Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen

[greg334]

Paul voted to give the president the power to kill who ever the PRESIDENT DETERMINED.

Where did he vote for what bill and when?

He, like most other in congress didn't vote to hunt down US citizens, no matter how you want to believe that. He voted for the hunting down of Osama Bin Ladin and people within his organization that are not US citizens.

BUT here is the thing, al Awlaki was a US born citizen who never renounced his citizenship and regardless who says what, he is still a US citizen. The congress introduced a bill to strip him of his citizenship which would have lost in the courts because he was not brought to trial and only accused of a crime.

NO matter how desperate many want to be with gaining the blood of others, you should never consider this to be a good thing because when you come down to it, you may be also a target.

First the defense of the constitutions comes after the support of it, in the oath people take. It is not conditional or the order of the words be ignored - support first, defend second. That is important when you want to justify any conditions where the constitution is involved, or trying to make it look like you can apply one part while ignoring the other.

There is no difference where you are, or if we are fighting a war, unless you are a captured and tried either through a military court during a war against another country or through civilian court during any other time, you are afforded the same rights under the constitution as everyone else. THIS includes the right to a due process which LIMITS the government's right to convict you without you being able to defend yourself - A RATHER IMPORTANT VERY THING.

SO I conclude that most of you who like to see this happen more often and justify it by spinning it under the BS of a war, you must also support Clinton's usurping of the constitution and national security, but more so you support Bush/Obama's position of eliminating anyone who is deemed an enemy of the state by any means where every they are found.

I further conclude you don't understand how the constitution works and what I mean when I say we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men.

To set the record straight, I am glad he is gone but worried that this is one more towards circumventing our rights over the right of the government.

 

[layoutshooter]

Where did he vote for what bill and when?

He, like most other in congress didn't vote to hunt down US citizens, no matter how you want to believe that. He voted for the hunting down of Osama Bin Ladin and people within his organization that are not US citizens.

BUT here is the thing, al Awlaki was a US born citizen who never renounced his citizenship and regardless who says what, he is still a US citizen. The congress introduced a bill to strip him of his citizenship which would have lost in the courts because he was not brought to trial and only accused of a crime.

NO matter how desperate many want to be with gaining the blood of others, you should never consider this to be a good thing because when you come down to it, you may be also a target.

First the defense of the constitutions comes after the support of it, in the oath people take. It is not conditional or the order of the words be ignored - support first, defend second. That is important when you want to justify any conditions where the constitution is involved, or trying to make it look like you can apply one part while ignoring the other.

There is no difference where you are, or if we are fighting a war, unless you are a captured and tried either through a military court during a war against another country or through civilian court during any other time, you are afforded the same rights under the constitution as everyone else. THIS includes the right to a due process which LIMITS the government's right to convict you without you being able to defend yourself - A RATHER IMPORTANT VERY THING.

SO I conclude that most of you who like to see this happen more often and justify it by spinning it under the BS of a war, you must also support Clinton's usurping of the constitution and national security, but more so you support Bush/Obama's position of eliminating anyone who is deemed an enemy of the state by any means where every they are found.

I further conclude you don't understand how the constitution works and what I mean when I say we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men.

To set the record straight, I am glad he is gone but worried that this is one more towards circumventing our rights over the right of the government.

How many US citizens were killed by OUR government WITHOUT a trial, or conviction or even a direct THREAT made by them? Like at Ruby Ridge? Or how about FDR and his Unconstitutional arrest and inprisonment of Japanese Americans and Americans of Japanese decent at the outset of WWII?

THOSE are things that threaten our freedom. So does Obama and his anti-constitutional health care and anti gun moves.

Killing a person who openly and on multiple occasions stated that he was going to wage war on and kill Americans is NOT a threat to our freedoms.

Our Congress is a FAR greater threat than that action was.

 

[tbubster]

Where did he vote for what bill and when?

