Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

Another US President ordered the killing of several hundred thousand US citizens - or at least what HE claimed were US citizens. That was Abraham Lincoln, 150 years ago. It was called a civil war, with the key word being "war".

That was a war.

And so was this.

There is a difference between a court room and a battlefield. law is pursued in one. War is pursued on the other.

This will likely be my last comment anywhere on this. Trying to explain the difference between courtrooms and battlefields in some circles is like trying to herd cats.

reply to post by sapien82


I completely agree that in theory, yes, we are a threat to the government. I am using different cases however, this is one of the most dangerous men to our safety in America and it was a necessity to do what we needed to do in order to keep our safety. I agree that our rights get slowly taken through various different ways but this one case is not what will do it. If me and my family threatened the lives of citizens and had a viable way of going through with the threats, then as a citizen, I would want my government to protect the safety of its people like it should in these cases.

Of course if there was good proof that this man was not who he claimed he was, did not make several recordings, published magazines/online articles to influence people into causing mass chaos, and did not plan attacks that endangered our people then I would fully agree that what the government did was completely wrong. Unfortunately, all evidence points to Anwar being what he claimed to be, a dangerous terrorist.

Personally I think everything is situational so it should be treated differently based on the situation, but thats just my personal opinion of course.




PS. technically you can turn anything into a snowballing fallacy and make it seem logical, so it is pointless for me to argue against you on that point

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


The process of changing laws using amendments was made to be very difficult and when the constitution was written, we probably had the population of Rhode Island in the ENTIRE United States (guestimate to make my point). I'm not really sure if the founding fathers thought we would be at the population we are at now and in the financial/world stance we are at now, but all of this makes adding amendments/changing the constitution all that more difficult.

I am not against the constitution one bit and hope my argument doesn't make me seem like I am, but I am trying to defend that the United States did what it had to do for the greater good of not only our country but humanity.

reply to post by kalunom


In order for that to be true tyranny, you would need to prove that the American public wanted the guy to live. I think we know the answer to that question already.

Reply to post by SteveZ

So it is okay to break the Constitution for the greater good.

Bush would be proud of you, as would Lincoln.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by nenothtu

Mind to show me the declaration of war, and tell me who we are at war with?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by sweetliberty

Savage could be labeled a terrorist for his rhetoric, and be Hell-Fired within the week.

And the sheep would applaud it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

No different than cops killing dangerous criminals that are americans. This dude was an enemy ofthe US.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS

 

Yes. They laid down the punishment.

There still has to be due process.

That pesky Constitution. Please show me where it gives government the right to ignore due process.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Let me ask you a question then. If you are a treasonous enemy combatant in a war zone and bullets, tanks and bombs dropping. Should the U S government blow the whistle and call our enemy and say heh...timeout...we got a treasonous bastard here and everyone stop their gunfire while we serve him a summons to appear in court back home..

GIVE ME A BREAK...........

Reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS

Because that was the situation at the time.

Amiright?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I find it funny as hell that it is the Jews and "Zionists" sticking up for this Muslim scumbag. I feel kinda dirty, then I think I'm not sticking up for him, but the Constitution; and the next guy that pisses in Obama's cornflakes.

reply to post by sweetliberty


God love ya.

I can understand peoples concerns about the concept of assasinating an American Individual without due process but in this case...this individual has admitted to his crimes. He is a active participant in a terrorist orginization and has admitted that....an orginization responsible for mass murder...and he has stated that he is planning steps and recruiting terrorists to carry on more murders.

Lets be honest....if there was a possibility to capture this person without massive loss of life by our troops or intell services....THEY WOULD DO IT! The capture of an individual such as this would be an intell BOOM and would be most benificial.

The reality is....to attempt a snatch and grab would put many families sons or even daughters in a unaceptable state of risk. In a case of an individual having the ability to be an admitted danger...by his own addmision...to the security and populous of the United States....NSA directives give a legal reason for assasination.
Split Infinity

RP was asked if impeachment of Obama was possible and RP responded that it was possible. Is it really possible? Yes, will it happen? likely not.

Case closed?

I have a couple of questions for everyone calling this a battlefield killing. When did we declare war on Yemen? How many troops are there engaging in combat manuveurs?

This was not a battlefield killing. It was an assasination of an American citizen without due process. If a criminals confesses to murder in an interigarion room should cops be able to kill him right there?

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Are all those exemptions to due process laid out in the Constitution?

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


In short, no. But the safety of the people in this country is a much higher priority than anything else, because without the people, there is no country. Like I said earlier, everything is situational. In this situation, the United States did the right thing to uphold public safety. I'm not a republican, pro American liberty type of guy; Most times I don't side or trust the government, but this was a wanted terrorist who wanted only the destruction of our country.

on a side note though, I have been reading from Anwar's brother and another source that he is still alive, so the US saying he is dead may have even been a scare tactic even.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I know there is no use arguing with you back and forth because neither you nor me is going to change our opinions, but I just want to make it clear that I completely agree with everything you are saying to the T, besides this SPECIFIC situation (above reasoning).

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

Are all those exemptions to due process laid out in the Constitution?

I am a firm believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights....and have no wish for a precident to be set that allows anyone the Government declares as dangerous to be simply killed. Some here have sighted this assasination as being just that...it is not.

Our military pledges to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND.....and here are the words that apply in this case....PROTECT IT FROM ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

This is a BATTLEFIELD KILLING. Yes...this person was an American....but one who disavowed himself from being so and proclaimed himself as an enemy of his own country as well as freely admitting atrocities as well as planning further ones.

If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were the men making this modern day decision....YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING! Split Infinity

reply to post by SteveZ


Safety over rights then, is what you are saying.


I know there is a famous quote about that certain situation.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


TO quote an above poster . . .

I have a couple of questions for everyone calling this a battlefield killing. When did we declare war on Yemen? How many troops are there engaging in combat maneuvers?

This was not a battlefield killing. It was an assassination of an American citizen without due process. If a criminals confesses to murder in an interrogation room should cops be able to kill him right there?

As for the founding fathers, I believe what they have written in the Constitution should speak for itself.

What does it say again?