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.

 

Anwar Al-Awlaki and The Constitution

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


See this :

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
www.justice.gov...

Covered under "Commander In Chief Of The United States Armed Forces" autourizations, duties and authourity!

Every darn time he invokes it y'all want to cry foul. Either you stand firmly with this nation or you stand against it. To attack him everytime this authourity is invoked is getting real disgusting and sickening and is staunchly "ANTI-AMERICAN"!. Remember what 43 said, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists!"! Nothing has changed since that declaration was made but the leadership and is a stance firmly supported and endorsed by This White House. This is not another legal opinion but the justification signed Sept 25 2001 which is still in effect to this day, when both The Iraqi and Afghan theatres formally end will this declaration be modified and amended but not until then.
edit on 15-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So . . . who exactly do they mean by We the People of the United States?

In your world, that would mean all the people of the world.

If I say we the people of Texas, I obviously mean people of Texas, which obviously excludes people of Massachusetts.

We the people of the United States excludes anyone not of the United States. Plain and simple dude.

o_O
edit on 10/15/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


So you brink up an unconstitutional Act . . .

Nice.

Again, what does the Constitution say?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I am going to a avoid some of the more petty arguments that seem to have flared up in this thread and play some devil’s advocate.

Why not just change the constitution, In the UK we have no fixed constitution as such so our laws are so much more flexible when it comes to issues such as security. The balance of security and liberty is always a fine balance to bring to a equilibrium but al-Awarki was a bad guy he was (allegedly) responsible for the proliferation of terrorism that lead to the deaths of innocents and as such should be naturalised to end this threat to defend the innocent. If it is not possible to capture him or if it is not possible to permanently put his operations to a end then assassinating him is the only option left, American citizen or not. It was the utilitarian choice some would argue.

Now I am not a big fan of liberal rights or however you like to label your ideology that lets you sleep at night but really this idea that assassination is always wrong is just not right. The constitution should be changed, radically to allow more flexibility so that laws can be passed which allow the state to assassinate national security threats under specific circumstances yet ensure that only the right people are killed. How about a secret committee of senior legal and intelligence officials who advise the president who should be put on an assassination list and rip up EO1233 while you’re at it. As I understand it this is effectively what happened in the case of Al-Awlaki.

American views on security have to change or else more of you will die at the hands of terrorists.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Why not just change the constitution, In the UK we have no fixed constitution as such so our laws are so much more flexible when it comes to issues such as security.


That's funny, a little more than 200 years ago a bunch of colonists in America, fed up with the U.K.'s "flexibility" of law (i.e. arbitrary and capriciousness, invariably in the name of security), declared Independence from the U.K. and crafted a legal document that is one of the most profound indictments on government the world had ever seen, and has seen since. It was a radical idea then, and apparently remains a radical idea today, that law in regards to civilization is founded in the rights of individuals.

The Constitution can be changed, albeit through a difficult process purposely made difficult to prevent the very capriciousness you seem to be advocating. God forbid that Constitution gets changed in the way you are suggesting.




The balance of security and liberty is always a fine balance to bring to a equilibrium but al-Awarki was a bad guy he was (allegedly) responsible for the proliferation of terrorism that lead to the deaths of innocents and as such should be naturalised to end this threat to defend the innocent. If it is not possible to capture him or if it is not possible to permanently put his operations to a end then assassinating him is the only option left, American citizen or not. It was the utilitarian choice some would argue.


Here is the largest problem with your argument; increasingly government officials, including the President of the United States of America are guilty for the very same crimes al-Awarki allegedly is guilty of. Certainly, by President Obama ordering this assassination, he is now responsible for the proliferation of terrorism and his insistence of a continued military presence in Iraq, and even Afghanistan is allegedly criminal, his attempts to use end runs and push policies through a "back door" to get around Constitutional restraints is allegedly criminal, and We the People, outside of voting him out in the 2012 election, find it not possible to stop this criminality. Capturing the President under this usurpation of Constitutional republic is really not possible, so according to your own logic, the only option left is to assassinate.

This is not acceptable, nor is it in any way lawful. It is no more acceptable to assassinate a criminal President of the United States than it is to assassinate any other political criminal.




Now I am not a big fan of liberal rights or however you like to label your ideology that lets you sleep at night but really this idea that assassination is always wrong is just not right.


You are apparently not a big fan of conservative rights either. Come on, sport, let's just call a spade a spade. Your not a big fan of rights. Given this, it follows that you are a big fan of assassination.




The constitution should be changed, radically to allow more flexibility so that laws can be passed which allow the state to assassinate national security threats under specific circumstances yet ensure that only the right people are killed. How about a secret committee of senior legal and intelligence officials who advise the president who should be put on an assassination list and rip up EO1233 while you’re at it. As I understand it this is effectively what happened in the case of Al-Awlaki.


You mean a star chamber.




American views on security have to change or else more of you will die at the hands of terrorists.


Stop being so dementedly histrionic. Here are some facts for you:

2,996 people were killed by the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11. In the year 2000, the U.S. population was 281,424,602. 2,996 people were killed by a terrorist act on American soil with a population of more than 281,424,602. 2,996 out of 281,424,602. 2,996 out of 281,424,602. Get it?

You don't stop sailing because the deck got wet, and call that security. You don't ban ladders because a handful of people fell off of them and died and call that security. You don't assassinate your own citizens in blatant disregard to due process of law and call that security. Indeed, it is a genuine threat to Americans when the government that they Ordained, claims no obligation to the Constitution and due process of law, in order to justify assassinating their own citizens. That is not security.


edit on 15-10-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 





So . . . who exactly do they mean by We the People of the United States? In your world, that would mean all the people of the world.


I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before and assume you weren't obfuscating. Now that you have removed all doubt and showed just how willing you are to obfuscate, let me say this:

It matters not what the Constitution or Preamble says about anything. All people everywhere have certain unalienable rights. I get that this really gets your goat, and that you don't like the idea of other people having the same rights as you, but that's tough, sport. They do. Live with it.




If I say we the people of Texas, I obviously mean people of Texas, which obviously excludes people of Massachusetts.


It excludes the people of Massachusetts from having any say in the legal process of Texas, it does not exclude people from Massachusetts from enjoying the same rights as Texans while in Texas. Your advocacy of the denial and disparagement of peoples rights is less than impressive.




We the people of the United States excludes anyone not of the United States. Plain and simple dude.


We the People have excluded the rest of the world from telling us how to run our government, sport. This does not mean that we've pissed all over the rights of other people in other countries, we have not, champ. Especially when those other people are in the United States, then as a point of law, their rights are as protected as anyone else in the United States.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Hey fair enough if you disagree with me it’s just a difference of opinion and that’s what makes this place grate.

Most of my views stem from my scepticism of having absolute human rights that work in society, I think they can limit a society and be regressive rather than progressive if they are not restricted. From this I also take the believe that in the balance of security vs liberty security should always win and as such state sponsored assassination, torture, and in some cases terrorism can be justified to defend critical national security interests.

In the case of Al-Alwarki his assassination is clearly unconstitutional and illegal under US law, but regardless I believe that the threat he posed or could potentially pose in the future justified his assassination therefore I don’t care how many of his human rights are breached or how many laws are broken a really bad guy is no longer a problem.

I can however completely understand and respect your difference of opinion.

PS: please restrain yourself from quoting Jefferson, it is somewhat of a cliché


edit on 15-10-2011 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Hey fair enough if you disagree with me it’s just a difference of opinion and that’s what makes this place grate.


This is not simply a matter of disagreement, I have made points of law. Law is not arbitrary and capricious. Legislation can certainly be, but legislation is not law, and at best, merely evidence of law. You are entitled to your opinions, but as a point of law, all people everywhere are endowed with certain unalienable rights. This is not so because it was legislated so, it is so because it is law.

