Ron Paul, ACLU Condemn Anwar al-Awlaki Killing

Welcome Lower Merion residents!

We're glad you stopped by. Go ahead and register for a free account to get the benefits of being a member, including:
  • Access to all of our posts and comments
  • Your own profile including an avatar, buddy lists, and other social networking features
  • The ability to send private messages to other users on this site
  • The ability to chat and interact with other citizens and voters in and around Lower Merion.
Creating an account is easy. Register now!

(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
Tags:
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

This is a hot-button issue, but I agree with Ron Paul and the ACLU because I support the Constitution - as Republicans and Democrats in Congress silently endorse yet another usurpation of the Constitution.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a criminal and an evil person.

He was also a U.S. citizen.

He was not the member of the army of a country we had declared war against with an up-and-down vote in Congress in a constitutional manner.

He was most certainly a criminal and part of a very violent organization.

Al-Awlaki should have been presumed innocent, arrested, and provided with his constitutional right to a trial.

Posted on Fri, Sep. 30, 2011
Ron Paul, ACLU condemn Anwar al-Awlaki killing
By Brian Montopoli
CBS News

The ACLU said the killing was a violation of both U.S. and international law.

"As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU. "The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president - any president - with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

Added ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner: "If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

So the president has assumed the monarchist and unconstitutional powers to start wars without the consent of the People and to assassinate U.S. citizens that he deems a “threat”.

Great, just great.

Meanwhile, Yemen remains home to radical Muslim terrorists, and they just keep growing in number due to constant U.S. intervention in the country, and the killing of al-Awlaki will just motivate more to become terrorists.

The CIA calls it “blowback”, and it is described in detail in the 9/11 Commission Report.


Posted on Fri, Sep. 30, 2011
Ron Paul criticizes Obama for U.S. Role in Killing of Awlaki
By Michael Muscal
Los Angeles Times

"No, I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems,” Paul said in a videotape of the questioning by reporters. Awlaki “was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the ‘underwear bomber.’ But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it's sad.”

Paul went on to compare the situation to Timothy McVeigh, convicted of blowing up a truck bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The attack killed 168 people and injured more than 800 people.

“I think, what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly had done it,” Paul said. McVeigh “was put through the courts then executed. … To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this.”

Paul argued that the killing of Awlaki was different from the attack on Bin Laden because Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

“I voted for authority to go after those individuals responsible for 9/11,” Paul said. “Nobody ever suggested that he [Awlaki] was participant in 9/11.”

Some quotes:

“I want to congratulate the United States military and intelligence communities ..” Perry said in a prepared statement.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also praised the Obama administration in a prepared statement.

"The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a prepared statement.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.81818
Average: 3.8 (11 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dmuth's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 2005-09-13 :35
Posts:

I'm putting this on the front page, because I see that it's already got 7 votes (8 with mine). That suggests that it is a hot button issue with people, and should be discussed.

 

4.25
Average: 4.3 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
justcurious's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 days ago
Joined: 2010-02-26 :42
Posts:

The guy was a traitor who waged war against the United States and advocated killing as many Americans as possible. He most certainly was not, as the ACLU said, "far away from any battlefield." Rather, he was right in the middle of the battlefield, in Yemen, fighting for Al Qaeda against us. Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen who committed a terrible, heinous crime on American soil. His situation and al-Awlaki's situation are not comparable.

2.166665
Average: 2.2 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

well said, justcurious

Due Process for an enemy on the battlefield? I think this would be a first. The goal of war is to kill the enemy, not arrest them.

 

2.2
Average: 2.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the US, and James Madison, the 4th President of the US, fought the First Barbary War (1801-1805) and the Second Barbary War (1815), respectively.

           3rd President of US  Thomas Jefferson's Qu'ran, sometimes called the Book of Jihad

     James Madison, 4th President of the US, 'Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rghts"

History repeats itself; there is no new thing under the sun:

“In a 1786 meeting in London Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain on the issue. The American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of piracy from the Barbary States. The Barbary States, modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, are collectively known to the Arab world as the Maghreb (“Land of Sunset”), denoting Islam’s territorial holdings west of Egypt.”

