It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Styki
Here is what people are missing. Every American has the right to due process, but if you are wanted and are hiding in a country where the US cannot find you then you are abusing your rights. Especially, if are wanted for being involved in terrorist activities.
. . .
However, if your are actively avoiding being taken in, that falls outside of what due process was originally intended to be.
As for Ron Paul, this case is obviously a kink in the system. Maybe he should be more worried about finding a reasonable way to deal with cases like this,
rather than talking about impeaching the man who solved the problem.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
These types of statements are why Ron Paul will never be elected to office. This was a MILITARY opperation and as comparison....if you are say...a member of the U.S. Army or Marines...and you are ordered to charge a hill...and a soldier in the middle of battle...turns around and runs the other way....by Military Codes of Justice....it is PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR AN OFFICER TO SHOOT DEAD THIS SOLDIER FOR DISOBEYING ORDERS IN A BATTLE OR FOR COWARDICE.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Enemy combatants do have rights to due process as affirmed by the SCOTUS in Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)
Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Have I entered Bizarro world or something?
The very same people on ATS who are/were against the unconstitutional actions of Bush are now supporting the unconstitutional actions of Obama?
WTF is this?
I don't even …
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
. . .
Captured enemy combatants. Not enemy combatants in the field. Jeez.
(Emphasis mine.) Awlaki wasn't held in the United States, or held anywhere else. He was an operational member of a belligerent party, directing attacks against the United States from a region of the world with no effective US or allied law enforcement. He got all the process due anyone in those circumstances.
Originally posted by madhatr137
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Have I entered Bizarro world or something?
The very same people on ATS who are/were against the unconstitutional actions of Bush are now supporting the unconstitutional actions of Obama?
WTF is this?
I don't even …
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
And the same people that applauded those actions under Bush are condemning them under Obama.
Funny how that works.
2001 "Osama bin Laden - Wanted: Dead or Alive"
Yay, go America! Put a boot in his a$$, 'cause it's the 'Merican way!
2011 "Osama bin Laden - Dead"
Wait a minute, was it legal for the President to send Seal Team 6 to the sovereign soil of another country?!?
What is more hypocritical?
To first be upset about the rule if law being broken, but to take advantage of the precedent being set,
Or to repeatedly violate the rule of law, and then cry foul when the next guy follows the precedent you create?
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Originally posted by Styki
Here is what people are missing. Every American has the right to due process, but if you are wanted and are hiding in a country where the US cannot find you then you are abusing your rights. Especially, if are wanted for being involved in terrorist activities.
Can you show me in the Constitution where it states that?
. . .
However, if your are actively avoiding being taken in, that falls outside of what due process was originally intended to be.
So avoiding being taken in means the government does not have to follow due process.
Again. Where is that found in the Constitution?
As for Ron Paul, this case is obviously a kink in the system. Maybe he should be more worried about finding a reasonable way to deal with cases like this,
He already has a way. It is called the Constituion
rather than talking about impeaching the man who solved the problem.
So you are fine with Constitutional violations, as long as it "solves the problem."
Got it.
Originally posted by Fury1984
. We didn't have to worry about terrorism until we expanded our military stranglehold throughout the world after World War II. We engaged in wars without declaring them, we set up hundreds of bases across the globe in the backyard of everyone. People say, "Oh, you're just blaming America." To that I say, America has killed more innocent civilians than terrorists have.
Does anyone else want peace?
lol Did you misunderstand my reply? I was basically saying and asking for the same thing. lol
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by NoAngel2u
You have to be convicted in a trial to lose rights.
So where and when was this trial, as was his right.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Styki
Again, you have no regard for the Constitution.
A citizen must be given due process. It does not matter what he or she has done.
If I am on the run and am captured, I can't automatically be incarcerated for life.
That is absurd.
As for amending it, I highly doubt an amendment for assassinations will pass.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com