A rose does not need a congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns. A porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles, and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to spew its stink. If roses, porcupines, and skunks have these rights to self defense, it follows that People have the same rights too. If skunks, roses and porcupines do not need permission to enjoy a right, neither do People. This is self evident and demonstrably true. It is not a matter of opinion, and one is as valid as the other. You are entitled to believe that roses should gain the right to keep and bear thorns through a legislative process if you like. Good luck in seeing that opinion become a reality.




Most of my views stem from my scepticism of having absolute human rights that work in society, I think they can limit a society and be regressive rather than progressive if they are not restricted.


This is because you do not understand what rights are. Outside of self defense, defense of property, and defense of others who are in peril of injury by a thug, that which is done that causes no harm, is done by right. It is hard to imagine how people acting in ways that cause no harm would "limit a society and be regressive rather than progressive", but that's the problem with reification. Just because you say it so, doesn't make it so. If it is so, you would have more than just your opinion to rely upon in this debate.

Further, "society" is concept, not any live, thinking, being. Society will never buy you a beer, but given the opportunity, I will. I am an individual, and because of this, I can, if I so choose, buy you a beer, or an ale, or a lemonade if you like. Society cannot. Of course, some would argue that society can buy you a beer, but what they mean is that individuals claiming representation of "society" can plunder other people, in the name of taxation, and use that plunder to buy you a beer. Yet, even so, it was not "society" that bought you that beer, it was the pirates who plundered who bought you that beer.

Society cannot exist without individuals. Conversely, individuals can and do exist without societies. This is your first clue as to which is more important in the relationship between the two, and if your personal bias prevents you from discerning that clue, let me tell you this, it isn't society that is important, it is the individuals who make up society that is important. People are not pawns on a chess board existing solely to protect their king. As a point of law, if there is a king, that king exists to protect the individuals of his realm.




In the case of Al-Alwarki his assassination is clearly unconstitutional and illegal under US law, but regardless I believe that the threat he posed or could potentially pose in the future justified his assassination therefore I don’t care how many of his human rights are breached or how many laws are broken a really bad guy is no longer a problem.


I get that you don't care about People's rights. You have made this clear. You advocating that good People take off their white hats and put on black hats just long enough to kill all the black hats is insane on many levels. Be careful in slaying dragons that you do not become the dragon.




I can however completely understand and respect your difference of opinion.


I doubt that. If you did, I don't think you would have added your post script:




PS: please restrain yourself from quoting Jefferson, it is somewhat of a cliché


I am fairly certain I haven't quoted Jefferson in this thread, and I assure you that in my last post I most certainly restrained myself from quoting Benjamin Franklin on security and liberty, but that went right over your head. Had you respect for my opinion, I suspect you would have realized this.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What a poetic and articulate response, I applaud you.

Fundamentally I disagree with the classical liberal ideal’s of rights John Locke advocated, tell the people they have right to freedom of speech they will argue with each other, tell them they have the right to self defence they will all own guns and shoot each other and so on. I believe these rights need to be restricted to control the nation to ensure the state can progress without restriction. This however is again only my opinion if yours is different then fine.

If you want to argue points of American jurisprudence then I apologise because as a Brit I do not know enough about it to have a meaningful debate about the legality of this assassination. As I understand it the assassination was illegal, however I think that a law forbidding assassination in all circumstances is restrictive of the tools used to defend the state and therefore there should be a legal frame work that ensure assassinations of this nature can occur however safeguards must be in place. If this were to require a change to the American constitution then so be it. I take the same view with other unsavoury yet necessary acts such as torture.

The post script was not implying that you did quote Jefferson rather that I was anticipating that you would quote Jefferson. No disrespect was intended.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 





Fundamentally I disagree with the classical liberal ideal’s of rights John Locke advocated, tell the people they have right to freedom of speech they will argue with each other, tell them they have the right to self defence they will all own guns and shoot each other and so on.


If you honestly believe that by telling People they do not have the right to speech that this will some how put an end to arguments, and by telling People they do not have the right to self defense this will put an end to shoot outs, then you are not paying attention to the realities of the world you live in. Ironically, you have the right to not pay attention.




I believe these rights need to be restricted to control the nation to ensure the state can progress without restriction. This however is again only my opinion if yours is different then fine.


Again, you have the right to these beliefs. Gee, I wonder how restrictive to progress that right is.




If you want to argue points of American jurisprudence then I apologise because as a Brit I do not know enough about it to have a meaningful debate about the legality of this assassination.


I have certainly taken up the issue of jurisprudence in this thread, but not with you. In this debate with you, I have limited my arguments to natural law. You do not need to worry about American jurisprudence.




As I understand it the assassination was illegal, however I think that a law forbidding assassination in all circumstances is restrictive of the tools used to defend the state and therefore there should be a legal frame work that ensure assassinations of this nature can occur however safeguards must be in place.


Of course, if you are going to insist on discussing American jurisprudence, then you should understand that the Constitution for the United States is also rooted in natural law. Even the most unfortunate "three fifths clause" relies on games of legal trickery in order to avoid acting unlawfully.

What I find most disturbing about your arguments is that while you diligently use the word "allegedly" in regards to al-Awlaki, you are advocating by passing the due process of law that dictates we presume his innocence. This is the purpose of using a term such as "allegedly" to acknowledge that a presumption of innocence is a part of due process of law. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that al-Awlaki has the right to a presumption of innocence, but even so, let's just kill the dirty bastard and be done with it.




If this were to require a change to the American constitution then so be it. I take the same view with other unsavoury yet necessary acts such as torture.


Be careful what you wish for, my friend. If Americans most imprudently decide to change the Constitution, it is fairly predictable that much more than a restraint on unlawful assassinations will be changed. If American's take your advice and adopt a Constitution that declares the capricious and arbitrary nature of a legislative process law, cannot you predict what might happen? Hell, the federal government of the United States is, and arguably unconstitutionally so, is openly and notoriously engaging in empire building. Make assassination "legal" and what makes you think the Prime Minister of Great Britain is safe from American Presidents, or the Queen, or the future King? Certainly the Presidency at this point is fair game from other nations that all ready believe that assassination is a perfectly acceptable political too.




The post script was not implying that you did quote Jefferson rather that I was anticipating that you would quote Jefferson. No disrespect was intended.


I would suggest to you, that anticipation was not so out of respect. Just saying, that's all.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I posted this story on fb, other blogs, and have brought it to the attention of friends, family, etc. No one cares. Just jaw dropping. How can people tolerate such a blatant violation of our Constitution? I mean, no one even flinched when I shared this story. I'm totally and utterly perplexed.


This IMO was just the ice breaker.. condition the masses it's totally acceptable for politicians to secretly carry out death sentences against US citizens.

It's how they operate.. 70K dead in Nam started small.. its gotta start somewhere. Eventually others will be summarily slaughtered because dear leader said it was ok... and people will wait in line overnight for a phone.. rather than to throw rotten vegetables at politicians who kill people.

Welcome to an Orwellian society.. float around it, laugh at it for the joke that it is.. otherwise its just too horrifying. Being surrounded by 1930s Germans drunk on patriotism turning a blind eye to atrocities done in their name.. cheering them!!.. is depressing.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Section 2 :
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices. The opinion presented to him by Sec Defense was that A-lAwlaki proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he was in fact a threat to the United States and using that information and trusting it was legit POTUS can then decide the next move.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Again . . . what does the CONSTITUTION say?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


We will agree to disagree then.

I am sorry that you can't even understand the preamble.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join