“The two future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity.

Ambassador Adja answered them in unmistakable terms which was reported to the Continental Congress: “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

 

Joshua London Victory in Tripoli (2005) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=victory+in+tripoli&x=0&y=0

1.5
Average: 1.5 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

The popular position, by both D’s and R’s, is to have killed al-Awlaki.

Make no mistake - if al-Awlaki did the things he is accused of doing (and we don't know all the things he is accused of doing because they are a government secret), then I believe the world is a better place without him.

However, everybody knows I am a stickler for the rule of law and the Constitution.

I don’t think anybody can deny this is unconstitutional per the Fifth Amendment.

One solution is to amend the Constitution, but even that can be a slippery slope on this issue.

Since al-Awlaki and one other person who were killed in this targeted manner were U.S. citizens, the obvious solution for me would have been to have had a trial in-absentia since the president said he had the goods on them, and they were considered threats for years. The implication is that if the government says it has the goods on you, you should just be jailed or killed (shades of the most barbaric government's in history) because government knows best and always gets it right (you know, WMD’s and al-Qaeda in Iraq when neither turned out to be true). It’s not as if there are thousands (or even hundreds) of Americans on this hit list. Only a handful, so have trials in-absentia.

I have a serious problem with the president making this decision in secret, and not even with a judge involved, and even without the consent of Congress as this was based on an unconstitutional executive order - and one dubya made that Obama embraces after campaigning against dubya’s unconstitutional executive orders.

This is yet another example of how those in Washington flip their noses at the Constitution and make up the rules as they go along, with the result being government really has no rules or laws it has to obey, while citizens are over-burdened with hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations where they get in big trouble if they break one.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Tea Party types are railing against all the unconstitutional stuff going on in D.C., yet they applaud this unconstitutional killing.

The further irony is if al-Awlaki was caught, Obama disapproves of waterboarding him to get information about other terrorists (even if he were not an American citizen), but Obama can kill an American citizen on his say-so based on secret information that could be wrong (thus the constitutional right to due process/trial by jury).

The Obama administration opposes imprisoning terrorist suspects without due process but supports killing them without due process. Go figure.

Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki - including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican debate audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Rick Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists - criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.57143
Average: 4.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

I celebrate the common sense decision to kill a committed enemy of America unquestionably involved in past killings of Americans and unquestionably planning future killings of Americans. The President was well within his Constitutional powers and did his duty to protect America and Americans. Designing a government for the common defense was the purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia May 25th to September 17th.

One can think that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, an actual drafter and signer of the Constitution, knew what it meant. The 3rd and 4th President, like the 45th President, killed America's enemies in the Middle East to protect America.

Who would we think to be more Constitutional than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison?

1.285715
Average: 1.3 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

First of all, the Barbary pirates were not U.S. citizens.

Further, the Barbary pirates were not acting on any real ideology. They reaped a pretty good profit in their trade; faith in that instance was more a rationalization rather than cause.

Jefferson acted appropriately and justly against unwarranted aggression against merchant shipping just as we act appropriately against Somali pirates today (we don’t assassinate them, we arrest them or fight back if they violently resist) – and these people are not even U.S. citizens.

The Barbary “war” ended in a peace treaty. Here's the treaty:

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer. The Consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the Territories of each other, both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any Vessel that they may think proper to visit; they shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Brokers.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.4
Average: 4.4 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Jefferson acted appropriately and justly against unwarranted aggression against merchant shipping just as we act appropriately against Somali pirates today (we don’t assassinate them, we arrest them or fight back if they violently resist) – and these people are not even U.S. citizens.

The Barbary “war” ended in a peace treaty. Here's the treaty:

Has the point yet been made that Jefferson did obtain a declaration of war from Congress against the Barbary Pirates?

3.4
Average: 3.4 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

That why I said Jefferson acted appropriately in the First Barbary War because Congress declared war. In the Second Barbary War congress granted Madison Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Article I, section 8:

Congress shall have the power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Nowhere does the Constitution give the president authority to bomb countries, start wars, or assassinate people.

