Downsize.org calls for Impeachment of President

Since Al-Awlaki doesn't fit that description, it's a moot point.

Since he wasn't a civilian, that is also irrelevant.

Whoosh!

Not interested in schizoid yet weaselly anti-American sophistry, thanks anyway.

 

How can any individual be a member of an organization that doesn't exist? There isn't an organization called al Qaeda and never has been. It is a product of the US intelligence services and spread by the media.

And who proved that he was a member of any terrorist organization in a court of law? All we have are statements from the Executive branch of the government and the news media. Neither statements made by the White House or in the media are evidence of his membership in any terrorist organization.

The arguments that murder isn't murder aren't even worth responding to. The law is clear on what constitutes 1st degree murder.

 

How is it that we give foreign war criminals a trial and an American citizen gets summarily executed by a drone? This Al Awlaki was human excrement however, he never officially denounced his citizenship to my knowledge.

They should have captured him and put him on trial instead of letting a US President become judge, jury and executioner. Has this set a precedent for 'elimination by drone' of anyone the President decides is deleterious to his agenda? OR anyone who, when they assume room temperature, could be a political feather on the Presidents cap?

 

What they call themselves doesn't matter. What matters is that a group of people we call Al Qaeda are acting with a common purpose that is inimical to US interests.

Nobody with any brains gives a damm. You're welcome.

As far as I'm concerned you are more than welcome to bring whatever legal actions you think are appropriate, and to go bankrupt doing it.

The CiC is not constitutionally required to present such evidence to anybody before killing an enemy combatant in wartime.

Which is just ducky, since obviously no one has presented any such arguments, as anyone who can out-think a mushroom can see.

 

It is actually those without a brain that don't consider whether a person is guilty of a criminal act and should be murdered by the Executive Branch.

Guilt can only be determined by a Court of Law and not by the Executive Branch of our government. Only tyrannical governments like the former USSR, the Pol Pot regime, or Iraq under Saddam allow the "executive branch" of government to determine the guilt of the individual.

Once again, this matter should be turned over to Congress and Congress should decide through the impeachment process if it authorized the extra-judicial execution of a US citizen (which of course it did not) in compliance with the US Constitution. That is the responsibility of Congress under the US Constitution and it needs to be called upon to perform its Constitutional role in this matter. Does anyone object to the Congress fulfilling it's Constitutional responsibilities?

The 5th Amendment expressly prohibits any office of government from depriving any person of their life without due process of the law. It is apparent to me that the President did not comply with the Constitution and that Congress needs to address this through the impeachment process. That is a responsibility of Congress that cannot be ignored based upon political opinions. The President must be held accountable to the US Constitution.

 

But of course one must be functionally brainless to think there are any legal grounds for a charge of murder in the case of Awlaki.

I see it still has't sunk in that extra-judicial killings aren't necessarily illegal.

It was assassination, not execution.

This, of course, is a brazen lie.

 

So the president of the United States can unilaterally decide to execute someone without any legal authorization from Congress? That is what an extra-judicial execution is.

Assassinations are illegal under international laws and treaties that the US is a party to which makes them illegal under US law. They are considered to be a crime against humanity.

Of interest is the fact that the US has just recently foiled an assassination attempt alledgedly by the Iranian government. If assassinations are legal then why is the US objecting to this assassination attempt?

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=127033

Of note the rationalization of the "legality" of this execution was exclusively developed by the Executive Branch without any consultation with either the courts or the Congress despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111010/jsp/foreign/story_14605152.jsp

 

Not what happened, obviously.

Ditto.

Bearing in mind that the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations is reserved to Congress, what in Hell makes you think the President and the Senate have any authority in this regard?

Sure they are, by people like yourself who enable such crimes by their de facto appeasement of such criminals.

PWI is bad enough when regular members do it, Mr. Moderator.

And how exactly is the President supposed to "consult with the courts"?

Not necessary, as they acknowledged his authority to carry out such meausres ten years ago.

 

He killed a pathetic terrrorist traitor. Good riddance.

He should be impeached for not being a US citizen

 

“(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text

Becoming a member of that organization would then make them a target.

Not Amendment 8, as it does not apply to foreign enemies at war with us, but this applies:

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

“Any act by which severe pain or suffering,…”

And that depends upon the definition of “severe.”

So provide the official legal definition of “severe.”

“The techniques used had been ‘fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress’, he added.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7030383.stm

Now in response to anything you say to the contrary:

”We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton)

Now which one is the worse offense?

 

The word "appropriate" as used above requires that the action must comply with the law and the US Constitution. "Nor shall any person.... be deprived of life.... without due process of law." (5th and 14th Amendments).

Extra-judicial executions, by definition are executions outside of the "due process of law" which is required by the US Constitution and do not meet the criteria of "appropriate force" as established by the noted statute. Extra-judicial executions, because they deny due process of the law for the person, represent "inappropriate force" by the executive branch and President.

The 8th Amendment is a blanket prohibition imposed on the US government that prohibits it from ever inflicting "cruel and unusual punishment" at any time for any reason against any person any where the US exercises authority and control over the person. It expressly prohibits the United States government from ever inflicting cruel and unusual punishment in any case and has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of the person.

As it applies to the government:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

In short, any act "other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" which addresses the necessity of taking someone into custody and restraining them while in custody is "torture" under the criminal statutes of the United States. All of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by President Bush met the criteria of torture under Title 18 because they were not "incidental to lawful sanctions" in apprehending and restraining a person in custody of the United States government.

Of course President Obama, to our knowledge, has ended the use of torture that was authorized and carried out under the Bush Administration but has continued to carry out extra-judicial executions that by definition deny due process of the law for the person (required by the US Constitution) and under US law is "homicide" which, by all definitions, is a High Crime that warrants impeachment and removal from office of a president under the US Constitution.

