Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

He wasn't in "military service"? He was...devoted to the enemy.

Fine, let due process decide that and authorise the executive to act.

 

[webdog]

Fine, let due process decide that and authorise the executive to act.

What is there to decide, he admitted it! He is a self professed militant jihadist who used his ability to speak english in his recruitment of other militia. He was in an armed convoy. Our military took him out. No impeachable offense.

 

[HankD]

Even that exception seems to deal only with those in military service. This certainly needs to be clarified. As it is the president is on thin ice at best.

On the differences.

The police do not have the right to simply shoot a suspect on sight. There must be an attempt to arrest him. Even the criminal runs then he puts himself at risk.

In Anwar's case there was no rush. The president had almost two years to get judicial or legislative backing. There is no doubt he would have got it. He simply usurped their authority. That is the problem here.

Agreed.

HankD

 

[webdog]

"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law

Interestingly he also says that the precedent had already been set through 2 world wars as citizens who take up arms with enemy forces have been considered legitimate targets even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

 

[HankD]

"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law

Interestingly he also says that the precedent had already been set through 2 world wars as citizens who take up arms with enemy forces have been considered legitimate targets even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

I knew that also.

However, lets make it official in order to keep the rule of law.

Though many things today are being done totally against the "consent of the governed" (like passing multi-trillion $ legislation and then allowing we the people to read it afterwards to see what it says).

HankD

 

[freeatlast]

Though I am never in favor of the use of force as a primary means of resolving conflict, this was a legal act by the President.

There are no grounds for impeachment here. (though isn't it ironic how many evangelical/republicans just want anything to use against the President?)

When Congressman Paul says stuff like this he proves more and more why he is incapable of fulfilling the office to which he aspires.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[freeatlast]

I hope that is not referring to me - according to most GOP/Evangelicals on the board I am an Obamanite.

I would be interested to see how a president issuing a death warrant against a US citizen without any legislative or judicial action is legal. There is a process, he ignored it.

The fact is he did not ignore any law. In war the commander and chief has authority over the military and the civil laws do not extend to laws of engagement in war. What this president did in this case was totally legal and justified as this man forfeited his civil protections when he left the US and became an enemy of the US.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What this president did in this case was totally legal and justified as this man forfeited his civil protections when he left the US and became an enemy of the US.

And what court has ruled this? What law states this?

I am greatly bothered by one man having the power to decide which US citizens live and which die according to his interpretation of the law. That is why we have courts.

 

[freeatlast]

And what court has ruled this? What law states this?

I am greatly bothered by one man having the power to decide which US citizens live and which die according to his interpretation of the law. That is why we have courts.

The law that grants him the right to lead our military in war.

 

[billwald]

>In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the ultimate authority for determining the Constitution’s meaning lay with the judicial branch of government through the power of judicial review. Pursuant to this power, courts are authorized to review laws enacted by government officials and invalidate those that violate the Constitution.

Thanks for reminding me of this ruling. You all hate it, yes?

 

[mandym]

>In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the ultimate authority for determining the Constitution’s meaning lay with the judicial branch of government through the power of judicial review. Pursuant to this power, courts are authorized to review laws enacted by government officials and invalidate those that violate the Constitution.

Thanks for reminding me of this ruling. You all hate it, yes?

It no. Judges that try to legislate from the bench yes.

 

[HankD]

>In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court, per Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that the ultimate authority for determining the Constitution’s meaning lay with the judicial branch of government through the power of judicial review. Pursuant to this power, courts are authorized to review laws enacted by government officials and invalidate those that violate the Constitution.

Thanks for reminding me of this ruling. You all hate it, yes?

No.

HankD

 

[Crucified in Christ]

It is easy to throw away principles in the death of a truly dispicable person, but you are left with precedents...and giving any executive the ability to decide citizenship status unilaterally, guilt outside of courts, and commencing an execution without review is a very poor precedent indeed.

One of the great privilidges our founders fought and died for was that if I am ever accused of a serious crime, as an American citizen, my guilt is not determined by any government official, but by a jury of my fellow citizens. If we compromise such lofty ideals over pragmatism, I believe we endanger the very freedoms for which we are fighting.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It is easy to throw away principles in the death of a truly dispicable person, but you are left with precedents...and giving any executive the ability to decide citizenship status unilaterally, guilt outside of courts, and commencing an execution without review is a very poor precedent indeed.

