Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 100
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,660
    Thanks (Given)
    4779
    Thanks (Received)
    5272
    Likes (Given)
    1617
    Likes (Received)
    1430
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Ha
    Under article iii, yea-- that's why they dismissed it. Alwaki showed no interest in seeking constitutional relief. Did you read it; they mentioned it multiple times.
    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Not in awhile. Thanks for the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.

    In addition to dismissing on grounds that Nasser al-Awlaki lacked standing to bring the suit, the court explained that the case was ultimately outside of the purview of federal courts. In a major victory for the executive branch's role in setting counter-terrorism policy, the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:


    • the precise nature and extent of Anwar al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQAP;
    • whether AQAP and al-Qaida are so closely linked that the defendants' targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen would come within the United States' current armed conflict with al Qaida;
    • whether (assuming plaintiff's proffered legal standard applies) Anwar al-Awlaki's alleged terrorist activity renders him a 'concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety."


    These considerations, the court acknowledged, are simply not within the purview of federal courts. "It is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." Although the procedures remain classified, a Pentagon document titled "Joint Targeting Cycle and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology," shed some light on the procedures for targeted identified terrorists.

    Clearly, Bates expressed discomfort with the decision. "This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicial unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120...laki-suit.html
    I don't think anyone is really questioning the evidence against Awlaki, more the process in which we deprive a citizen of their rights and protections.

    I think the first two point ARE within the courts purview because it relates to evidence; is he affiliated with AQAP? Are they linked? The answer likely being yes and easily provable. The third is he an imminent threat? Is that the question? Do we "convict" on what he might do or do we convict on the basis of what he did do? I think it's pretty clear on what he did do so he can be "convicted" based on the evidence. I definitely don't want to be giving power to one branch of government based on what he might do.

    I think the author overstates that it was a "major victory" in setting policy because that isn't the question. The executive can set the policy but they can't act as all three branches in carrying it out.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    I don't think anyone is really questioning the evidence against Awlaki, more the process in which we deprive a citizen of their rights and protections.

    I think the first two point ARE within the courts purview because it relates to evidence; is he affiliated with AQAP? Are they linked? The answer likely being yes and easily provable. The third is he an imminent threat? Is that the question? Do we "convict" on what he might do or do we convict on the basis of what he did do? I think it's pretty clear on what he did do so he can be "convicted" based on the evidence. I definitely don't want to be giving power to one branch of government based on what he might do.

    I think the author overstates that it was a "major victory" in setting policy because that isn't the question. The executive can set the policy but they can't act as all three branches in carrying it out.
    Was it the process which failed to protect his rights, or him? He rejected, wholly, the process by which his rights are protected under the Constitution. He wasn't killed merely for might do alone..he did orchestrate terror attacks, he did call for a Jihad on America-- so he was killed for what he might, and would, do again.
    I understand what you're saying I think-- you're suggesting we should have granted him a trial in absentia, in stark contrast to his own interests and wishes. It seems to me he expressed his rightful intention to never be brought to justice while alive-- we granted his request. "I think that's what Awlaki wanted"

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,660
    Thanks (Given)
    4779
    Thanks (Received)
    5272
    Likes (Given)
    1617
    Likes (Received)
    1430
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Was it the process which failed to protect his rights, or him? He rejected, wholly, the process by which his rights are protected under the Constitution. He wasn't killed merely for might do alone..he did orchestrate terror attacks, he did call for a Jihad on America-- so he was killed for what he might, and would, do again.
    I understand what you're saying I think-- you're suggesting we should have granted him a trial in absentia, in stark contrast to his own interests and wishes. It seems to me he expressed his rightful intention to never be brought to justice while alive-- we granted his request. "I think that's what Awlaki wanted"
    To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  4. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished.
    IF law is to be considered just by perception alone, than i guess so.