He, like most other in congress didn't vote to hunt down US citizens, no matter how you want to believe that. He voted for the hunting down of Osama Bin Ladin and people within his organization that are not US citizens.

BUT here is the thing, al Awlaki was a US born citizen who never renounced his citizenship and regardless who says what, he is still a US citizen. The congress introduced a bill to strip him of his citizenship which would have lost in the courts because he was not brought to trial and only accused of a crime.

NO matter how desperate many want to be with gaining the blood of others, you should never consider this to be a good thing because when you come down to it, you may be also a target.

First the defense of the constitutions comes after the support of it, in the oath people take. It is not conditional or the order of the words be ignored - support first, defend second. That is important when you want to justify any conditions where the constitution is involved, or trying to make it look like you can apply one part while ignoring the other.

There is no difference where you are, or if we are fighting a war, unless you are a captured and tried either through a military court during a war against another country or through civilian court during any other time, you are afforded the same rights under the constitution as everyone else. THIS includes the right to a due process which LIMITS the government's right to convict you without you being able to defend yourself - A RATHER IMPORTANT VERY THING.

SO I conclude that most of you who like to see this happen more often and justify it by spinning it under the BS of a war, you must also support Clinton's usurping of the constitution and national security, but more so you support Bush/Obama's position of eliminating anyone who is deemed an enemy of the state by any means where every they are found.

I further conclude you don't understand how the constitution works and what I mean when I say we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men.

To set the record straight, I am glad he is gone but worried that this is one more towards circumventing our rights over the right of the government.

Well here is the bill the link is from the Library of congress I really hope this is up to everyones standerds as to not pushing their own agenda.

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Please pay close attition to SEC 2 You will clearly see this in the wording of the bill persons he determines You also should beable to understand that by the passing of this bill it gives the president and the president alone sole discretion on decideing who is killed.No matter how anyone spins it that is exactly what this bill was ment to give the president the ok to issue a kill order.

Here is a link of the vote record where you can IN FACT SEE PAUL VOTED FOR THIS BILL.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

He, like most other in congress didn't vote to hunt down US citizens,

You are wrong greg this in fact is what he voted for when he voted on a bill that allowed the president and the president alone to determine who our enmy is and how to deal with them.


Now one can say what they want about my understanding of the constitution the thing I know is that when a law is passed it is legal untill the supreme court says it is not.I also know that at the time of the vote ron paul claims to be all about the constitution yet voted for this bill to become law.I know that when people talk about the constitution they love to talk about the amendments(Bill of rights) as you have done in this thread.I know and understand the the 1fst amendment was not added to the constitution for four years after the writing of the constitution.I also know that there is a line in the constitution itself that many that claim to know and understand the constitution seem to forget or just chose to ignor it.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

This one also.To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof


Here is a sentence from 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

Play word games if you like but we are in fact in a war on terror.

Now anyone can come at me anyway they want and say what they want about my understanding of the constitutin.I belive though maybe those that find fault with my understanding should in FACT be asking how Ron Paul who many say is the only one in washington that really bellives in living by the constitution could of got this so wrong.As he is the one that voted for a law that some claim goes against the constitution he is such a defender of.

 

[RLENT]

Here is a sentence from 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

Do you even understand what the words in the above context mean ?

What it means is: that people in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service [of the land or naval forces, or the Militia] may be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, without a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury - it happens in a military context, under the UCMJ - not in a civilian court.

It also means that people who ARE NOT IN the land or naval forces MAY NOT be held to "answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...."

Further, the Supreme Court has held, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the AUMF did not even over ride Article 15 of the UCMJ (a lesser law than the Constitution itself)

For you to assert that the AUMF somehow over rides the basic protections of citizens rights provided by the Constitution is just plain silly.

Play word games if you like but we are in fact in a war on terror.

Well, I'm not going to accuse you of "playing word games" ..... because to actually be able to do so, I think one has to actually have at least some basic understanding of the various words and their meanings .... and your statements on this matter are prima facie evidence that you don't.

