Just how dangerous is the presidency really becoming?

[A2K78]

Holder and crew obviously think that the president is above the law can order state murder:

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/26/...-up-to-executive-branch-not-courts-to-decide/

 

[Northstar]

This is nothing new really, I would guess this sort of thing has been going on for some time.

As for this case itself, the article makes it out to sound like he is just some average joe, yet a look at his Wikipedia page tells a different story. If even half that crap it true he should indeed be terminated.

 

[A2K78]

This is nothing new really, I would guess this sort of thing has been going on for some time.

As for this case itself, the article makes it out to sound like he is just some average joe, yet a look at his Wikipedia page tells a different story. If even half that crap it true he should indeed be terminated.

Who cares about what Anwar al-Awlaki has done, the point is when the presidents decides that they can go above the law by playing judge, jury and executioner with a form of extrajudicial murder its a slap in the face to the constitution especially since there is no due process is involved. To put it straight, this would be no different than torture.

 

[Dotini]

Who cares about what Anwar al-Awlaki has done, the point is when the presidents decides that they can go above the law by playing judge, jury and executioner with a form of extrajudicial murder its a slap in the face to the constitution especially since there is no due process is involved. To put it straight, this would be no different than torture.

There are large numbers of libertarians who inhabit this forum. Our greatest bete noire is rampant authoritarianism. In other words, if you are going to disturb us with news of executive crimes such as murder and torture of ordinary citizens without judicial sanction, it had better be pretty well documented and thought out. al-Awaki is not the best case to start out with.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Northstar]

Who cares about what Anwar al-Awlaki has done,

Considering that it's the main reason he was targeted it's not something you can ignore.

the point is when the presidents decides that they can go above the law by playing judge, jury and executioner with a form of extrajudicial murder its a slap in the face to the constitution especially since there is no due process is involved. To put it straight, this would be no different than torture.

Like I said, chances are this is nothing new, only difference is that we are hearing about it now where we never would have known it was going on before.

This is really a no-win situation for any president, sign the order and get heat for it, or don't sign it and hope that he doesn't have any direct involvement with a future terrorist attack, where surely the consequences would be much worse.

Like I said, the article makes it seem like the order was put out on some average joe when it indeed was not. Unless you have enough contacts with known terrorists where it just can't be a coincidence and have the reputation of "The Online Osama Bin Laden" you really have nothing to worry about.

 

[Omnis]

It's been this way since Lincoln established the imperial presidency and showed that he was willing to war against the states and their claim to sovereignty. People have a hard time with some of the stuff the founders wrote about because they don't live in the pre-lincoln world they set up.

 

[Keef]

It's been this way since Lincoln established the imperial presidency and showed that he was willing to war against the states and their claim to sovereignty. People have a hard time with some of the stuff the founders wrote about because they don't live in the pre-lincoln world they set up.

What does that have to do with state sovereignty when the southern states were basically a different nation? Wait... They considered themselves a different nation, but of course the Union didn't recognize their right to secede and therefore didn't recognize them as a new nation. So what the Union did was attack and take over a sovereign nation because this sovereign nation wasn't obeying Union laws. Hmm.

So what you're telling me is that the Civil War wasn't a "civil" war at all? And that it shouldn't be looked at as a good deed of the Union, but a mistake? Was this our first case of "nation building"?

 

[GT_Prologue5]

Well, looks like some POTUS's are idiots. Is this really how we take terrorism? A guy with a Muslim name says he doesn't like the country and he's planned for execution? I mean I don't like this country either, but because my last name is Hall, no one cares! They have no proof that he did anything wrong. Please President Obama, make the smart and just decision here.

 

[Omnis]

What does that have to do with state sovereignty when the southern states were basically a different nation? Wait... They considered themselves a different nation, but of course the Union didn't recognize their right to secede and therefore didn't recognize them as a new nation. So what the Union did was attack and take over a sovereign nation because this sovereign nation wasn't obeying Union laws. Hmm.

So what you're telling me is that the Civil War wasn't a "civil" war at all? And that it shouldn't be looked at as a good deed of the Union, but a mistake? Was this our first case of "nation building"?

No, the original intent of the republic was that it was a voluntary union and that the states had the right to withdraw from it because, of course, states' rights came before the federal government's.