These powers Belong To Congress Alone:

In 2000, however, the D.C. Circuit addressed the Quasi War cases in Campbell v. Clinton,12 a case that arose out of President Clinton’s military action in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.13 Although the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case for lack of standing,14 the three concurring opinions provide a significant reinterpretation of the Quasi War cases.15 Each concurrence found that one or more of the Quasi War cases involved the separation of powers.16 The opinions gave serious weight to the idea that the Quasi War cases supported an interpretation of the Letters of Marque and Reprisal Clause that greatly enhanced Congress’s authority over undeclared wars.17

As suggested earlier, Campbell did not arise in a vacuum, but was rather fairly consistent with several recent trends in scholarship regarding letters of marque and reprisal. In the midst of the political turmoil of the Vietnam War, Professor Charles Lofgren suggested that the grant of the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal meant that Congress had constitutional authority over all undeclared (or small) wars, in addition to declared wars.18 Under this line of reasoning, Congress alone would have the authority to commence all armed conflicts under the Constitution.19

Again, what’s wrong with following the rule of law and the Constitution to take out terrorists when we have a legal means to do so?

Why let the president get away with further eroding the Constitution? Why devolve into nothing better than a Muslim dictatorship?

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.5
Average: 3.5 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

That why I said Jefferson acted appropriately in the First Barbary War because Congress declared war.

No you didn't, you said Jefferson's appropriate acting was "just as" we are now acting against Somali pirates; but we have made no declaration of war against Somali pirates. So that's kind of the opposite of the point I would have expected you to make:

Jefferson acted appropriately and justly against unwarranted aggression against merchant shipping just as we act appropriately against Somali pirates today (we don’t assassinate them, we arrest them or fight back if they violently resist) – and these people are not even U.S. citizens.

 

3.333335
Average: 3.3 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Fair point now that I re-read how I worded the post. Any other points of mine you want to nit-pick? Glad I’m not married to ya Sticking out tongue

You actually don't need to declare war to take on pirates, though we did as the First Barbary War was rather extended, it involved us attacking and the founders really crossed their i's and dotted their t's with anything they did.

Since we are not directly attacking Somali pirates, but rather protecting merchant ships, that is self-defense and also falls under Article I, Section 8:

Congress shall have the power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Congress has passed a variety of rules dealing with pirates, but I’m off to dinner so feel free to look them up yourself.

I’m not familiar with the exact legal justification for stopping Somali pirates, but I would hope and expect it goes to the Constitution and Congress first, and then international law.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.8
Average: 3.8 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Glad I’m not married to ya

Mega dittos on that Laughing out loud

3.875
Average: 3.9 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

The key point that you raised is Jefferson declared war in the First Barbary war.

I previously had pointed out Madison used Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the Second Barbary war.

Congress properly exercised its constitutional authority in both these conflicts by granting both presidents the authority to do what they did per the Constitution.

From that standpoint, I have no idea why Bob is referencing Jefferson or Madison in regards to the killing of al-Awlaki.

Heck, the treaty I quoted above that ended the Barbary wars recognizes Muslims and their right to practice their religion (only a small number of Muslims are terrorists today, just as only a small number were pirates back then).

I just don't understand this drive to re-write the Constitution and to re-interpret what the founders said into some all-encompassing anti-Muslim agenda.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.6
Average: 4.6 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Are you implying that Al-Qaeda and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen are engaged in "warranted" aggression?

Are you implying that because Anwar Al-Awlaki is an American citizen, he can't be an enemy combatant? Anwar al-Awlaki was a leader of the enemy forces.

The Barbary Pirates justified their thievery by religion just as Anwar al-Awlaki and Al-Qaeda justify their murderous aggression toward America and Americans.

I think you are demonstrating why Ron Paul and his network can't be trusted with foreign policy.