One of the great privilidges our founders fought and died for was that if I am ever accused of a serious crime, as an American citizen, my guilt is not determined by any government official, but by a jury of my fellow citizens. If we compromise such lofty ideals over pragmatism, I believe we endanger the very freedoms for which we are fighting.

Very well said!

One thing, maybe this will put to rest the silly stories that President Obama is a closet Muslim who is soft on terrorism. After all, he violated the basis of the American way of life to kill one.

 

[freeatlast]

It is easy to throw away principles in the death of a truly dispicable person, but you are left with precedents...and giving any executive the ability to decide citizenship status unilaterally, guilt outside of courts, and commencing an execution without review is a very poor precedent indeed.

One of the great privilidges our founders fought and died for was that if I am ever accused of a serious crime, as an American citizen, my guilt is not determined by any government official, but by a jury of my fellow citizens. If we compromise such lofty ideals over pragmatism, I believe we endanger the very freedoms for which we are fighting.

No one has thrown away the principles. Awlaki was an “imminent threat" to the security of this nation and under the war powers act the president acted. (I never thought I would be defending this president,wow).

If this President is held guilty of violating the constitution either by legal proceedings or just the claims of men then to be consistent history has to be re-written because so should President Abraham Lincoln be charged as he became a mass murderer of thousands of Americans who never saw due process. This president used his authority to protect this nation against an imminent threat which was totally justified something Lincoln could not claim. If any president was ever guilty of violating the 5th amendment then it was Abraham Lincoln.

In the case of Awlaki he was a threat to national security who's name was on a terrorist list which the Federal courts have upheld as legal even without due process and was in fact engaged in a war against this nation. The fact that he was not in literal combat at the time of his death does not mean he could not be killed. The president did the right thing and no one has lost any rights that legally belong to them. The 5th amendment was never intended to protect a person from being stopped, even if by death, from waging war against this nation.
However everyone has lost rights because of those who supported President Bush's airport unlawful searches and seizure and they have now escalated to the sports arena as being searched to enter a football game. Where is the outcry against President Bush for his violating the constitution which he clearly did!

As for President Obama, Awlaki was a leader in an enemy organization that was actively attacking the United States. There is ample constitutional precedent for killing enemy leaders in war time, even if they are U.S. citizens, as Lincoln’s experience shows.

 

[preachinjesus]

I hope that is not referring to me - according to most GOP/Evangelicals on the board I am an Obamanite.

It wasn't. I don't try to make blanket statements about people's perceived allegiances. If it sounded that way my apologies.

I would be interested to see how a president issuing a death warrant against a US citizen without any legislative or judicial action is legal. There is a process, he ignored it.

This cleric was a militant and he was a traitor and he was fighting with the other side. The President didn't need to follow through on "due process" as this citizen had, by engaging in his activities, left the civil circle wherein those rights are afforded and represented a military threat. Listen, I'm not applauding this nor am I to be confused with a supporter of any political party. That said Presidents since before Lincoln have had enemy combatants who were still citizens put down.

Though I should never be confused with a legal scholar, I'd be willing to bet there is a part of the war powers acts or national security acts which give the President this, albeit limited, discretion.

Here's a scenario: A US citizen takes over an airplane, he's flying towards Manhattan...does the President have to call a judge, the majority leader, the Speaker, and one hundred other people to get a warrant to shoot down the plane? Nope. Same situation here. A clear and present danger to security and an identified combatant have no need for that kind of due process.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Big difference there. In that case there would be an imminent and immediate threat. In this case it has been almost two years since the death warrant. There has been more than enough time to get judicial or legislative backing. He chose not to do it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Where is the outcry against President Bush for his violating the constitution which he clearly did![/FONT]

As for President Obama, Awlaki was a leader in an enemy organization that was actively attacking the United States. There is ample constitutional precedent for killing enemy leaders in war time, even if they are U.S. citizens, as Lincoln’s experience shows.

President Lincoln, if I am not mistaken, declared martial law.

As to President Bush there has been plenty of criticism for his unconstitutional actions,, including from your truly

 

[billwald]

Yes. Lincoln's Revolution pounded the last nail on our coffin.

 

[clark092504]

Question. So are we suppose to just wait around until our country is attacked by it's own citizen? Especially since he's part of a group that is a major threat to our country. U.S. citizen or not you chose who you want to be associated with. He made his chose. Being in the U.S. means he has knowledge of the country. We really don't know how things went down unless we work directly for the president and staff themselves. Media can blow things way out of proportion.