There is no formal, legal declaration of war .... as authorized under the Constitution.

Further, the idea that one can declare war on what is a tactic is a rather ludicrous proposition in and of itself ... although it is certainly clear that some people are taken in by it ....

It is political hyperbole .... nothing more.

Now anyone can come at me anyway they want and say what they want about my understanding of the constitutin.

I just did - see the above - refute it .... if you can.

I belive though maybe those that find fault with my understanding should in FACT be asking how Ron Paul who many say is the only one in washington that really bellives in living by the constitution could of got this so wrong.

He didn't - see below.

As he is the one that voted for a law that some claim goes against the constitution he is such a defender of.

The law doesn't go against the Constitution (although it is fairly easy to understand why someone who lacks the requisite understanding might think that it does)

All laws subsequent to the Constitution are bound and constrained by the Constitution - otherwise they are, in fact, unconstitutional ... whether they have been adjudicated as such by a court of jurisdiction or not ....

 

[mjmsprt40]

I have some questions. If an American born citizen denounces his country, goes to a foreign land, takes up arms against his now former country and vows the destruction, if possible, of this country, is he still an American citizen? Does he still have constitutional rights under the constitution that he has vowed to destroy? How would you go about arresting him in a possibly hostile foreign country and then bringing him to trial, presumably in a criminal court since it's hard for me to imagine that a military tribunal would satisfy some of the posters here?

It's hard enough to make drug busts here in inner-city neighborhoods. The criminals are armed, and many of the neighbors are as fearful of the police as they are of the gangs that are selling the drugs. Now you expect our soldiers to go into openly hostile territory to effect an arrest in a terrorist stronghold. You guys aren't asking for much, are you?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

If one denounces his country/citizenship...then takes up arms against said country...then I think he'd be just another combatant...not a traitor, just enemy....

 

[Turtle]

All laws subsequent to the Constitution are bound and constrained by the Constitution - otherwise they are, in fact, unconstitutional ... whether they have been adjudicated as such by a court of jurisdiction or not ....

Because the Constitution provides for Congress and the legislation process constraints of the several states, all laws enacted by a constitutionally valid Congress or state legislature are, in fact, Constitutional unless or until a court of jurisdiction says otherwise. Whether or not they have been adjudicated is paramount, otherwise anyone and everyone would be running around deeming this law or that law unconstitutional, and regardless of how much someone thinks a law is unconstitutional, it's not unless and until a court of jurisdictional standing says so. That's a rather important part of the separation of powers.

 

[greg334]

If an American born citizen denounces his country, goes to a foreign land, takes up arms against his now former country and vows the destruction, if possible, of this country, is he still an American citizen?

Well he didn't denounce his citizenship, he didn't take up arms against his country because in order for him to do that, he had to actually be part of a fight. so yes he is considered an American Citizen.

Does he still have constitutional rights under the constitution that he has vowed to destroy?

Yes without a doubt he does.

How would you go about arresting him in a possibly hostile foreign country and then bringing him to trial, presumably in a criminal court since it's hard for me to imagine that a military tribunal would satisfy some of the posters here?

Well the same way you would bring him to trial if he was a drug king pin or someone who is on the run, the process is there without explaining it but saying it seems to work.

A military tribunal is out of the question, he is a citizen who would have been captured outside of a war zone and the law and rulings are clear, he is to be tried in a civilian court.

As far as the law goes, it does not apply to US citizens, here or abroad. That is established and if the president wants to deem someone as an enemy of the state, it opens the door for the abuse that many seem to think only happens over in other countries like Iran.

Look it is clear, either you want to trash our rights or don't want to trash them. There is no gray area that you can hide it to justify it for one person but not for others. If you don't want to see our country go down the path of others, or be like England where civil rights are less under the guise of "terror threats" then you have to stand on the side of those who said this was wrong to do. Otherwise you hand the terrorist one more victory.