You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The true (in a sense) cost of military spending and what else it could have bought
- Thread starter DemZad
- Start date
Quote from Hombre:
No question , as you have no answers.
Obviously, you've never been in a combat so you know shit. Constitution doesn't apply when bullets are flying .
Actually yes, it does. US citizens, even those accused of treason, are still afforded due process..your simplistic viewpoint notwithstanding. I've shown you the relevant portion of the Constitution so I would encourage you to read it...so you are better able to understand what we are talking about.
Quote from Trader666:
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.
I disagree with your opinion on this. After all, it is unsupported by our supreme law of the land...the Constitution. You remember the Constitution right, the document you swore to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic...to bear true faith and allegiance to the same....ringing a bell yet?
That's your opinion... and you're no more than a shit house lawyer.
Quote from DAS Trader:
I disagree with your opinion on this. After all, it is unsupported by our supreme law of the land...the Constitution. You remember the Constitution right, the document you swore to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic...to bear true faith and allegiance to the same....ringing a bell yet?
Quote from Brokewave:
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.
Well, according to some Awlaki should have known that his treason might get his offspring murdered by a government that did not even bother to try to prove his treason. That makes sense right?
Quote from Trader666:
That's your opinion... and you're no more than a shit house lawyer.
The Constitution is not my opinion. It is the document you swore to support and defend, the supreme law of the land, and the framework for our system of justice. I don't need to be a lawyer to know how to read.
Serious question here Trader666, do you remember the oath you took when you joined the Army?
Your interpretation of the Constitution is absolutely your opinion.
Obama took an oath too and, unlike you, went to Harvard Law School and taught constitutional law. Do you really think you know better and that he deliberately and purposely violated his oath and authorized "murder" (as you call this military action against a terrorist)? What about the army of attorneys whose opinions went into the legal advice he was given? Where's the impeachment?
Even if the Supreme Court ruled on this (and I hope they do) you'd probably still "think" you know better... which is not to say they're infallible but given how you've jumped to false conclusions about me for example, you're fallible too.
Obama took an oath too and, unlike you, went to Harvard Law School and taught constitutional law. Do you really think you know better and that he deliberately and purposely violated his oath and authorized "murder" (as you call this military action against a terrorist)? What about the army of attorneys whose opinions went into the legal advice he was given? Where's the impeachment?
Even if the Supreme Court ruled on this (and I hope they do) you'd probably still "think" you know better... which is not to say they're infallible but given how you've jumped to false conclusions about me for example, you're fallible too.
Quote from DAS Trader:
The Constitution is not my opinion. It is the document you swore to support and defend. I don't need to be a lawyer to know how to read.
Serious question here Trader666, do you remember the oath you took when you joined the Army?
Quote from Trader666:
Your interpretation of the Constitution is absolutely your opinion.
Obama took an oath too and, unlike you, went to Harvard Law School and taught constitutional law.
Who better to subvert it? Also, I am not interpreting it, I am reading it. It's cut and dry. Do you need me to link to the pertinent part again?
Quote from Trader666:
Do you really think you know better and that he deliberately and purposely violated his oath and authorized "murder" (as you call this military action against a terrorist)? What about the army of attorneys whose opinions went into the legal advice he was given?
Lawyers get paid to advocate for their clients. Otherwise, their clients get different lawyers.
Quote from Trader666:
Even if the Supreme Court ruled on this (and I hope they do) you'd probably still "think" you know better... which is not to say they're infallible but given how you've jumped to false conclusions about me for example, you're fallible too.
All human beings are capable of making mistakes, that's the SCOTUS, the President, you, me, and even Santa Claus..even he get's it wrong sometimes. The Supreme Court is not infallible, unfortunately. As an example, they recently ruled that corporations are the same as people.
Also, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again, do you remember the oath you took when you joined the Army?
Right... just like you went off half-cocked with your phony "declaration" that I'm a "chickenhawk."
You are interpreting it and no, I don't need to see it again. One of your problems is you have trouble differentiating between opinions and facts. Another is that you don't know what you don't know.
I do remember my oath and my interpretation of the Constitution is this regard is different than yours.
Where's the impeachment?
You are interpreting it and no, I don't need to see it again. One of your problems is you have trouble differentiating between opinions and facts. Another is that you don't know what you don't know.
I do remember my oath and my interpretation of the Constitution is this regard is different than yours.
Where's the impeachment?
Quote from DAS Trader:
Who better to subvert it? Also, I am not interpreting it, I am reading it. It's cut and dry. Do you need me to link to the pertinent part again?
Lawyers get paid to advocate for their clients. Otherwise, their clients get different lawyers.
All human beings are capable of making mistakes, that's the SCOTUS, the President, you, me, and even Santa Claus..even he get's it wrong sometimes. The Supreme Court is not infallible, unfortunately. As an example, they recently ruled that corporations are the same as people.
Also, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again, do you remember the oath you took when you joined the Army?
Quote from Trader666:
Right... just like you went off half-cocked with your phony "declaration" that I'm a "chickenhawk."
Haven't we covered this. You asked for an apology, I gave it; you asked for it to be amended; I amended it; you accepted, and then you offered an apology...then I accepted. Now you keep circling back to it as though it is home base in a game of freeze tag. Are you truly not at peace with this yet?
Quote from Trader666:You are interpreting it and no, I don't need to see it again. One of your problems is you have trouble differentiating between opinions and facts. Another is that you don't know what you don't know.
I'm sure you can read as well as I can. The Constitution requires no interpretation as far as article 3 section 3 is concerned. It's a plain as day.
Quote from Trader666:I do remember my oath and my interpretation of the Constitution is this regard is different than yours.
Interesting; so let's explore that a bit. What is your interpretation of article 3 section 3? Please be sure to include supporting documentation with your analysis.
Quote from Trader666:Where's the impeachment?
I'd like to know that myself. So would a lot of others, and for more than just the extra judicial murder of an American citizen, bad as he may have been, or his son, who never hurt anyone, or starting an illegal war in Libya, which is now under Sharia law, or getting ready to sign legislation that will allow him to indefinitely detain American citizens, or...well, the list goes on.
Maybe you think the POTUS should have dictatorial powers but I do not share that sentiment, neither does the Constitution. To believe in that manner is unAmerican. Do you believe the POTUS should have dictatorial powers?