    Certainly prudence plays a part in the consideration; but from a purely subjective standpoint-- if you deny the enforcement of a law, you can't very well be afforded its protection-- Two-way street.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,660
    Thanks (Given)
    4779
    Thanks (Received)
    5272
    Likes (Given)
    1617
    Likes (Received)
    1430
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    IF law is to be considered just by perception alone, than i guess so.
    fyi, I added to my post.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  6. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    fyi, I added to my post.
    ditto

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.
    I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

    Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    24,660
    Thanks (Given)
    4779
    Thanks (Received)
    5272
    Likes (Given)
    1617
    Likes (Received)
    1430
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    40
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    ditto
    Too-shay.

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

    Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.
    Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

    I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  9. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Too-shay.



    Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

    I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.
    No arguments on most of this.
    Except I think the judiciary is the forum, pending Awlaki himself having expressed a willingness for the courts to redress his grievance. He did not; and I think it stands to reason he was aware of his right to do so. He chose not to, for whatever reasons; but regardless, I don't believe any procedural change (save Sharia law) would have compelled Awlaki to submit to the authority of the US Government. Thus, any changes based on the specifics of the case at hand are moot.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,996
    Thanks (Given)
    4882
    Thanks (Received)
    5015
    Likes (Given)
    3259
    Likes (Received)
    1864
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Too-shay.



    Constitutionally prescribed autonomy --exactly-- which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. --if that's constitutional-- The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

    I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.
    as an aside gripe that will probably get little traction.
    STANDING in this case and others is another issue that seems to leave "the people" hung out to dry. But in this case If we used the same/similar standards used by the last and current Presidents then every American would have "standing".
    Terrorist MIGHT kill us, they have threatened us and written about killing us. Foreign Countries ARE GETTING weapons that MIGHT kill us. They MIGHT attack us. Well the President MIGHT put you or me in jail without a trail. The President MIGHT decide any American is a Terrorist therefore We all have standing and have the right to take the president to court. Because he's taking steps that THREATEN every Americans freedoms. PRE-EMPTIVE standing. Every year the president claims more and more authority and we can site cases where he has attacked and killed innocent Americans, Al-Walaki's Son to name 1. Where he's jailed without trial and used undue treatment if not torture against American citizens, Bradly Manning to name 1. Where terror laws have been used against Americans who are clearly NOT terrorist , I've posted pages of examples before. Our safety is threatened by an out of control Executive branch. We've got to get Him BEFORE he gets us. he's already on our shores.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    Every year the president claims more and more authority and we can site cases where he has attacked and killed innocent Americans, Al-Walaki's Son to name 1. Where he's jailed without trial and used undue treatment if not torture against American citizens, Bradly Manning to name 1.
    Al-walaki's son was "innocent"... I suppose you have proof that they intentionally targeted his son; and he wasn't just collateral damage of known al Quada operations. I realize it upsets you; but his father had absolutely no intention of ever being taken alive and standing trial for his repeated and ongoing involvement in jihad on the West; seeking asylum in the arms of, and further inspiring jihad and hate in, his tribal brothers and sisters; which common sense dictates that his son was undoubtedly a part.

    Bradly Manning, if i'm not mistaken, was a US soldier-- I don't believe he has the same rights as a citizen-- he waived them when he signed up.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Isn't it the relative location that determines a foreign vs domestic threat, and not one's national origin?

    We have referred to them as domestic terrorists in every case of this, and so that means they are, according to admin, domestic and not foreign.

    if I tried to blow up Country B's embassy located in Country A-- I am a domestic threat within Country A, and at the same time a foreign threat to Country B. (Assuming mutual and peaceful diplomatic interests)
    If I did so from Country C, I'm a foreign threat to both; regardless of my national origin.



    In your example its still reviewed under executive purview, not judicial.

    But an agency outside of the police force does the oversight, which is my point. Both Congress and the President are involved in the decision to do this. Making it so that both the heads of the Executive and Legislative branches are in charge, thus Judicial is appropriate here. It would be like allowing Wal-Mart to investigate any crimes and such within their company, without any outside review. See the point of abuse there?