The states that didn't secede were the ones that, essentially, were okay with this new role reversal of Feds first. So the remaining Union was like the birth of the nation. The south didn't form a nation but a confederacy, much like that which the colonies had before they drafted the constitution.

Lincoln was the first imperial President and attacked the south to reclaim what was "his". It wasn't a good deed, but a power grab.

 

[Northstar]

Well, looks like some POTUS's are idiots. Is this really how we take terrorism? A guy with a Muslim name says he doesn't like the country and he's planned for execution? I mean I don't like this country either, but because my last name is Hall, no one cares! They have no proof that he did anything wrong. Please President Obama, make the smart and just decision here.

Once again this isn't just some guy with a Muslim name and an opinion, he has been tied to two 9/11 hijackers, Nidal Malik Hasan(Fort Hood Gunman), as well as the attempted bombings of Flight 253 and the failed NYC bombings earlier this year. He also has the reputation as the "Osama Bin Laden of the internet".

This is not just some guy with an opinion.

 

[FoolKiller]

Like I said, the article makes it seem like the order was put out on some average joe when it indeed was not.

Doesn't change the fact that he is a US citizen and as such has the same rights as you or I. I can think of people that have done far worse than have alleged ties to terrorist groups. I don't see why someone like Ted Bundy gets a right to due process while this guy gets a bullet from a sniper rifle.

It is not the first or last time something like this will happen, but the bigger point is that it should never happen. It goes against the very principles that built this nation and any president that has a shred of respect for the office he holds should refuse to do it.

 

[Dotini]

If he is an American citizen suspected of a heinous crime who is residing (hiding) in a foreign country and the President wants to kill him, then the President damn well should obtain judicial sanction which provides a basis in law for the assassination. The judge will need to see the evidence. Are there any arguments against this??

 

[Omnis]

Capture, not assassination.

 

[McLaren]

Well, looks like some POTUS's are idiots. Is this really how we take terrorism? A guy with a Muslim name says he doesn't like the country and he's planned for execution? I mean I don't like this country either, but because my last name is Hall, no one cares! They have no proof that he did anything wrong. Please President Obama, make the smart and just decision here.

Try reading his Wikipedia page; he's not being targeted just because he has a Muslim name.

 

[Dotini]

Capture, not assassination.

Whatever our President does should be legal. He should not act in a manner above the law. We threw Nixon out of office because he ordained simple burglary. What's changed?

 

[Submerged]

Whatever our President does should be legal. He should not act in a manner above the law. We threw Nixon out of office because he ordained simple burglary. What's changed?

....forgive me if I sound ignorant (probably am), but didn't Nixon resign instead, when he could see that the public did not like the way things were done?

 

[Dotini]

....forgive me if I sound ignorant (probably am), but didn't Nixon resign instead, when he could see that the public did not like the way things were done?

Very good!
As I recall (without checking anything), Nixon did resign. But he did so under immediate threat of Impeachment. Recalling the mood of the people (and the Senate!) at the time, conviction would have been a certainty.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[A2K78]

Considering that it's the main reason he was targeted it's not something you can ignore.



Like I said, chances are this is nothing new, only difference is that we are hearing about it now where we never would have known it was going on before.

This is really a no-win situation for any president, sign the order and get heat for it, or don't sign it and hope that he doesn't have any direct involvement with a future terrorist attack, where surely the consequences would be much worse.

Like I said, the article makes it seem like the order was put out on some average joe when it indeed was not. Unless you have enough contacts with known terrorists where it just can't be a coincidence and have the reputation of "The Online Osama Bin Laden" you really have nothing to worry about.

We had one president who decided that he could go above the law and take away the constitutional rights of certain citizens and imprison them in internment camps; one who determined that he can kidnap individuals and torture them and now one who believe he can murder anyone of his choosing.

With that said, how far across the line should we continue to tread?

 

[YSSMAN]

Very good!
As I recall (without checking anything), Nixon did resign. But he did so under immediate threat of Impeachment. Recalling the mood of the people (and the Senate!) at the time, conviction would have been a certainty.

Respectfully,
Dotini

There was still a bit of work to be done for him to be removed from office by Congress, but he would have had to testify as a sitting President. Something that has never happened, and presumably never will. Nixon wanted to save the image of himself and the presidency in general, and with Ford's pardon, the general feeling is that we stabilized the seat for a little while.

As I recall, it has only been Jackson, Nixon and Clinton who have experienced prolonged impeachment proceedings.