The true (in a sense) cost of military spending and what else it could have bought
- Thread starter DemZad
- Start date
Interesting opinion. Unfortunately, it is not backed up by the supreme law of the land...which is the Constitution.
Article 3
Section 3 - Treason
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.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html
Since this requirement was not satisfied, Obama has exceeded his Constitutional authority. As such, he should be impeached for violating his oath of office, which, btw, was where he swore to protect and defend the Constitution. Don't take my word for it though:
Presidential Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
Also, Awlaki's 16 yr old son was also killed in the drone strike. He was not linked to terrorism in any way shape or form. He was also a US citizen. So the whole enemy combatant thing doesn't even enter the picture. He was a teenager and was murdered; Obama is responsible.
Any questions?
Seems to me that the only person here who has even glanced at the Constitution is DAS Trader.
Even though I disagree with Libertarians on economic issues, you could not be more right about this.
The President has NO authority to kill ANY U.S CITIZEN without a trial! Not on a "battlefield" (Since when is America at war with the nation of Yemen?) or not on American soil. ALL Americans have the right to due process, and I would be even a LITTLE bit less angry about this if the had convicted him IN ABSENTIA in an American court of law of treason before they killed him, and murdered his U.S. Citizen son who frankly was killed without reason.
Even though I disagree with Libertarians on economic issues, you could not be more right about this.
The President has NO authority to kill ANY U.S CITIZEN without a trial! Not on a "battlefield" (Since when is America at war with the nation of Yemen?) or not on American soil. ALL Americans have the right to due process, and I would be even a LITTLE bit less angry about this if the had convicted him IN ABSENTIA in an American court of law of treason before they killed him, and murdered his U.S. Citizen son who frankly was killed without reason.
Who'd have thought that I'd be supporting Obama on something you do not?
I agree that if captured he should be tried for treason but capture him at what cost (to the military AND potential civilian victims)? I see this as a military analogue of police killing a shooter. Should police capture more shooters alive by sacrificing more officers and more civilian victims?
Before dismissing this analogy for the differences consider the similarities.
I agree that if captured he should be tried for treason but capture him at what cost (to the military AND potential civilian victims)? I see this as a military analogue of police killing a shooter. Should police capture more shooters alive by sacrificing more officers and more civilian victims?
Before dismissing this analogy for the differences consider the similarities.
Yup... and if he'd been in a court room, that's the standard they should have adhered to to convict him. But he was on what for all intents and purposes was the battlefield, helping Al-Qaeda wage war against the United States.
P.S. Al-Awlaki should have thought about his son before he joined Al-Qaeda and HE'S responsible, NOT Obama.
P.S. Al-Awlaki should have thought about his son before he joined Al-Qaeda and HE'S responsible, NOT Obama.
Fact -
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) (U.S. Department of State, 2007) defines terrorism as âpremeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.â
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion -
Right now a law abiding dissident has no worries. I hate the government with a passion. But its words and political talk. Right now I can spew whatever I want in any medium I choose. But it would not take much to change the definition of terrorist to make it apply to a broad range of people and activities. That is what we need to remain vigilant about.
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) (U.S. Department of State, 2007) defines terrorism as âpremeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.â
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion -
Right now a law abiding dissident has no worries. I hate the government with a passion. But its words and political talk. Right now I can spew whatever I want in any medium I choose. But it would not take much to change the definition of terrorist to make it apply to a broad range of people and activities. That is what we need to remain vigilant about.
Did you know the DOD considers an anti war protest low level terrorism now?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526972,00.html
I'd love to believe this will only be used against people who seek to physically harm or who provide material support (i.e.: money, equip., etc) to those who harm, however, it appears the lines are being intentionally blurred.
The Patriot Act was sold as a tool to be used ONLY against "terrorists". Ten years later, we find out it is mostly used in drug cases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...an-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html
How would it be used 10 years from now I wonder.
So when I hear the administration promise to only use this against the "bad guys", I have to wonder, who exactly do they mean? More importantly, who will that be 10 years from now?