    Often 'political' is a pejorative too. I totally agree that things are intentionally vilified; and sometimes just the opposite, its played down; as in "it's not torture-- its non-traditional interrogation"
    Right, or "stress positions", which is torture, possibly more mild torture, but it's fucking torture. I generally follow a simple guideline: If I am having to search for a more friendly term for what I'm doing, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

    Now, the Domestic AQ leaders clearly fall within Treason during a time of war, so they've got an automatic death penalty hanging even if we took them alive, so this is more about making certain that we're doing due diligence here.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,996
    Thanks (Given)
    4882
    Thanks (Received)
    5015
    Likes (Given)
    3259
    Likes (Received)
    1864
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Al-walaki's son was "innocent"... I suppose you have proof that they intentionally targeted his son; and he wasn't just collateral damage of known al Quada operations. I realize it upsets you; but his father had absolutely no intention of ever being taken alive and standing trial for his repeated and ongoing involvement in jihad on the West; seeking asylum in the arms of, and further inspiring jihad and hate in, his tribal brothers and sisters; which common sense dictates that his son was undoubtedly a part.

    Bradly Manning, if i'm not mistaken, was a US soldier-- I don't believe he has the same rights as a citizen-- he waived them when he signed up.
    love the way you guys dodge my points sometimes.

    PRE-EMPTIVE STANDING -cough-

    But You've Assumed Alwaki's Son Guilty, and that by association, maybe his grandma is AlQuea too. But i thought we assumed American's Innocent Until proven Guilty, at least that what I've been told.

    And Soldiers loose all of there rights when they sign up? C'mon log you know better. So why are theire courts in the military log? for show? So they could just Shoot Manning in Jail and that'd be lawfully? um no , you don't give up all your rights, Your under military law but most constitutional rights are retained especially off the battle field and Speedy trail is One which is especially upheld and important in the military because there is no bail to speak of. And no Cruel and unusual punishment is a Right Taken for granted even for foreign POWs much less our own soldiers.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  14. #89
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,457
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    714
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1515017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    love the way you guys dodge my points sometimes.

    PRE-EMPTIVE STANDING -cough-

    But You've Assumed Alwaki's Son Guilty, and that by association, maybe his grandma is AlQuea too. But i thought we assumed American's Innocent Until proven Guilty, at least that what I've been told.

    And Soldiers loose all of there rights when they sign up? C'mon log you know better. So why are theire courts in the military log? for show? So they could just Shoot Manning in Jail and that'd be lawfully? um no , you don't give up all your rights, Your under military law but most constitutional rights are retained especially off the battle field and Speedy trail is One which is especially upheld and important in the military because there is no bail to speak of. And no Cruel and unusual punishment is a Right Taken for granted even for foreign POWs much less our own soldiers.
    However, in this instance, we already had proof that Awlaki had orchestrated attacks (Some of it his own statements to the effect), and was planning more as he went along. We had to take his threats seriously as he has already shown that he will kill people, even people who are innocent to go after this aims. Now, this doesn't entirely remove due process, but at that point he has declared himself to be an enemy soldier, and that means, as far as the military's concerned, he's an okay target to put bullets into. Should we be making sure that the evidence we have is good and sound as the manner of due process? Of course, I'm not saying otherwise, but you can't just let someone keep on killing people either, and a breach could have cost even more lives in the process.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,996
    Thanks (Given)
    4882
    Thanks (Received)
    5015
    Likes (Given)
    3259
    Likes (Received)
    1864
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    4
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14250995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    However, in this instance, we already had proof that Awlaki had orchestrated attacks (Some of it his own statements to the effect), and was planning more as he went along. We had to take his threats seriously as he has already shown that he will kill people, even people who are innocent to go after this aims. Now, this doesn't entirely remove due process, but at that point he has declared himself to be an enemy soldier, and that means, as far as the military's concerned, he's an okay target to put bullets into. Should we be making sure that the evidence we have is good and sound as the manner of due process? Of course, I'm not saying otherwise, but you can't just let someone keep on killing people either, and a breach could have cost even more lives in the process.
    You must have must scanned my reply, i was talking about the son. But Agreed Due process can't get lost in the shuffle even when on the surface it seem plain that a person is guilty.
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums