Statist Lindsey Graham: Obama Needs Protection From Libertarians and the Left

They are bringing back the ancient royal star chamber basically from the description of their targeted execution program. No way this is legal. If it ever went to court it would never be justified in my opinion.

reply to post by endats01


Depends how solid their proof is. The legality of it is in the Constitution itself.

Treason and the penalties for it are very well defined.

treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or any of them; and in adhering to the enemies of the United States, or any of them. The Legislature of the United States shall have power to declare the punishment of treason. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses. No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood nor forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Sure, send him a subpeona to come to a trial. If he refuses the trial is held on the evidence they have without a defense.

You really think he's going to return to face a trial on treason?

Its all semantics.

why not try these citizens in absentia then?
At least there would be some constitutionality to it.
But that isn't the way that they are doing it.

They can just write another memo and set a whole new lack of rules to play by.

reply to post by butcherguy


Well I thought I had agreed with that point.

Sorry if I was unclear. Yes he should be tried and according to whatever rules the court follows when somebody doesn't show up.

You know he won't show up so its a foregone conclusion what the verdict will be and in which case a drone strike will be authorized.

I will certainly fault the administration for not following the rules and doing it the way it should be done but the end result would have been the same.

reply to post by butcherguy


Well I don't think it's the memo that 'legalizes' the policy. The policy is 'legal' under existing US Law (whether Constitutional or not). Any law can exist even if unconstitutional as long as it was passed by Congress and signed by the President, any law believed to be violating the Constitution has to be challenged in the Courts to be determined unconstitutional and thus void. Of course such rulings can be appealed. All of this began with the Patriot Act. There is authorization in there for the President to make a kill list regardless of citizenship. The memo is just the President doing what he is legally allowed to do as Commander in Chief. Doesn't make it right, just legal.

reply to post by Kali74


The problem with the legislation in question, aside from it being ridiculously broad in terms and interpretation is that it is in direct conflict with the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, to wit;

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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The question you have to ask about the legality of the legislation is this........... Was the Constitution amended to reflect the changes it grants? If the answer is no then the legislation is not law and the execution of an American citizen without due process is murder.

You see, The Constitution is the law. It is the authority that all other laws are based on and is what gives any administration and government any legitimacy. To introduce and enforce legislation in direct conflict is called treason.

While I would not pretend to shed any tears for the like of Anwar Al Awlaki or somebody like him, the law is the law. If politicians are allowed to draft legislation that does not follow constitutional guidelines, where does that precedent end?

wow.

If this isnt testing the waters- I dont know what would be.

They are now at that point where they are directly telling us that they have a license to ' ill'.

I am middle America- and let me be the first to say- this guy dont know me too well.

Obama is not God. He cant kill whomever he pleases whenever he feels like it.
(oh wait yes he can- he descended from the deepest pits of hell)

I swear I never seen anyone as calous and unforgiving as much as this guy. He wont give an inch- but he is sure as hell ready to to drop some bodies.

Whatever happened to capturing and interrogating criminals for information before you go and blow them to pieces from the sky?

If Obama is so drone happy- He should call an airstrike on himself and do the world a favor.

I have never in my life seen someone who thought they were as Godlike as this man thinks of himself.

Is he our President or is he our hangman? The guy kills more men than marriage.
Peace Prize my ass.

Now our presidents are fighting individuals so they dont have to get the ok from congress. Executive Priveledge.

- I dont know if I can take 4 more years of his BS, Nor the people who continue to kiss his ass without hesitation.

I just cant believe there are actually people out there who believe this type of behaviour is acceptable.

He should be held to a higher standard- instead- he degrades the office in which he presides.

As much as I think Biden is the no good sloppy seconds- Im really starting to admire his ignorance over Obamas
Presidential-inabilities to lead this nation.

Every choice he makes leaves people wondering "WTF is wrong with him"?. ...yet nothing happens because he has his cheerleaders like Graham to do the bidding for him.

Nothing but clowns in the circus tent. I didnt know graham was that far up the anal cavity though.
-figures.

No honor amongst terrorists.

reply to post by Helious

If politicians are allowed to draft legislation that does not follow constitutional guidelines, where does that precedent end?

They are and always have been allowed to, usually though they don't posses the amount of fear that they did after 9/11. They even did ask the people if this (the Patriot Act) was what we wanted and we overwhelmingly said yes... we willingly traded liberty for security, practically begged for it. So yes they can do such, they just usually keep each other in check and when they don't, well that's what the courts are for. It isn't treason.

reply to post by Kali74

They are and always have been allowed to, usually though they don't posses the amount of fear that they did after 9/11.

I respectfully disagree. No legislation brought fourth is enforceable or is it in fact even a law if it does not abide by constitutional guidelines. Now, with that said, I am not saying it hasn't been tried thousands of times in the past and present, the government and congress and executive branch do it all the time. Fortunately for us, most do not hold up under scrutiny when the matter is addressed ultimately by the supreme court.

What is unfortunate is that it ever has to go that far, even if a law is ruled unconstitutional in district court, it is appealed and must be heard in an appellate court and then ultimately the supreme court. This takes a shocking amount of time, resources and perseverance but if a law is especially egregious, normally you will draw support and funding from civil liberties groups, although this is not always the case.

They even did ask the people if this (the Patriot Act) was what we wanted and we overwhelmingly said yes... we willingly traded liberty for security, practically begged for it.