 

1.8
Average: 1.8 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

I am saying al-Awlaki was engaged in unwarranted aggression against the U.S, but under the Constitution he is innocent until proven guilty and has his due process protections, which include a constitutional right to trial. It does not matter how al-Awlaki "justifies" it. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior, and when a crime is committed there is no justification - and regardless of what justification someone uses. The point is moot.

The reason al-Awlaki is not an enemy combatant is because we are not at war. Congress has refused to declare war. How can anyone be an enemy combatant when a state of declared war does not exist? That’s what the law says. Heck, even France has declared war against al-Qaeda. Why can’t Congress declare war against al-Qaeda given 9/11? That’s insanity.

You may say the evidence is irrefutable against al-Awlaki, but we have not seen it as it is a secret. Are you saying we should have assassinated the Pakistani who planted the car bomb that did not work in Times Square because the evidence was irrefutable - instead of arresting him as we did (not sure if he was a U.S. citizen or not, but it does not matter)?

What about some 20 year old U.S. citizen online in some remote country where we can't get to him in person where he just states he supports al-Qaeda, but is otherwise not a threat? Do we drop a bomb on him? Where do you draw the line on bad behavior that warrants assassination and bad behavior that does not? For me, the answer is simple – the courts based on constitutional legislation. You know, the rule of law.

What is your problem with having an in-absentia trial for al-Awlaki, and if the jury calls for death, then dropping a bomb on him? Would that not show the U.S. is not only more civilized, but also believes in due process and the rule of law? Why stoop to the level of terrorists when we don’t have to?

We did not assassinate and do not assassinate Barbary and Somali pirates, but rather we try and round them up, and kill them if they use lethal force in the process of rounding them up.

Ron Paul, unlike anyone else in Congress, supports the Constitution. We should demand no less in any president or presidential candidate. The Constitution does not authorize the president to send drone planes to kill anyone, American or not, without a Declaration of War, or a Letter of Marque or Reprisal, authorized by Congress. Letters of Marque and Reprisal can be granted by Congress only, after which the president can target those individuals for capture or death.

Why did Obama not seek a Letter of Marque and Reprisal (which is spelled out in the Constitution and which is what Madison used against the Barbary pirates) or have an in-absentia trial and then kill al-Awlaki, which would also comport with the Constitution? Why shouldn’t a president who has sworn an oath to “support, obey and defend” the Constitution do so – and particularly when it gives him constitutional options to kill al-Awlaki?

I'm appalled, but not surprised, that citizens go apeshit when Ron Paul simply says "wait a minute, let's realize what we're doing here and what kind of precedent we're setting here. If the U.S. government can assassinate a U.S. citizen just like that, with no charges, then the Constitution is meaningless".

You think Ron Paul is defending a terrorist. You are too blinded by your own ideology to realize he is defending you.

You are also promoting Obama’s re-election by endorsing his unconstitutional behavior.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.6
Average: 3.6 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

against whom would you want Congress to declare war? there is no country waging war (except Iran, perhaps) against us.

 

1.4
Average: 1.4 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Declare war against al-Qaeda. Several countries have.

If that does not pass snuff, have Oabama issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against al-Qaeda like Madison did with the Barbary pirates.

Heck, if this president is allowed all this unconstitutional, monarchist power, why not give it to Liz Rogan? Let her do whatever she wants, regardless of the rule of law. That's what the POTUS does, and it sets a terrible example.

It amazes me how many people bash these unconstitutional executive orders until it serves their own purpose.

Very slippery slope indeed.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4
Average: 4 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

This article may be helpful. You are not the first to underestimate the threat.

 

Western leaders have history of blinders on duplicitous regimes By: Diana West | 10/01/11 Examiner Columnist

Robert Conquest, pre-eminent historian of the genocides, purges and terrors of the Soviet Union, has long contemplated the blinders the West wears when looking at -- or, rather not looking at -- the millions of dead bodies the gigantically Evil Empire was responsible for.

