Obama unconstitutionally used U.S. military to kill teenage U.S. citizen who was born in Denver

wordpress ^ | February 5, 2013 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

[grundle]

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Obama unconstitutionally used U.S. military to kill teenage U.S. citizen who was born in Denver

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from killing U.S. citizens without due process. This means that they must first be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted before being executed.

Obama violated this when he used the U.S. military to kill a teenage U.S. citizen who was born in Denver. Obama also killed two other U.S. citizens without due process.

If Bush had done this, the “anti-war” protestors would have been livid. But since they were actually “anti-Bush” protestors and not “anti-war” protestors, they don’t seem to care that Obama did this.

NBC News reports:

Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.

But the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces.

Family of the Denver-born teenager say he had no ties to terrorist organizations and was unjustly targeted because of his father.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

This White House is EVIL. If they can do this to Americans overseas, they can do it to Americans here in this country. They do not need reasons. There is no Due Process. They have no respect for the Constitution.

Where do we draw the line?

[WhiskeyX]

The accusations are utterly false. The U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizes the use of military force against U.S. Citizens engaged in belligerenciees as a member of hostile enemies.

[SeekAndFind]

During the Civil War, when Northern Soldiers killed Confederate Soldiers, were the latter considered American Citizens or not?

[sagar]

“Where do we draw the line?”

I guess you draw the line when your join the glorious jihad and engage in terrorism against the infidels.

[SeekAndFind]

Let’s put it this way... If Abdulrahman REALLY ( emphasis ) had no ties to terrorists and terrorist organizations, his family has basis for suing the government.

Simple justice tells us that our government cannot do this.

That is of course, up to the courts to decide based on evidence presented.

The question however is this — WHAT IF, Like Al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman DID help terrorists? Would it be illegal for the US government to target him?

[WhiskeyX]

Making false argguments plays into the hands of the Obama Administration and its Marxist allies. The Constitution explicitly authorizes military action against U.S. Citizens engaging in belligerant acts against the U.S. Government and/or its allies. The Constitution bases this authority upon some of the earliest forms of the laws of war dating back many millenia.

[Michael.SF.]

BINGO!

[WhiskeyX]

During the War of 1812, the United States Navy engaged a number of British warships and merchant ships in combat. Aboard these British ships were a number of U.S. Citizens, natural born and naturalized, who had been forcibly impressed into British service. A number of these U.S. Citizens invluntarily and voluntarily serving with the British were killed and wounded in these naval engagements. Are we to understand that you are now arguing that the families of these U.S. Citizens in service with the British were killed and wounded in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and perhaps their families even now are entitledd to compensatory damages?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

What you say is all well and good...so, they declare your guns against the law, you have guns, do not turn them in...drone you into eternity...still ok with that?

It is not up to the President nor the Attorney General to decide what is ok...must be from Congress. Then, if need be, it must be by the Supreme Court. And finally, it must be by ‘We The People.’

[RC one]

when Obama kills republicans for disagreeing with him.

[WhiskeyX]

You are conflating differeent issues together and end up misrepreseenting the situation, all in a failed effort to make the situation appear to conform to you desires. This is the same kind of argumentative tactic used by the Liberals, and it is fails for the same reasons their arguments fail.

The Founding Fathers had grave misgivings about standing armies for a plethora of good reasons. They understood the general principle that any tool can like a rifle be used for greeat good or great evil. Which usage was dependent upon the wills of the men wielding the instrument. In response, they eestablished a number of checks and balances to forestall or at least impede the misuse of military forces which were also needed for the safety and good of the communities. Since these chaecks and balances were put in place by the Founding Fathers, their successors havee been busily removing many of thosee most important checks and balances, such as the state mililtia participation and grand jury indictments absent prosecutor endorseemeents and approvals. Consequently, the Constitutional authorizations to use military force against U.S. Citizens are no longer as constrained as when they were adopted with the U.S. Constitution.

Denials of the existing and past authorizations to use military force against U.S. citizens in domestic and foreign conflicts misinforms thee debate and obstructs the ability to restore the necessary checks and balances without disarming the military and its good and neeful purposes.

Congres did decide the military could be used against U.S. citizens and foreign citizens eengaged in belligerant actions against the United States and its citizens and allies. It is now up to us to see that the authorization is used as it should be.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Is there any particular reason I should give a crap about some teenager who was killed in a drone strike while hanging out with dad and his jihadi buddies in Yemen?

[WhiskeyX]

In addition to the U.S. Constitution saying military force can be used against U.S. Citizens, it also says the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Nonetheless a succession of Federal Administrations, Congresses, and members of the Supreme court of the United States have abrogated the Constitution and Second Amendment. They could have acted in a Constitutional manner to perfect the Second amendment or repeal the Seond amendmeent altogether, but they did not knowing full well they could not garner the voted in congress and the state legislatures to ratify such a measure. instead, they subverted the Second Amendment, the Constitution, and the commonlaw rights of self defense extant since time immemorial.

The question is what you and other will do about it, pursue a Marxist fantasy argument or grapple with reality without destroying the original purpose of the military in a free society?

[rangerwife]

Please tell me where it says that in the Constitution.

Article III, section 3, clauses 1 and 2 specifically speaks to how those citizens enraged in treason against the US should be handled and it’s through a legal process. Here is what it says:

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.

[rangerwife]

Engaged in treason that is.

[rangerwife]

And by the way, I read the memo, the Obama administration couldn’t directly pinpoint cite (you know, where it says it’s ok) to the Constitution the ability to use military force against US citizens, because it’s not there. If it was, it wouldn’t take 16 pages to do so.

[rangerwife]

And by the way, I read the memo, the Obama administration couldn’t directly pinpoint cite (you know, where it says it’s ok) to the Constitution the ability to use military force against US citizens, because it’s not there. If it was, it wouldn’t take 16 pages to do so.

[rangerwife]

And by the way, I read the memo, the Obama administration couldn’t directly pinpoint cite (you know, where it says it’s ok) to the Constitution the ability to use military force against US citizens, because it’s not there. If it was, it wouldn’t take 16 pages to do so.