Posted on 10/02/2011 10:30:33 AM PDT by Bokababe
Judge Napolitano, "When the president can kill whoever he wants, he's not a president anymore, he's a King."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnem1Ohm3Q0&feature=player_embedded
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
It’s worse than King. He’s the Messiah.
Freedom Ping
With the ending of DADT, he’s the King of queens...
Idiots like Ron Paul authorized him to go after those that attacked us on 9-11-01.
Take up arms against America, face the consequences. In fact, our passports used to include a warning about it.
Americans who went to fight with Hitler got the same treatment and more often than not, the individual soldier was judge, juror and executioner.
He killed a major leader of AQ, not "whoever he wants."
Those were much simpler times. These days, a soldier has to clear it with some JAG officer before he takes the kill shot.
“”When the president can kill whoever he wants, he’s not a president anymore, he’s a King.””
I don’t make a point of defending Obama much, but I do LOVE the way he’s sending drones into those hell-holes and whacking these nut-jobs...and controlling it all from an undisclosed location in Virgina.
As to the above statement, I’m actually much more worried about the following, especially how it pertains to the Obamacare.
So, to paraphrase...
“When the president can ISSUE WAIVERS whenever he wants, he’s not a president anymore, he’s a King.”
“Take up arms against America, face the consequences”
The US code provides for this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Anyone can read and evaluate for themselves.
“Take up arms against America, face the consequences”
The US code provides for this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
Anyone can read and evaluate for themselves.
“When The President Can Kill Who Ever He Wants, He’s a King (Video)”
I thought this was going to be about obamacare...
It should not matter one bit that he was born in the USA.
The one thing Obama has done correctly is to largely stay out of the way of the Joint Special Operations Command.
I hope they all get assassinated.
Wow lawyers, lawyers every and not a chance to think. Here are the facts:
1. War has been declared against the US. [At first the US ignored this as rantings of fanatics and paid a big price.] While Congress retains the right to declare war on others, this is not the leftist dream world where it takes two to fight.
2. In this war the US naturally seeks to take out the command and control of the enemy.
3. So an enemy combatant was killed. He happened to be a US citizen, technically only, but he certainly was an enemy combatant.
4. Enemy combatants are not killed because of some crime they have committed. You kill them because they are on the other side and are trying to kill you. You do not need grand jury indictment for each soldier you kill on the battlefield again because they have not committed a crime, they are doing their “duty” but are on the other side. [Similarly you hold captured enemy combatants UNTIL the hostilities are over, they are not sentenced as they are not being punished.]
Calling this an assassination is pretty stupid.
And we’ve been here before. President Bush already in 2002 showed American’s at war against the US they can die. General Pickett’s division once learned that lesson too.
Kamal Derwish: The Life and Death of An American Terrorist By James Sandler
A profile of Kamal Derwish, a recruiter of the Lackawanna cell — and a casualty of the U.S. war against terrorism.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/inside/derwish.html
moslems are moslems first. You could say some who have “citizenship” are Americans second but that is not accurate...
Let’s go back to the Revolutionary war...Traitors was killed. Washington firmly believed in it as a lesson and never backed down.
I’m not with the judge on that statement. This was not “anyone”. He was a traitor and sworn enemy of Th United States
You don't get it. We are fighting a "War on Terror", not just a "War on al Qaeda". A couple of years ago, Janet Napolitano listed potential "terrorists" as being identified by "a Gadsden flag".
Can you not see the potential abuse of this policy in the wrong hands?
The is NOT about al Awlaki, who probably deserved what he got. This is about the power that you allow a president -- any president!
He wasn't when he was killed.
What should the CIA have done? Gotten a warrant and served him in Yemen and extradited him to the U.S.? If Bush had done this, would you have felt differently? And to say he was an American citizen is a stretch. He was an anchor baby and it has been reported he had dual citizenship. Maybe we just killed the Yemen citizen. Anyway, I say it was a good call.
He was living in a foreign country, operating as at war with the USA. What makes you think he was a US citizen?
The Fifth Amendment specifically states that the CIC can kill an enemy in a public emergency and he doesn’t need an indictment to take the puke to trial..
With the ending of DADT, he’s the King of queens..
LOL!!!
No, you are the one who doesn’t get it. Read post #11.
Fifth Amendment covers it all.
Ain't that the truth. That's why it takes ten years for the greatest military in the world to take out a bunch of 7th century ragbags. It's time for the U.S. military to take a break and let the lawyers and politicians fight one out with these morons using the rules they put on the U.S. military.
If so, it should not be hard to get a judicial finding as such, authorizing use of force against said citizen, for which there was certainly time in this instance. That would be due process. This is not.
