Quote from DAS Trader:
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 Hombre:
In the time of war, read up on Awlaki-Fort Hood connection, is sometimes necessary to make a judgment call and get a bad guy out the most efficient way. Even he is a US citizen and his rights were violated, it was a right call and there is no need to stop this kind of killings.
However when mother and teenage boy living at Ruby Ridge were murdered by federal agents, that case deserves your and mine outrage.
Quote from DAS Trader:
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?
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.
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.
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?
Quote from Trader666:
Don't pretend that a prime example of you jumping to a false conclusion has anything to do with me being "at peace."
Quote from Trader666:
Or that "the Constitution requires no interpretation as far as article 3 section 3 is concerned" in this case. Where's YOUR "supporting documentation" and "analysis" other than your insistence that it's "plain as day"?
Quote from Trader666:
Is it unconstitutional for police to kill a shooter without a trial? At some point, it must also be constitutional for the military to kill an enemy combatant without a trial, even if he's a citizen.
Quote from Trader666:
I don't think POTUS should have dictatorial powers. But I do think he should be able to authorize the military to kill terrorists on the battlefield. If someone's worried about becoming a target, then don't join Al-Qaeda.
Quote from DAS Trader:
I'm taking your word for it and respecting your wish not to discuss it. However, the more you bring it up the more I question your bona fides.
Still waiting for your interpretation of the referenced section. You stated earlier you had a different interpretation so what is it? Remember, back it up with supporting documentation. I simply read it and comprehended it. If my comprehension is wrong, then it is on you to show me why.
False equivalence. Is Obama the police and did Awlaki pose an imminent (as in if we don't kill him right this second other people around him will be harmed) threat? If so, where's the proof? Ironically enough, killing him killed innocents around him but that's water under the bridge right?
So what oversight do you propose to ensure we are actually killing terrorists? Please be sure to link that to the oversight we currently have in place.
Quote from Trader666:
Grow the fuck up and back up YOUR childish assertions that you "think" are fact. YOU'RE the one accusing the president of ordering murder and subverting the Constitution for authorizing the military to kill a member of Al-Qaeda on the battlefield... which isn't a courtroom, dumbass. And I didn't say the situations were equivalent. When to act or not given the totality of circumstances isn't black and white and neither of us know the details. Link to your details if you "think" you have any. Oversight? How about impeachment? Which will never happen because this isn't what you of your messiah claim it is.
Quote from DAS Trader:
What was your alternate interpretation of the referenced section again? We'll skip the documentation for now. I would simply like to know what you think the following means:
"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."
What is your interpretation of that?
Quote from DAS Trader:
Alleged connection and not the right call. Subverting the rule of law was unnecessary. If there is evidence of a connection (Ft Hood Shooter, Underwear Bomber (who was assisted by our own State Department)) then that evidence should have been presented to a judge. If it was classified then the information could have been redacted in order to protect sources and methods. The judge could have been given an interim clearance so he or she could have made an informed judgement. Then, the rule of law would have been preserved. He could have been tried in absentia and based on the evidence, convicted and sentenced to death.
There was absolutely no reason to skip this step if the evidence exists, save one...in order to establish the precedent that it's ok for the POTUS to murder a US citizen on his say so. That's the problem.
Quote from Trader666:
Go back and read my posts and quit obfuscating by answering a question with a question. YOU'RE the one accusing the president of ordering murder and subverting the Constitution for authorizing the military to kill a member of Al-Qaeda on the battlefield, so where's YOUR proof?