberals huh? I thought those who desired adherence to the Constitution were conservative. Besides, who said a sniper was any different?

We're not talking about citizens who happened to have joined an opposing army and were killed in the course of battle, we're talking about a specific action against specific citizens who have not been afforded their rights. It's amazing how some conveniently forget that difference in the name of safety.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nowhere is the Executive granted the ability to act alone. Treason must be brought to the Judicial and Congress sets the punishment. This is a clear overreach by the administration.

[Little-Acorn]

We're not talking about citizens who happened to have joined an opposing army and were killed in the course of battle,

That is EXACTLY who we are talking about. The fact that that opposing army doesn't wear pretty uniforms with all the correct buttons and epaulets, and march in established formations, is completely irrelevant.

we're talking about a specific action against specific citizens who have not been afforded their rights.

We're talking about citizens who have made, and are actively making WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

For several posts now you have ignored as hard as you can, the fact of WAR.

We can, and will, treat them exactly the same as we treated the Japanese and Germans in WWII. If you see 'em, shoot 'em. These are people who are not under our control, who have weapons or easy access to same, and who are actively and voluntarily making war against us, killing Americans when and where they can.

What part of WAR don't you understand?

It's amazing how some conveniently forget that difference in the name of safety.

You have no idea. Unfortunately.

Nowhere is the Executive granted the ability to act alone.

Already refuted earlier in this thread.

[gabosaurus]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27...ost-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

[jimnyc]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27...ost-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

I wouldn't doubt the CIA having remote camps and such. It's the "disappeared" part I doubt. Can you just point out those, or link, where people just disappeared?

[fj1200]

That is EXACTLY who we are talking about. The fact that that opposing army doesn't wear pretty uniforms with all the correct buttons and epaulets, and march in established formations, is completely irrelevant.

Incorrect. No one made any mention of pretty uniforms. I do love it when "conservatives" argue the liberal line though.

We're talking about citizens who have made, and are actively making WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

For several posts now you have ignored as hard as you can, the fact of WAR.

We can, and will, treat them exactly the same as we treated the Japanese and Germans in WWII. If you see 'em, shoot 'em. These are people who are not under our control, who have weapons or easy access to same, and who are actively and voluntarily making war against us, killing Americans when and where they can.

What part of WAR don't you understand?

The only thing I've ignored is a strawman. What you apparently are in favor of is unchecked power held in one branch of government; that branch which you currently have great issue with, or so I thought.

You have no idea. Unfortunately.

Great argument there.

Already refuted earlier in this thread.

You refuted the Constitution earlier in this thread? Do tell.

[Little-Acorn]

I see that little fj1200 is trying as hard as he can to either misunderstand or ignore what I say. So, not much point in talking to him any more.

Back to the subject:
Rules in war are different from rules in civilian activities, where you can bring someone to a trial.

In war, if you see the enemy, shoot 'em. You don't bother checking where he was born first.

This has been true for as long as war has existed.

Did somebody change it recently?

[fj1200]

(states irrelevant obviousness)

Rules in war are different from rules in civilian activities, where you can bring someone to a trial.

In war, if you see the enemy, shoot 'em. You don't bother checking where he was born first.

This has been true for as long as war has existed.

Did somebody change it recently?

fify No changes though, we've always had that "damn" Constitution getting in the way.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1594.cfm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/27...ost-11-arrest/

There are classified CIA documents on various Wiki leaks releases that also detail Ashcroft approving secretive "ghost" camps where detainees were held. Toward the end of the Bush administration, many of these detainees "disappeared."

Please provide your proof or shut the hell up...

Where are these WIKILEAKS papers?

LINK US TO THEM or Stop making claims you cant support.....

[fj1200]

I see that little fj1200 is not sucking down my facile logic. So, not much point in talking to him any more.

Always seems to be that way huh?

Gotta hand it to you though, four posts in one thread is almost a record for you.

[aboutime]

I wouldn't doubt the CIA having remote camps and such. It's the "disappeared" part I doubt. Can you just point out those, or link, where people just disappeared?

jimnyc. Obviously Gabby has no proof. And all of us are witnesses to how wrong she is.

After all. GABBY IS STILL HERE! So the "disappeared" part...just isn't true.

[taft2012]

fify No changes though, we've always had that "damn" Constitution getting in the way.

Yes, but doesn't that same Constitution also give the President immense powers as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to order firing on people overseas?

I gotta go with Little Acorn on this one.

[revelarts]

I see that little fj1200 is trying as hard as he can to either misunderstand or ignore what I say. So, not much point in talking to him any more.
Back to the subject:
Rules in war are different from rules in civilian activities, where you can bring someone to a trial.
In war, if you see the enemy, shoot 'em. You don't bother checking where he was born first.
This has been true for as long as war has existed.
Did somebody change it recently?

Well we've got a war on "terror"
A war on "drugs"
A war on "cancer"
A war on "poverty"


All declared unilaterally by Presidents, not congress
All of them are vaporous and unending and ultimately unwinnable.
all of which congress weakly and tepidly gave some baptism too with a bit of law or resolution.

Yet NONE of those laws gave the president the power -to kill anybody he wants to, anywhere in the world as he sees fit- and even less for potential threats.

You don't blow up a house or a funeral procession for 1 man talking about killing others acorn. That's not "war" that assassination and mass slaughter.


show me a declaration of war if you want to talk war powers. and even there there are rules of engagement, even if YOU don't like to acknowledge them

[fj1200]

Yes, but doesn't that same Constitution also give the President immense powers as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces to order firing on people overseas?

I gotta go with Little Acorn on this one.

So you're going with the Constitutional convenience angle too?