Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

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.

reply to post by The Sword


Because Saddam was an American Citizen.

Amiright?

Because Saddam did not get a trial.

Amiright again?

Anybody willing to throw out the constitution just so that they will feel a little safer is as much of a traitor as the man that they condemn without a trial. The very concept of terrorism isn't to take down a nation, it's to make people so afraid that they are willing to destroy their own nation. Terrorists by themselves don't have that kind of power, but you do. You are their unwitting allies, they can destroy a few things here and there, but you are the only ones capable of destroying America, and you are doing a good job of it.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." "What luck for the rulers that men do not think" -Hitler

Congrats on doing Bin Laden's job for him, he couldn't have done it without you...really, he needed your help.

I'm afraid the constitution was thrown out when the Patriot Act was passed. Moral of the story is don't try to blow up airplanes.

It sure is exciting to see this guy, who all of the MSM said was "bad", terminated so efficiently by a video game operator in Virginia. But then there is that pesky thing called due process that's keeps nagging at me.

But hey, I guess if everyone says your "bad" then the President is just doing his job by ordering your assisination. Nice job Mr. Pres., I feel a lot safer now. You the man, like the really big flying robots killing terrorists man!!! I'm gonna vote for you....cause big flying killer robots are just kinda scary, and you have all of em. Good thing I'm "good".......and that I vote for you.

What was that Ron Paul guy saying again?

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.

After a court martial, sure, if by "SHOOT DEAD" you mean "administer a lethal injection." I don't think the military has executed anyone for decades, and the proceedings would take years, but it could be done.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Enemy combatants do have rights to due process as affirmed by the SCOTUS in Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)

Captured enemy combatants. Not enemy combatants in the field. Jeez. Hamdi wasn't suing Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld ordered CENTCOM to invade Afghanistan and kill and capture Jihadis, he was suing Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld had him locked up and wouldn't let him see a lawyer.

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.

(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 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 FurvusRexCaeli


. . .
Captured enemy combatants. Not enemy combatants in the field. Jeez.

Hmmm.

*A car in the middle of Yemen is now the battlefield

*Again, He was an American citizen, no matter what he did or did not due, unless he legally denounced his citizenship (through legal channels).

(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.

Please show me where in the Constitution that is states that that is all the process due to 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?

I agree.

Bizarro world is a strange strange place.

I'll share the back-and-forth that I had with one of my co-workers who is a fellow Ron Paul supporter.

Co-Worker:
I have a hard time supporting Ron Paul when he takes positions like this...

Link

Me:
If he was still a US citizen, Ron Paul is 100% correct. I think a public execution after a trial would have been justified. This was not. Two American citizens were assassinated. Besides, al Awalaki was most likely a CIA asset.

He was interviewed four times in the 8 days after 9/11 for his connection to 3 of the hijackers. Then five months later, he was a featured guest speaker at a Pentagon dinner.

Co-Worker:
Wrong, if he is an enemy combatant, or terrorist it makes no difference if he is a citizen. Justice was served. I don't think you will find many in the Tea Party that would agree with you.

Me:
Then the Tea Party doesn't believe in the Constitution, as they claim.

Co-Worker:
In my opinion you are misinterpreting The Constitution. I don't believe it even meant to protect enemy combatants regardless of their status. This type of confusion is why we are in the position we are now, trying to defend ourselves from our inability to act against obvious threats to our way of life. Spending trillions to fight wars that are not officially wars. It will only get worse until we reach a point of complete breakdown, and people decide enough is enough... Possibly another revolution. Ron Paul couldn't be more wrong on this issue. It's the same kind of thinking that would have brought enemy combatants here from Guantanamo, and cost tax payers 100 times as much.

Me:
Amendment V

Text:
" 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."

These rights apply to all U.S. citizens, and one could argue that they apply to everyone. "No person" is pretty clear. Terry Nichols, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and others that could be classified as "terrorists" were given due process, because it is their right.

Obama has decided that he is the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to U.S. citizens. This could easily be used here at home, especially with the promotion of "lone wolf" scenario.

Amendment VI
Text:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Tea Party folks and other self-described conservatives love to talk about getting the government back within its Constitutional limits, but they don't speak out on undeclared wars, the PATRIOT Act, and they will praise this latest action by Obama. We have laws in this country and inalienable rights. I guess the government doesn't have to prove its citizens are guilty before killing them.

If he was on the battlefield firing at our troops, sure, take him down. But this was not that scenario. This was an assassination and a clear violation of the Constitution.

And who determines what an "enemy combatant" is?

Where has Congress defined this?

And where have the people amended the Constitution to nullify Amendments V and VI for enemy combatants?

Co-Worker:
We clearly are in a time of war, and grave danger to the American public. This guy is a terrorist, he can't hide behind US citizenship. Newt Gingrich is one of the few politicians running that seems to understand what we are facing. My dad says the public is going to be shocked again one of these mornings with something that will make 9/11 seem minor. The average person just doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand what we are dealing with. If you haven't watched the movie Obsession, watch it. If you saw it, watch it again.

(continued)

Me:
I don't choose to throw the Constitution in the trash during a time of war.

PNAC. Read that. They wanted a new Pearl Harbor to expand our empire militarily. And its going to continue to cost us lives and money. We will reap what we sow.