"Why people didn't, and still don't, understand the Communist regimes has to do with their concentration on reputable, or reputable-sounding, phenomena," Conquest wrote in a 2005 essay. "This is what amounts to an attempt to tame the data or, perhaps more correctly, a mental or psychological bent toward blocking the real essentials, the real meaning."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/10/western-leaders-have-history-blinders-duplicitous-regimes?utm_source=10/02%20Washington%20Examiner%20Opinion%20-%2010/02/2011&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest#ixzz1ZeBXWxjz

 

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, left, listens to Pakistan's Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Gen. Khalid Shameem Wynne during a meeting in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on April 20. Mullen is visiting Pakistan at a time of tensions over America's role in the region.

1.666665
Average: 1.7 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Didn't get beyond the title.

I'm not saying have "blinders".

I am saying there are constitutional ways to accomplish your greatest Muslim killing goals, Bob, (I only support killing Muslims who are terrorists in a constitutional manner) so why not follow them?

Why not do it with the consent of the People via Congress and so the president does not usurp his authority?

Isn’t that how it is supposed to work in this country, or should we devolve into nothing better than a Muslim dictatorship?

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.142855
Average: 4.1 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Other than Ron Paul, has any member of Congress objected to drone killing of Anwar Al-Awalki or Osama bin Laden. Isn't silence tantamount to consent? and Congress is paying for all of this, isn't it? Doesn't that say something about Congress's agreement with the course of action?

2
Average: 2 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Did you agree with the course of action by Congress in giving Bush the unconstitutional “authority” to start a senseless and wrongheaded war with Iraq that Congress never declared and is still paying for today?

Did you agree with the course of action by Congress in voting for the unconstitutional “Obamacare”?

This is what the founders feared. A “mobocracy” where the Constitution is ignored and Congress votes on its whim with no checks and balances.

I think those on the left and right can come up with scores of examples of Congress voting on and funding things that don’t pass constitutional muster. They just disagree on what is unconstitutional.

This is the main reason, in my view, that the approval rating of Congress is approaching single digits.

As for Ron Paul, if there is a 431-1 vote in the House, you can bet he is the sole dissenter, and he has been the sole "no" vote on many, many bills in Congress because he always follows the Constitution.

Hence the nickname "Dr. No" by members of Congress, which Ron Paul does not like because he sees himself as voting "yes" for the Constitution.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.6
Average: 4.6 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

The Iraq Liberation Act was enacted with unanimous consent of Congress and signed by President Clinton (42d President) on October 31, 1998 and set the stage for the Iraq War which was, also, authorized by US Congress. 

1) The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government. Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) introduced the H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later.

President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998

2) Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 October 31, 1998 Read more at the American Presidency Project: William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=55205#ixzz1Zi9ESYln

 

2
Average: 2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

The Iraq Liberation Act was enacted with unanimous consent of Congress and signed by President Clinton (42d President) on October 31, 1998 and set the stage for the Iraq War which was, also, authorized by US Congress.

Unconstitutional.

Congress punted and gave the president the unconstitutional "authority" to start an undeclared and unconstitutional war with Iraq.

As I quoted about in Article I, Section 8 - only Congress has the direct authority Declare War or issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

This ensures that the extremely important vote to go to war is left in the hands of the People via their elected representatives who have to face how the People feel about going to war.

Totally illegal for the Congress to give the president the unconstitutional authority to go to war (or "just" bomb a country - which is an act of war) at some later, unknown date.

How would you feel if the commissioners gave Cleland the "authority" to unilaterally decide if we should have the massive library expansions at some later, unknown date - and then wham, out-of-the-blue Cleland hits us with the massive library expansions based on his own personal, unilateral decision while the commissioners give themselves political cover by dumping it off on Cleland?

Yet another example you give, Bob, that demonstrates the Constitution is meaningless in Washington and Congress and the president make up their own rules as the go along, but watch out if you are a citizen and you break one their hundreds of thousands of laws, rules and regulations they impose on us.

The hypocrisy and double-standards in Washington (by both parties) go beyond the pale.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.666665
Average: 4.7 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bc59's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 weeks ago
Joined: 2010-03-18 :57
Posts:

I haven't contributed to this discussion before, but this morning I was struck by the hypocrisy of the american governement condemning Iran for its immoral plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, while no one questions the morality of the US assissinating Al-Awliki.  How can our country keep a moral high ground when it engages in actions such as this? 