 

Of your post:

”We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton)

PS. Just kidding. “Appropriate force” has to do with not nuking the Black Stone Idolater’s Idol. Oops: “(3) ‘United States’ means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.” “(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.” You should have hit “next.” I have also been accused of being too wordy, so the Obamanation’s gift to debate is better than my get out of Billo Free card: “I will not respond to any of your posts if they include quotes. “ (Billo_Really)

 

It would help if you got the name of the organisation correct. And it is waist deep in Libertarians, so not sure non-partisan is a good description

 

Section 506(c) ofPub. L. 103–236provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this chapter] shall take effect on the later of—

“(1) the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 30, 1994]; or

“(2) the date on which the United States has become a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” [Convention entered into Force with respect to United States Nov. 20, 1994, Treaty Doc. 100–20.]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

 

So, as noted the Title 18 definition of torture became effective on Apr. 30, 1994. It was certainly in effect when the Bush administration existed.

 

There was never evidence that Awlaki had ever committed any criminal acts and there were no indictments against him for committing any criminal act. The US didn't even have an indictment against Alwaki for "conspiracy" to commit a criminal act.

Alwaki was executed for expressing political beliefs that the US government didn't like. It was a political extra-judicial execution unrelated to any actions of Alwaki that were criminal. Since when has the US government ever had the authority to murder people based upon the expression of their political beliefs?

If President Obama can kill someone like Alwaki because he doesn't like Alwaki's political beliefs then what prevents President Obama from killing John Boehner because he doesn't like Boehner's political beliefs?

 

That is true.

What is “severe physical” or “prolonged mental harm?”

Is the word “severe” defined in the International law, we have ratified, as to waterboarding?

In the actual convention the word “severe” occurs once.

That is a problem in law sometimes that the word can be subjective if no examples or clarification is given; One man’s “severe” is another man’s freedom fighter.

I consider that if the Obamanation’s IRS, or local police, cannot do it to a targeted Tea Party member it is torture.

I have repeatedly said of Al Quacka, do not change the definition of “torture,” but hang them by the neck until dead after they surrender and before they complete their mission.

”We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton)

If we allow that, you change the definition of “protect and defend,” just like the definition of torture can be watered down. And if the government can absolutely reject the contents of speech then it stands to reason a multitude of ills follows:

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others [that waterboarding, The Boats, and using The Pear on Infidel whores is not torture]." (Obama)

 

These brazen lies are becoming tedious, fyi.

Nobody who understands the appliable laws gives a damn.

Sure, just like the Rosenbergs were executed for saying things to the Soviets that the US government didn't like.

Since that's nothing like what happened, the question is predictably idiotic.

 

hmm, wasn't it bush that invented the "enemy combattant" designation to circumvent the constitution?

Due process in war (declared or otherwise) is not a relevant concept.

 

Actually it was former President Bush that misused the term. An enemy combatant is protected under the Geneva Conventions and the issue becomes whether they are a lawful combatant. All POW's are to be treated as "lawful" combatants unless a "competent tribunal" operating under the judicial criteria of the Geneva Conventions determines otherwise.

 

he didn't misuse the term, he redefined it to mean an unlawful combatant. I totally disagree with this of course.

But, when a person renounces their citizenship and engages in hostile illegal acts against their former state, seems to me he's just painted a drone target on his forehead. I shed no tears for them.

 

Anyone that understands the US Constitution does give a damn.

What part of "due process of the law" and that "extra-judicial executions" are by definition "outside of the law" do people fail to understand?

 

Former President Bush violated the US Treaty related to the Geneva Conventions for POW's and "Treaties" that the US enters into have the effect of becoming "law" in the United States (re Article III of the US Constitution). When former President Bush violated the Geneva Conventions he violated international law as international law is established by international treaties.

While the Congress failed to fulfill it's delegated responsibility to address "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that former President Bush unquestionably committed while in office (i.e. note that every president in my lifetime has violated the laws of the United States and the treaties obligations of the United States) so this became a responsibility of the international community to address. I created a thread on this in the past.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...amnesty-intl-call-arrest-proscution-bush.html

As established under US law and legal precedent a natural born citizen of the United States can't actually renounce their citizenship. At the end of WW II the US prosecuted "natural born citizens" of the United States of Japanese-America descent that relocated to Japan, renounced their US citizenship, and aided the Japanese war efforts against the Untied States. They were tried and convicted of treason.

Once again there was never a criminal indictment against Awlaki for committing an "illegal" act and lacking a criminal indictment there was no rational foundation for his murder that was committed "outside of the laws of the United States" which is why it was accurately called an extra-judicial execution. The US government is prohibited from taking anyone's life without affording them due process of the law. We can also note that "due process of the law" is required for any person and is not limited to US Citizens as well as the fact that international assassination (executions) are prohibited under International Law.

 

You are hardly in a position to speak on behalf of people like myself.

Doesn't apply to enemies of the US in wartime who are not in US custody.

No, they are by definition outside the judicial system, the approval of which is not required for justifiable homicides such as that of al-Awlaki.

 

Due process of the law applies to anyone subjected to the authority and jurisdiction of the United States. Of course the United States is not at war with Yemen and has no jurisdiction where it can exercise any authority based upon US laws in Yemen. Any military act committed by the US government in Yemen, without the express consent of the government of Yemen, is a violation of the sovereignty of Yemen. All actions of the US government wherever the US commits the action must comply with the US Constitution.

For enemies of the United States during wartime the Laws and Customs of War apply and for anyone detained by the United States government related to acts of war the Geneva Conventions apply. International assassinations are expressly prohibited under International Law.