Janet Napoletano, chief of Homeland Security, has already issued a written opinion that conservative activists are "potential terrorists." How close to home does this have to get for you to get a clue?
It's the process that is at issue here, not the target.
I could argue either side of this controversy, but let me ask you this: How do we know if a targeted person is a traitor (taken up arms against the US)? The only news you and I get is from the same presidential administration and media that has previously lied and distorted news. And that’s just the news we know about. Heaven knows what we never hear of at all.
Where are "unalienable rights" or "limited Constitutional government" in that justification? The United States has been operating under a state of emergency continuously since 1933.
The problem is the hypocrisy.
Concerned to the point of absurdity over the rights of terrorists at GITMO...
Blow this guy up without a thought about his rights or due process...
Yep there’s nothing wrong with killing this islamic terrorist. Same when Bush did it. Same when Israel killed Rantissi and Yassin. I oppose O but not for this. They wanted war and they got it.
Understood -- and agree.
My big question is why is everyone here making the defense for Obama's actions that he isn't making for himself? Why isn't he telling the American people why this is "an exception"?
I've got a good guess why -- because it's likely not "an exception" -- there are other Americans on his hit list. He just hasn't gotten to them yet and he's keeping his options open.
lol
Huh? What part of the 5th amendment covers this? There is an exception for “cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” Are you seriously suggesting that Awlaki’s case arose “out of” the land or naval forces or in the Militia? That would presuppose that Awlaki was in the land or naval forces or in the Militia of the United States at the time of his case.
I know you are not suggesting that Awlaki’s killing was justified by the fact that the US is at war, since, as we all know, the US is not, in fact, at war. War can only be declared by Congress, and Congress has not declared War, so we are not in a state of War. Like it or not, that’s the fact.
If it is the passage that I am looking at, it says "in times of ACTUAL war". Show me where Congress declared "ACTUAL war" on Yemen.
We are at war with a tactic -- "Terror" -- not a specific country, nor has the government specifically declared it only on al Qaeda. The legal options have been kept open to mean anyone, anywhere, any time the government declares you to be an enemy of the state. Obama was just the first to exercise this open ended option using extreme prejudice.
How far are you willing to go? Would you take out a murderous anti-American Saudi prince visiting Australia and brag about it on TV? Would you send a drone into London to take out a suspected Syrian bomber touring with his family?
Getting rid of suspected terrorists with a tidy drone strike or Seal Team raid, without regard for the rights of individuals or nations, is really satisfying in some ways, but is it bad for our Republic? I say yes. Are we playing with fire insofar as worldwide conflict? Yes, again.
“He wasn’t when he was killed.”
I am not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean he had renounced? Do you mean they US had revoked? Do you mean dead people have no citizenship?
Do you think Al Awalki was a traitor to America and guilty of treason against the United States? It boggles my mind that Americans wanted this guy to be captured and tried in an American court. I hate Obama with every fiber of my being, but this was the right thing to do.
Napolitano is dead wrong. He gets hung up on this first amendment stuff until all logic escapes him.
He needs to look at his passport, Page 7, Item 13 (c):
Loss of US Citizenship:
“Under certain circumstances, you may lose your US citizenship . . . by serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation”
In case the judge hasn’t been reading the papers, we have been at war for over 10 years with a foreign military power, and we have those guys called soldiers getting shot at by them same foreigners whose command and control element includes the (former) US citizen we just killed.
If his underwear bomber had blown up a jumbo in flight he could have killed 500 people in the air and on the ground. Rendition, assassination, whatever it takes. When they’re targeting civilian planes and buildings take them out wherever and whenever. A Hellfire in London would not be appropriate but MI5 would. They want to lead terrorist groups, then this is the price of fame. If they don’t like it maybe they should choose another career. No sympathy whatsoever.
If his underwear bomber had blown up a jumbo in flight he could have killed 500 people in the air and on the ground. Rendition, assassination, whatever it takes. When they’re targeting civilian planes and buildings take them out wherever and whenever. A Hellfire in London would not be appropriate but MI5 would. They want to lead terrorist groups, then this is the price of fame. If they don’t like it maybe they should choose another career. No sympathy whatsoever.
I cannot wait to see the lawsuit on this one...
Al Queda is not a foreign state.
He was not serving in forces belonging to Yemen or any other foreign state.
Al Queda is not a political subdivision, unless you consider islam a true theocracy and then we are indeed at war with islam, but this is not the declaration.
And in regards to #7, the last line is the pertinent line to this whole discussion: if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Who put OBL and Al Awalki on the "Kill List" ???GWB ?
These was enemy combatants in a War which they declared.
If he was born in the US, isn’t he an American, not Arabian?
What nation does Al Queda belong to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.