Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ron Paul Condemns Killing Of Al Qaeda Figure

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 10:15:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
... And U.S. Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. authorities have never been specific about the crimes, and al-Awlaki deserves his constitutional right to a fair trial, says Paul.

Is Paul right that he deserved a fair trial or is the murder of al-Awlaki justified?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 10:41:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 10:15:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
... And U.S. Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. authorities have never been specific about the crimes, and al-Awlaki deserves his constitutional right to a fair trial, says Paul.

Is Paul right that he deserved a fair trial or is the murder of al-Awlaki justified?

When we authorized the hit on him over a year ago, had he turned himself in, I'd say give him a trial. But since he already released videos telling Muslims to stop "living peacefully," I see no point in risking lives trying to capture him. That is essentaully his guilty plea.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 2:17:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 2:13:35 PM, jat93 wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com...

all he is doing is pointing out the apparent hypocracy of some liberals. Since I support warrently wiretaps, that doesn't apply to me.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 3:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 10:15:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
... And U.S. Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. authorities have never been specific about the crimes, and al-Awlaki deserves his constitutional right to a fair trial, says Paul.

Is Paul right that he deserved a fair trial or is the murder of al-Awlaki justified?

I disagree with Ron Paul on that. He was killed in Yemen, so he has no right to a fair trial since the constitution only affects people who are in America. Not to mention that he told all of his people to stop being peaceful and be militant, and that it would to costly to give a actually capture him and bring him back to the U.S.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 4:43:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see Paul's point of course, but i think if you are president the formula changes. If you have the lives of the American people at stake, they are in the formula, do you opt for the constitution over them? It has been said that the constitution isn't a suicide pact, and i tend to agree with that practical understanding of reality. Ideals are great when they are theoretical, but in application...stuff happens that you just can't count on.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 4:51:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 3:31:03 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/30/2011 10:15:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
... And U.S. Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. authorities have never been specific about the crimes, and al-Awlaki deserves his constitutional right to a fair trial, says Paul.:

The fundamental question was whether or not the US should be in Yemen at all hunting terrorists. Provided we are justified in such actions, it is extremely impractical to capture all of them and give them a trial under Due Process. A war is considerably different from a law enforcement operation, and death is simply an inevitability.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 6:16:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2011 8:26:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another example of Ron Paul being too honest to win the primary.

In a pathetic way, it's funny how politicos harp on how Paul's biggest weakness is that he won't lie or twist his words a bit more often.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 4:01:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
being a US citizen does not provide immunity to collaborate with sworn enemy combatants.

not sure if this man forfeited his citizenship. how many times did he called for the destruction of the united states? i doubt this event could be used as a legal precedent to support the killing of americans by executive orders against constitutional rights.

this was clearly a special case.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 1:36:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 4:01:00 AM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
being a US citizen does not provide immunity to collaborate with sworn enemy combatants.

not sure if this man forfeited his citizenship. how many times did he called for the destruction of the united states? i doubt this event could be used as a legal precedent to support the killing of americans by executive orders against constitutional rights.

this was clearly a special case.

Was it a special case?

Al-Quaeda formally declared war on the USA. The rules of war apply right?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 1:55:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 10:15:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
... And U.S. Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. authorities have never been specific about the crimes, and al-Awlaki deserves his constitutional right to a fair trial, says Paul.

Is Paul right that he deserved a fair trial or is the murder of al-Awlaki justified?

It's unconstitutional to kill a US citizen, without a trial, according to Article 3 section 3;

"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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Also since it was in Article 3, that makes it a Judiciary power, not executive. The president cannot declare a citizen a traitor, and than execute them as he sees fit. They must stand trial.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 11:58:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's unconstitutional to kill a US citizen, without a trial, according to Article 3 section 3;

"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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
That doesn't say anything about it being unconstitutional to kill someone without trial. Treason isn't even the only crime punishable by death, regardless, trials are for those who surrender long enough to be arrested. Why the **** do you think policemen carry guns around? I'm sure sheriffs and constables of the Constitution's day did much the same.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 12:03:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

The USA did not recognise the renunciation of the confederates, so legally the two situations are identical.

Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"

But how is killing enemy forces unconstitutional or illegal.

What am I missing here people?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 1:03:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 12:03:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

The USA did not recognise the renunciation of the confederates, so legally the two situations are identical.

False!
The Confederates denounced US citizenship for State Citizenship
That is what a declaration of independence is. Each state declared that they denounced US citizenship for their states, prior to joining CSA.

It also does not matter if they became citizens of another country so long as they denounced US citizenship.

I can't say for sure about all the people living in the confederacy, but Confederate soldiers sure as hell denounced US citizenship, on a individual level, seeing as they was fighting for CSA's independence.


Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"

But how is killing enemy forces unconstitutional or illegal.

It's not; assassinating US citizens is! If a US citizens becomes an enemy combatant than they become traitors, and are subject to different rights and protections under the law than a foreign enemy combatant would receive.

They did not give him a chance to surrender. They shot him down in cold blood.
That may be OK for a Foreign Enemy combatant, but not a Citizen of the US, who still has rights.

What am I missing here people?

You are missing the part about being a US citizen.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 1:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 11:58:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's unconstitutional to kill a US citizen, without a trial, according to Article 3 section 3;

"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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
That doesn't say anything about it being unconstitutional to kill someone without trial.

"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."

So either a testimony of 2 witnesses in court is needed to convict, or a confession in court is needed to convict.

According to the 5th amendment;

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

Now let's look at this essential right shall we?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

Such as treason

"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

So unless they enlisted are are drafted into the US Military they retain these rights.

The reason our Military does not abide by the same rules is because they sign a paper stating they are property of the US Government, and wave their rights.

He has neither denounced citizenship, nor has he waved his rights or enlisted in the US Military.

Treason isn't even the only crime punishable by death, regardless, trials are for those who surrender long enough to be arrested.

Wasn't given the option. There is a difference between surrender, and turning one's self in.

Why the **** do you think policemen carry guns around?

Not to shoot the the suspect in cold blood. They would get a murder charge for that.

I'm sure sheriffs and constables of the Constitution's day did much the same.

And if caught, they would be charged with murder.

Also one thing that is really mind boggling is that Obama was willing to give foreign Enemy Combatants these essential rights, but not a US citizen.

And foreign Nationals are not under our Judicial Jurisdictions
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 6:28:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 1:03:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 12:03:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

The USA did not recognise the renunciation of the confederates, so legally the two situations are identical.

False!
The Confederates denounced US citizenship for State Citizenship
That is what a declaration of independence is. Each state declared that they denounced US citizenship for their states, prior to joining CSA.

It also does not matter if they became citizens of another country so long as they denounced US citizenship.

I can't say for sure about all the people living in the confederacy, but Confederate soldiers sure as hell denounced US citizenship, on a individual level, seeing as they was fighting for CSA's independence.


So what are you declaring false?
The USA did not recognise this did it? Otherwise it would not have gone to war.


Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"

But how is killing enemy forces unconstitutional or illegal.

It's not; assassinating US citizens is! If a US citizens becomes an enemy combatant than they become traitors, and are subject to different rights and protections under the law than a foreign enemy combatant would receive.

What are these rights and protections.

They did not give him a chance to surrender. They shot him down in cold blood.
That may be OK for a Foreign Enemy combatant, but not a Citizen of the US, who still has rights.

You are going to need to supply a source for this, it certainly does not make sense from a military point of view, also I fail to see how my allusion to the civil war is invalid.


What am I missing here people?

You are missing the part about being a US citizen.

A US citizen who is a combatant (right) in a state of war against the USA.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 9:34:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 6:28:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 1:03:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 12:03:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

The USA did not recognise the renunciation of the confederates, so legally the two situations are identical.

False!
The Confederates denounced US citizenship for State Citizenship
That is what a declaration of independence is. Each state declared that they denounced US citizenship for their states, prior to joining CSA.

It also does not matter if they became citizens of another country so long as they denounced US citizenship.

I can't say for sure about all the people living in the confederacy, but Confederate soldiers sure as hell denounced US citizenship, on a individual level, seeing as they was fighting for CSA's independence.