Even if this was the case and that is debatable as actual numbers for the exact number of people that would have voted on a bill like this would be unattainable by you or I and it is irrelevant. America as a republic is non dependent on mob rule or majority opinion. Our laws at this time are derived, governed and defined with constitutional guidelines.

So yes they can do such, they just usually keep each other in check and when they don't, well that's what the courts are for. It isn't treason.

Killing an American citizen without due process at this point in time in history is clearly unconstitutional and in fact violates that persons civil rights and without any questions is a crime. That is of course, by law, the same law that the president and congress don't usually have to follow quite as closely as the rest of us.

Reply to post by neo96

Its ok and perfectly normal to feel outrage and become actually speechless when we hear about 20 murdered children in Connecticut, but when 200+ children are murdered from drones, it's 'acceptable & legal'.

Am I the only one who becomes physically ill by this country's hypocrisy? How does a man who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, find the killings of (thousands of innocents now), acceptable? It's so ludicrous that I almost have to laugh. It's just that it's not funny.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by spinalremain


Not funny at all.

Its okay though- cause they are WAYYYY over there.


He doesnt have to face the moral compass when he has executive authority and a dumbfounded Lobby.

Not to mention the Peace Prize means that he will be on the right side of history.

I fear how the historians are going to treat this guy. Hundred years from now- People will say he sacraficed himself in order to save all those murdered civilians.

....like Jesus.


- damn that was a hard lie to type out.

The Legislature of the United States shall have power to declare the punishment of treason.

reply to post by Spookycolt


The legislature, not some star chamber of generals the royal president and some military judges. This is not what the constitution permits. There is no justification of this in US or international law. It is pure dictator in defiance of the rule of law area. There is no grey area to protect the administration in this. They voilate hundreds of years of common law as well as their constitutional oath of office.Where is the 4th amendment in this? Out the window I guess because they are not given even basic human freedom never mind constitutional protection.

reply to post by endats01


Actually Congress defined it quite awhile ago. The penalties are not new at all.

In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

"If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars."

Originally posted by Spookycolt
It was really just an administrative blunder.

An-alwar, if they had information, engaged in treason against the US. In doing so he can lose his citizenship which means he has no Constitutional rights.

He also can be sentenced to death for treason.

Now certainly they should have followed the rules and officially revoked his citizenship before taking him out but it was only technically illegal.

A person HAS to be convicted of treason. Every American has the right to due process regardless of what the crime is.

reply to post by Indigo5

Originally posted by Indigo5
Just asking...How do you "arrest, try and convict" Americans on foriegn soil? Like Yemen?

I think some people would rather go "in country" with our military guns blazing - and use our large testicles to go house to house, killing as many people as possible (including our own military members) to make a "show of force" - You know... Shock and Awe. Some long for a repeat of 2003. :shk:

Well, it's ten years later. Technology improves. I'd much rather be sending drones to surgically remove known terrorists (I know that innocents have been killed) than to ruin a country and kill and ruin many of our own with our war machine.

I agree that oversight is necessary in the drone program, but I don't want another war that ravages other countries and kills our own troops.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Spookycolt
It was really just an administrative blunder.

An-alwar, if they had information, engaged in treason against the US. In doing so he can lose his citizenship which means he has no Constitutional rights.

He also can be sentenced to death for treason.

Now certainly they should have followed the rules and officially revoked his citizenship before taking him out but it was only technically illegal.

A person HAS to be convicted of treason. Every American has the right to due process regardless of what the crime is.

I agree.
Convicted. That is different than some US Army General sitting in the Pentagon saying, 'Oh, this guy needs whacked.'

. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses.

That says testimony. Testimony isn't just someone saying that they heard someone say something. It involves being sworn to tell the truth, and in this country, it better well mean in a court of law... or I'm not buying it.

I am happy to agree with you on this buster.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I agree that oversight is necessary in the drone program, but I don't want another war that ravages other countries and kills our own troops.

Agreed. Unless you stand to make a profit, or are some kind of nutbag whackjob, who does want to go to war?

But...
Do you agree with blowing up a home with innocent children in it just because a man ( a man that may or may not have committed treason, we don't really know with these rules ) that you have targeted is in there? Are the children guilty of treason?
The terrible part is, they know darn well the children are there... and they know that they will die in the house... at the time that they give the order to launch the Hellfire missiles.

Would you stand for the Chinese government doing the same thing to dissidents that live in this country?

reply to post by Kali74


Typical Lindsey Graham... and the sad thing is that the so called "Conservatives" in South Carolina keep electing this Progressive moron. This will be his 10th year in the US Senate... by now the voters in SC have to realize this guy is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I think some people would rather go "in country" with our military guns blazing - and use our large testicles to go house to house, killing as many people as possible (including our own military members) to make a "show of force" - You know... Shock and Awe.

Wouldn't you agree that this is exactly why President Obama used the SEAL team to 'get' Osama bin Laden?

Hellfire missile wouldn't have killed him.... and his wives.... and his children?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That it has to be one or the other is a false argument, not that you're saying that necessarily. If arguments about humane acts of war are to be argued (which is hard to stomach lol) then yes drones are more humane than carpet bombing or sending in ground forces, there's a legitimate point that drones result in less innocent casualties. That's not really what the discussion is about though.

The discussion is about this arbitrary, loosely worded authorization to kill Americans even without clear evidence of imminent threat. It's completely void of any due process which can be achieved without sending in ground forces. A few posters have outlined methods that can be achieved.