Clarion Fund
Aish Hatorah

It looks like Zionist propaganda. I don't do propaganda. This non-profit supported John McCain in 2008, who said we should be in Iraq for 100 years. He said we should go into Iran. McCain signed PNAC. The DVDs were all distributed in swing states before the 2008 election to scare people.

I'm more concerned about the Federal Reserve than I am Muhammed sitting in a cave. We should leave them alone and they will leave us alone.

And where is the evidence of Awlaki's involvement in potential terrorist attacks in the U.S.? At the bottom of the ocean with bin Laden?

I'm not believing anything our corrupt government tells us without seeing some evidence.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

Co-Worker:
The leave them alone and they will leave us alone philosophy doesn't hold water. It has never worked in the past, and has only made the problem worse. The passive liberals have virtually guaranteed a world changing showdown at some point in the near future. Like I said, watch the movie Obsession. If you can't see this is the absolute truth, all I can say is I told you so when it happens.

Dallas is kicking the stuffing out of Detroit!

Me:
Looks like you spoke too soon.

Lions!

Co-Worker:
That had to be the worst loss I ever saw.

-----------------

Obviously, the ending was in relation to the Dallas Cowboys stunning collapse in the second half against the Detroit Lions on Sunday. Not relevant, but it was the conclusion of the e-mail exchange.

A way to avoid this type of issue would be to clearly define "enemy combatant" and it was spelled out in the Constitution, by way of an Amendment, that enemy combatants forfeit their protections afforded by the Constitution.

This was not an active theater of battle. al-Awlaki was not engaged in a firefight with U.S troops. And in most news stories I read, al-Awlaki is referred to "inspiring" potential terrorist actions. They say he was in communication with Nidal Hasan (Ft. Hood shooting suspect). What does that mean? What communications? Did al-Awlaki forward him a chain letter?

And the "Underwear bomber" incident. Oh boy. No passport, father called FBI to inform them of his son's intent, yet he is ushered onto a plane by men in suits? Then AIT machines begin to be forced onto law-abiding Americans in almost every airport. No one finds this fishy?

That it why we have courts to bring about evidence. If there is overwhelming evidence that al-Awlaki coordinated attacks on U.S. interests, then it should be a slam dunk case. Jury would recommend death and the Constitution would not be violated. But where is this evidence? Where is the memo giving legal justification for assassinating an American citizen?

I didn't respond to my co-worker about the "leave them alone, they will leave us alone" not holding water because I was done and we were going round and round. I do want to say it here, though. 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?

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?

Not once did I say that was in the constitution.

. . .

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?

Again. I never said this would be 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

Here is where I am going to dig into your Constitution comments. You are failing to grasp what I am saying. Obviously, this is not how due process was intended to be used. Luckily for us, the constitution can be amended. See, the founding fathers knew that in time America would face new challenges which would require the Constitution to be updated.

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.

I am saying that due process is a right. However, if you move to a country and avoid detection to the point where the US cannot give you the right to due process, then you are basically waving that right. We have to think about this one. You have the right to due process. That does not mean that you have the right to avoid due process to avoid being guilty.

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?

I agree with you. However, what is done is done. People are not going to like us again because we start playing nice.

I don't believe the US is going to get into more ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. The people may love you for a while, but they will hate you after they see what it takes to follow through with rebuilding a country.

By targeting the leadership of the terrorist groups we can disorganize them and destroy information which was shared between the top tiers of the organization. Also, we don't get the negative impact of killing large amounts of family members that comes along with a ground war. That combined with physiological operations could be a win for the US.

Is this morally right? I don't know. We could talk about that forever. But, like I said, we can't take back what has been done now.

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

 

lol Did you misunderstand my reply? I was basically saying and asking for the same thing. lol

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

Reply to post by NoAngel2u

More than likely I did misread it. Apologies to you.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Actually the U.S. constitution Article 3 section 3 does give congress the right to do with you as fit when it comes to treason.

ARTICLE III.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So you see congress when declaring WAR can punish you any way they want to when it comes to treason. Corruption of blood means congress cannot hold your entire family responsible for your actions.

I forgot to add one more thing. In order to get impeached you would need a 2/3rds vote from the House of Representatives. That would technically impeach you. Then in order to remove you from power the senate would have to conduct a trial and a super majority vote would be required to remove you.

No U.S. sitting president has ever gone to trial and removed. Why? Because no one would be foolish enough to be in a trial by a senate with no court rules. Remember the senate is not a court room and therefore has no court proceedings. Only a court room could provide you due process.

Only two have ever been impeached. Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson.

This is an absurd idea and has been proven time and time again not worth the effort. The designers of the Republic of the United States did better and put in place temporary kings and temporary governors. if the people are not happy with the temporary Kings or governors, you vote them out every 4 years. The idea was that you can survive knowing that these temporary Kings will be gone in a short amount of time. The good ones you will want to syat, but the bad ones will go.

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

 

I am not going to debate this any longer.

It is obvious that you and I will not agree. An individual intentionally using the Constitution of the US to harm it's citizens is waving their rights given by the Constitution (in my eyes).

If you are on the run in get captured then you are going to get due process. If you are on the run and try to kill people, then you risk getting shot. You are given do process until you obstruct that process.

Reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS

Congress can declare the punishment.

You can't be punished without a trial. Due process, and all.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com