Quote from DAS Trader:
Yes. Something not yet proven is alleged. That's how we describe it when someone is suspected of something. Alleged. Do you need me to link to websters for you?
Quote from DAS Trader:
None of your previous posts give your interpretation of the following excerpt from the US Constitution:
"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."
This whole argument hinges on this point. You stated you interpreted this differently than I did. If so, how?
Quote from Hombre:
Only retarded cocksucking muslim piece of shit will say something stupid like that .
People like you are the reason that society is so fucked up. There were about 100 witnesses who saw him shooting those boys and fucking jerk off like yourself is playing with words. You fucking ignorant prick.
Welcome to ignore you fool .
Quote from Trader666:
Bullshit. Go back and try reading.
Again... 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?
Quote from DAS Trader:
Again, I did go back and re read your previous comments. You stated you interpreted the referenced section of the Constitution differently than I did. Yet you never indicated what your interpretation was. I've been trying to ascertain what your alternate interpretation is ever since. Is it a secret?
Also, I am not the only one accusing the President of betraying his oath of office.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29284.htm
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/10/0...erican-principles-of-justice-just-like-i-did/
(lol you know it's bad when Dick Cheney accuses you of violating our justice principles)
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-02/news/30252234_1_president-obama-citizen-protection/2
http://www.therightperspective.org/...paul-is-100-right-on-al-awlaki-assassination/
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...n-trying-fight-terrorism-president-must-still
So stop acting like I am the lone voice calling this out. The proof is in the Constitution, specifically article 3 section 3, that part which you refuse to now acknowledge and the part which you now refuse to explain your alternate interpretation on. You must realize that there is only one way to interpret the referenced section and are now attempting to tap dance away from it. Just so you know, you are not much of a dancer.
If anyone is obfuscating, it's you.
Quote from Trader666:
So where's the impeachment and why didn't everyone in the military who had anything to do with this refuse? Would you have refused? Because it's their duty to NOT obey unlawful orders. Where are the courts-martial?
Quote from Trader666:
For the third time, 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?
Quote from Trader666:
Those are serious charges and a bunch of internet links, two by Ron Paul, one by a radio personality and one by the ACLU don't constitute proof of anything.
Quote from Trader666:
So where's the impeachment and why didn't everyone in the military who had anything to do with this refuse? Would you have refused? Because it's their duty to NOT obey unlawful orders. Where are the courts-martial?
Quote from DAS Trader:
Asked and answered. As evidenced by the links, I am not the only one calling this out. Also, I did not misinterpret Cheney...I simply said he said it went against our justice principles.
The proof is the White Houses' unwillingness to use the courts. It has been well documented the WH skipped this necessary step. It's all a matter of public record how this was done.
Your whole argument here seems to hinge on the belief that since no one was a convicted or even charged with a crime, a crime did not occur. Crimes are committed all the time without someone either being accused or convicted so this belief is demonstrably false.
And that brings us back to your unwillingness to give your alternate interpretation of article 3 section 3.
"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."
You see, this is where the violation occurred. The Constitution is very clear on this and in the case of Awlaki, the rule of law was not followed.
Now, if you have an alternate interpretation of the aforementioned section of the Constitution, by all means share it...because it may prove your point. Would you care to prove your point at this time or do you wish to continue to obfuscate?
Quote from Trader666:
Bullshit. For the FOURTH time, 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?
Quote from Trader666:I bring it up as a much needed reality check for you. It's also an ongoing policy BTW and al-Awlaki was only one of three Americans killed so far.
Quote from Trader666:Finally, I have written several times how I think article 3 section 3 applies. Go back and try reading.
Quote from Trader666:P.S. Would you have refused to carry out your part had you been involved and on active duty?
Quote from Trader666:My reference to no charges or convictions isn't my argument, moron.
Quote from Trader666:Quote from Trader666:So where's the impeachment and why didn't everyone in the military who had anything to do with this refuse? Would you have refused? Because it's their duty to NOT obey unlawful orders. Where are the courts-martial?
Quote from DAS Trader:
...Trader666, all dramatic bluster and sophomoric gestures aside, the first thing one should realize, is that the White House assumed the role of the judicial branch and carried out an execution....
...You see, you are confused again. I am not asking how you think it applies, I am asking how you interpret the article...in other words, what it means to you...