 

4.6
Average: 4.6 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

President Obama is right on both counts, in my opinion, and has done what is necessary to protect Americans, including those, lawfully, in America like foreign diplomats.

2
Average: 2 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

It’s OK if we do it, but not OK if they do it.

It’s hypocritical double-standards like that which cause many people in the Middle East outrage and motivates more people to become terrorists.

There is no moral, let alone legal, justification for the assassination of a U.S. citizen on the “authority” of the president alone based on a secret memo the administration won’t even release.

This country has lost its moral compass, and most Americans go right along with it.

Next thing you know, Americans who commit theft will have their hands cut off by the government while crowds cheer with bloodlust.

The U.S. is sinking in the same direction as Sharia based Muslim governments.

No rule of law. No presumption of innocence. No right to a trial. No due process.

What’s the Beatle’s song – Back to the USSR?

Stalin would be proud.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.833335
Average: 4.8 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

I am in total agreement with Politeia on this ( horribly misappropriated Beatles quote notwithstanding.) Surely we can't be in a state of war so vague as to warrant the killing of any person for any reason.

Politeia is also very correct that we need to get back to specific declarations of war by the Congress, as mandated by the constitution. Declarations of war should be deliberate, specific, and undertaken with all due gravity.

You think those "too cool" stealth drones are not going to be used by other countries against us some day?

4.8
Average: 4.8 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Too Cool   Navy's New Stealth Drones   The Enemies of American Freedom, Beware!

   

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/check-out-the-navys-next-generation-stealth-fighter-drone-in-cruise-mode

US Navy's Next Generation of Stealth Drone

The X-47B is a strike fighter-sized unmanned aircraft currently under development as part of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) program. Under a contract awarded to Northrop Grumman in 2007, there are now two X-47B aircraft undergoing flight tests.

2
Average: 2 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Navy's New Stealth Drones The Enemies of American Freedom, Beware!

When you undermine the Constitution, and weaken our freedoms as provided by the Constitution, our enemies have won.

Why can't we bomb them in a constitutional manner by having congress declare war, as opposed to making the president a monarch who usurps his authority?

Jefferson declared war against the Barbary pirates, who sailed out of several countries and represented no one country - just like al-Qaeda. France has even declared war against al-Qaeda.

Congress should be having an up-and-down vote on these bombings as a Declaration of War or at least by authorizing Letters of Marque and Reprisal against specific targets.

What, Bob, is so wrong with that?

Why do you feel it is OK for the president (or any president) to violate his oath of office, act like a monarch, issue unconstitutional executive orders, and bomb any countries or kill any people he wishes without the approval of Congress (or even a court of law)?

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.833335
Average: 4.8 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

So now al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son and U.S. citizen (as well as a 17 year old cousin) have been killed in a drone missile attack in Yemen.

Ya think the killing of teenagers is going to instill more hatred against the U.S. in the Middle East and motivate more people to become terrorists?

I have no idea if al-Awlaki’s son was involved in wrongdoing or not, but he was only 16 years old, and these drones have killed a lot of true innocents. Perhaps the 16 year old son had no involvement in anything except being a regular teenager, but when his father was killed he decided to take up the cause?

Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to drop bombs on ten years olds because they may become terrorists? Heck, we’d have to kill just about every ten year old in the Middle East.

Mission creep took over long ago. There is no doubt in my mind we are doing more harm than good.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.75
Average: 4.8 (4 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

I think that nothing the US does will convince these radicals to "like" us. Better they fear us and best that they cannot kill us again.

War is not a popularity contest.

2
Average: 2 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

I agree war is ugly, but we are not officially at war. I'm still waiting for a Declaration of War and the legal authority based on the will of the People (a vote by Congress) for the government to be doing what it is doing.

I'm more than tired with government constantly breaking the law with no repercussions while citizens get locked up for the most mundane and remote law breaking.

This is the definition of a tyrannical government, and it's exactly what we have.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.666665
Average: 4.7 (3 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.