This is just not true, I have met some really neat people through this site, because of those posts. I just do not have expectations that whining about the government will change anything. Nor do I mind what the government did in this instance. At some point, you have to use common sense, over the written law...laws are not perfect. DD
I disagree here. If you need to break written laws, then go ahead and do it, but face the consequences and take responsibility. There may be times when it's necessary to take actions that are outside the law, and in those cases it should be done, but then it is necessary to face the consequences. In no case should the law just be discarded. That being said I'm not 100% sure that the law was broken here.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) It sounds like you're arguing based on general principle. Well I really believe in that general principle.
Good to see we have some real creative thinkers around here. I'm so, so tired of the default reaction of deflecting Obama criticism to Bush. There is nothing to be gained.
I think everyone needs to remember again that impeachment is a political exercise and not a legal exercise. As Clinton's impeachment shows us a president can be impeached for pretty much whatever Congress thinks, or better can muster the votes for, qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
I think you are still too caught up on this issue regarding citizenship. US citizenship doesn't confer anymore or less rights when it comes to due process and or military. As I noted in the other thread a foreigner arrested and charged for a crime under US soil gets the same the protections as a US citizen. A US citizen taking up arms against the US for an enemy where there is an authorization of force by Congress is treated as any other enemy by the US military.
Laws are meant to be interpetted, that is why we have judges and jurys, do not get caught up in thinking that the written word is the be all, end all. Our fore fathers realized there were exceptions in almost every case, and in this case they were right...again ! DD
Our forefathers did not write in anything that said executives could make exceptions to the law. They put in a place a process to change the laws as needed.
If executives make a mistake they can be held accountable and will be tried under those rules. There are checks and balances in place. DD
We need to know what Anwar Al-Awlaki did against the US, beyond giving an attaboy to Nidal Hassan. As far as I can tell, his terror attacks were directed at the Yemeni dictatorship, and his only attacks against the US were crazy sermons. The Obama administration claims that they have knowledge of this evil that he's done against the US, but they've never divulged that knowledge. If it takes an impeachment to let us know, impeach his ass.
That's true but I don't think is directly relevant to assassinating Awlaki. As far as I can tell there was no exception to the law here.
Legally the only question I see here is whether he was a member of Al Qaeda or allied to Al Qaeda. If he wasn't and just a cheerleader I think there is a good argument that he doesn't fall under the authorization of force.
I think I agree with you. I don't think the law was broken. A United States citizen joined a group militarily involved against the United states. As a consequence of a United states military action the citizen was killed. That is not a violation of any US law in my opinion. However if someone believes it is a violation of US law it isn't OK to just make an exception.
Looking at this just as a criminal matter my understanding is that under US law it is a crime to be a member of Al Qaeda. Even if he wasn't a member of Al Qaeda he still was a person of suspicion as part of a conspiracy to commit crimes in the US. I don't know whether that is enough to indict him but it seems like that would be enough to arrest him with probably cause. In that case he could've voluntarily surrendered to US law enforcement since he was under suspicion. I know there are some posters here who do criminal law and also one who is a prosecutor so I hope they weigh in on this.