So what are you declaring false?
The USA did not recognise this did it? Otherwise it would not have gone to war.


They are not the same;

Confederates denounced citizenship
This nut job didn't



Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"

But how is killing enemy forces unconstitutional or illegal.

It's not; assassinating US citizens is! If a US citizens becomes an enemy combatant than they become traitors, and are subject to different rights and protections under the law than a foreign enemy combatant would receive.

What are these rights and protections.

>.< Are you really that dense?

They have a right to trial, for 1..... Not being shot by a drone, while having breakfast.


They did not give him a chance to surrender. They shot him down in cold blood.
That may be OK for a Foreign Enemy combatant, but not a Citizen of the US, who still has rights.

You are going to need to supply a source for this, it certainly does not make sense from a military point of view, also I fail to see how my allusion to the civil war is invalid.

He was shot down by a Drone.

Also the civil war analogy is wrong because
Anwar was a Citizen
Confederates denounced their citizenship
>.<

How many times are you gonna make me repeat myself, it can't get much simpler


What am I missing here people?

You are missing the part about being a US citizen.

A US citizen who is a combatant (right) in a state of war against the USA.

>.< Which makes him a traitor, and is subject to trial.

according to the Constitution, if a US citizen is committed a crime abroad he must be brought back for trial before being found guilty or innocent. He has rights as a Citizen, like it or not; once you let one slip, than its a down hill slope to tyranny from there.

First we will be saying it doesn't apply to him.
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply to people with a serious crime record
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply to people with a crime record
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply at all.

When that happens than we might as well be speaking Russian.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 4:29:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/30/2011 10:15:18 AM, jat93 wrote:
... And U.S. Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

U.S. authorities have never been specific about the crimes, and al-Awlaki deserves his constitutional right to a fair trial, says Paul.

Is Paul right that he deserved a fair trial or is the murder of al-Awlaki justified?

If I mass murder a bunch of people in the U.S., go into hiding, and get caught later then I would get a fair trial. If I mass murder a bunch of people on foriegn land, go into hiding, and get caught later I will be considered a enemy combatant and not get a fair trial.

Let's put it a different way. If I kill an unarmed civilian I will get a fair trial, but if I kill a solder armed to the teeth I will be labled an enemy combatant and will not get a fair trial.

Let's put it another way. If I kill a guy with a Old Navy t-shirt I will get a fair trial, but if I kill a guy with "United States Navy" on it now I am an enemy combatant and will not get a fair trial. Or in other words If I put a costome on I will have a different set of moral rules to follow and a different set of rights and privilieges I can claim.

This is all making my heard hurt.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 4:44:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I declare war on the Empire State Building I will given a fair trial and through Due Process be thrown in jail for vandalism and/or 1st degree murder, but if declare war on the United States I wil be tortured or shot without a fair trial?

What exactly is my point? My point isn't that Mr. Paul is correct that we shouldn't of killed that Al Qauda figure. My point is we should be more consistent with the application of our values even if this involves rethinking our most cherished customs.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 7:35:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 9:34:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 6:28:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 1:03:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 12:03:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

The USA did not recognise the renunciation of the confederates, so legally the two situations are identical.

False!
The Confederates denounced US citizenship for State Citizenship
That is what a declaration of independence is. Each state declared that they denounced US citizenship for their states, prior to joining CSA.

It also does not matter if they became citizens of another country so long as they denounced US citizenship.

I can't say for sure about all the people living in the confederacy, but Confederate soldiers sure as hell denounced US citizenship, on a individual level, seeing as they was fighting for CSA's independence.


So what are you declaring false?
The USA did not recognise this did it? Otherwise it would not have gone to war.


They are not the same;

Confederates denounced citizenship
This nut job didn't

And AGAIN the USA did not recognise their right to denounce citizenship.




Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"

But how is killing enemy forces unconstitutional or illegal.

It's not; assassinating US citizens is! If a US citizens becomes an enemy combatant than they become traitors, and are subject to different rights and protections under the law than a foreign enemy combatant would receive.

What are these rights and protections.

>.< Are you really that dense?

It is a very simple question.

They have a right to trial, for 1..... Not being shot by a drone, while having breakfast.

And again, were the Confederate soldiers placed on trial prior to being killed?



They did not give him a chance to surrender. They shot him down in cold blood.
That may be OK for a Foreign Enemy combatant, but not a Citizen of the US, who still has rights.

You are going to need to supply a source for this, it certainly does not make sense from a military point of view, also I fail to see how my allusion to the civil war is invalid.

He was shot down by a Drone.

You seem to have a very romantic notion of war.


Also the civil war analogy is wrong because
Anwar was a Citizen
Confederates denounced their citizenship
>.<

And AGAIN the USA did not recognise this, by definition.

How many times are you gonna make me repeat myself, it can't get much simpler

You will have to repeat yourself until you actually provide a valid response or conceed.

What am I missing here people?

You are missing the part about being a US citizen.

A US citizen who is a combatant (right) in a state of war against the USA.

>.< Which makes him a traitor, and is subject to trial.

This is utterly bloody retarded, you are basically saying that if a foreign power raised a legion of US fifth columnists the military would be powerless to act against them.

You will need to provide a link showing that under US law a US citizen who sides with a foreign power in a state of war against the USA is not subject to the rules of war.

according to the Constitution, if a US citizen is committed a crime abroad he must be brought back for trial before being found guilty or innocent. He has rights as a Citizen, like it or not; once you let one slip, than its a down hill slope to tyranny from there.

First we will be saying it doesn't apply to him.
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply to people with a serious crime record
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply to people with a crime record
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply at all.

When that happens than we might as well be speaking Russian.

Someone who is at war with the USA is covered by the rules of war, of course America already violates such rules but your theories are quite simply fvcking retarded.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 10:27:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 1:28:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 11:58:41 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's unconstitutional to kill a US citizen, without a trial, according to Article 3 section 3;

"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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
That doesn't say anything about it being unconstitutional to kill someone without trial.

"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."

So either a testimony of 2 witnesses in court is needed to convict, or a confession in court is needed to convict.
Killing does not require a treason conviction


According to the 5th amendment;

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
He wasn't held to answer for a crime.

Wasn't given the option.
He had the option, it was just a lot earlier. Drones do not have the capability of accepting surrender.

Not to shoot the the suspect in cold blood.
To shoot a man who cannot be captured safely.

Also one thing that is really mind boggling is that Obama was willing to give foreign Enemy Combatants these essential rights, but not a US citizen.
Foreign combatants get droned all the time.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 10:50:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 7:35:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 9:34:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 6:28:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 1:03:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 12:03:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/2/2011 11:50:53 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/2/2011 10:51:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/1/2011 1:58:08 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/1/2011 3:07:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I am a little bit confused, if the man is a self-confessed member of Al-Q he is an enemy soldier that can be attacked? There is a formal state war on, he signed up to that.

No he has to confess in court. Article 3 section 3 of the constitution; it deals with defining and convicting someone of treason.

So every dead confederate soldier was individually tried and sentenced to death?

No. The soldiers was not trialed, nor executed.They died on the battle field as citizens of the CSA. Unlike the Confederates, the Anwar al-Awlaki didn't renounce his citizenship.

The USA did not recognise the renunciation of the confederates, so legally the two situations are identical.

False!
The Confederates denounced US citizenship for State Citizenship
That is what a declaration of independence is. Each state declared that they denounced US citizenship for their states, prior to joining CSA.

It also does not matter if they became citizens of another country so long as they denounced US citizenship.

I can't say for sure about all the people living in the confederacy, but Confederate soldiers sure as hell denounced US citizenship, on a individual level, seeing as they was fighting for CSA's independence.


So what are you declaring false?
The USA did not recognise this did it? Otherwise it would not have gone to war.


They are not the same;

Confederates denounced citizenship
This nut job didn't

And AGAIN the USA did not recognise their right to denounce citizenship.

No they didn't recognize their right to secede not their right to denounce citizenship.
One involves the people, one involves the state
Also the confederates was shot in a open battle field returning fire.

This guy was shot by a unmanned drone while eating breakfast.




Lincoln did allot of unconstitutional things, such as suspending habeas corpus through executive order, in the union; Military control of telegraph lines and railways; the illegal imprisonment of anyone who was " discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice"; implementing a income tax (unconstitutional at the time); the military imprisonment of "the editors, proprietors, and publishers" of the "New York World and New York Journal of Commerce" and the "possession by military force of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce"

But how is killing enemy forces unconstitutional or illegal.

It's not; assassinating US citizens is! If a US citizens becomes an enemy combatant than they become traitors, and are subject to different rights and protections under the law than a foreign enemy combatant would receive.

What are these rights and protections.

>.< Are you really that dense?

It is a very simple question.

Which I already answered

They have a right to trial, for 1..... Not being shot by a drone, while having breakfast.

And again, were the Confederate soldiers placed on trial prior to being killed?

There is numerous differences between the 2



They did not give him a chance to surrender. They shot him down in cold blood.
That may be OK for a Foreign Enemy combatant, but not a Citizen of the US, who still has rights.

You are going to need to supply a source for this, it certainly does not make sense from a military point of view, also I fail to see how my allusion to the civil war is invalid.

He was shot down by a Drone.

You seem to have a very romantic notion of war.

>.< listen, they can use drones on any enemy combatant they want; unless they are a US citizen, because citizens have rights!

Also the civil war analogy is wrong because
Anwar was a Citizen
Confederates denounced their citizenship
>.<

And AGAIN the USA did not recognise this, by definition.
Again secession wasn't recognized, but that doesn't mean they didn't denouncing citizenship.

Also Hitler committed genocide during WWII, does that mean the current German government has a right to do the same?

Two wrongs does not make a right.

How many times are you gonna make me repeat myself, it can't get much simpler

You will have to repeat yourself until you actually provide a valid response or conceed.
In other words you don't consider the constitution valid.

What am I missing here people?

You are missing the part about being a US citizen.

A US citizen who is a combatant (right) in a state of war against the USA.

>.< Which makes him a traitor, and is subject to trial.

This is utterly bloody retarded, you are basically saying that if a foreign power raised a legion of US fifth columnists the military would be powerless to act against them.


Not what I said... There is a difference between assasination and combat.
You will need to provide a link showing that under US law a US citizen who sides with a foreign power in a state of war against the USA is not subject to the rules of war.

I did, article 3 section 3.... But you don't consider the constitution valid apparently
according to the Constitution, if a US citizen is committed a crime abroad he must be brought back for trial before being found guilty or innocent. He has rights as a Citizen, like it or not; once you let one slip, than its a down hill slope to tyranny from there.

First we will be saying it doesn't apply to him.
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply to people with a serious crime record
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply to people with a crime record
Than we will be saying it doesn't apply at all.

When that happens than we might as well be speaking Russian.

Someone who is at war with the USA is covered by the rules of war, of course America already violates such rules but your theories are quite simply fvcking retarded.

There is a difference between combat and shooting someone in the back during breakfast.

They didn't give him the chance to surrender, he is a US citizen and had a Right to trial.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 10:58:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is a difference between combat and shooting someone in the back during breakfast.

Yeah, the latter is more effective.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 10:38:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Supreme Court ruled in WWII that being trained by an enemy force and fighting against the US constitutes de facto renunciation of citizenship. The case was of an American who was trained in Germany and returned as a German spy against the US.

This seems logical to me. Suppose an American joins foreign forces on the battlefield and shoots at American soldiers. An American sniper then kills him. Enemy combatants are not entitled to trials. So the problem is then deciding who is an enemy combatant and who is not. Recent Supreme court decisions have upheld that a military tribunal an decide if a person captured is an enemy combatant, in which case he can be held without trial.

The President swears to protect against all enemies, "foreign and domestic." That, together with the de facto renunciation of citizenship decision, seems adequate justification. I think the most that could be argued is that a military tribunal sould declare him to be an enemy combatant.

Keep in mind that the President is not unchecked. The decision was reviewed by congressional committee.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 3:35:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh no but they shot him in during breakfast... which is apparently against the rules of war!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.