Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/14/2012 5:23:24 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Iam1ru1-2

Of course gangsters can kill you. It’s what makes gangsters gangsters.

Otherwise, who would fear and obey them?

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/efadGG.htm

Gangster Government, and Sakharov’s Immunity

Matthew Bracken, February 29, 2012


2 posted on 03/14/2012 5:30:58 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2

My question:
how would one feel about a President whom we liked and trusted having such powers?

I believe that the President, nor any part of the government should *EVER* have any more power under the BEST of men ( or women) than we would want it to have under the worst.

I did not like renditions, the utilization of non jury trials or pretty much any part of the PATRIOT act. the FOunding Fathers gave the government plenty of tools to do anything it needs or will ever need to do; there is NOTHING so urgent that it can’t go through being vetted by a judge before a warrant is issued unless it is an airplane. I sure as hell don’t like the precedent being set now. Yes, an enemy combatant who happens to be an American citizen who gets whacked IN THE MIDST OF A BATTLE- tough luck, other than that, the rule of law should always apply.

Just my .02


3 posted on 03/14/2012 5:31:37 PM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, Deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2

as I read this, my cursor rested over the word “Holder” so that all I could see was “H-—er” and I really thought it said “Hitler”.


4 posted on 03/14/2012 5:34:10 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (knowledge puffeth; information deludeth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2

This kind of thinking in the executive branch makes speculation concerning recent unfortunate events in Brentwood a little more understandable, I think.


5 posted on 03/14/2012 5:34:25 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2
From NY Times

The Power to Kill

6 posted on 03/14/2012 5:35:49 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2
Wrong question. Is the President restricted from his duties as Commander in Chief simply because a military act will result in the death of an American?

My question to Napolitano: Could FDR have ordered the sinking of German U-202 and U-584 knowing American citizens and German soliders Ernst Burger and Herbert Haupt were aboard?

In my opinion, if you engage in war against the United States, simply possessing U.S. Citizenship does not provide a special protection from warfare, nor does it restrict the U.S. government from engaging in warfare.

7 posted on 03/14/2012 5:41:41 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2
Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical?

Ask Breitbart.

9 posted on 03/14/2012 6:02:04 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2
WaPo 2002

The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects --U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike --may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say.

11 posted on 03/14/2012 6:23:16 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2

An American-born radical Muslim cleric who had emerged as both a leading voice in Al Qaeda recruiting and propaganda over the internet and, according to the US government, was also involved in operations and operational planning with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an offshoot Al Qaeda terrorist organization that the US governments regards as an “associated force” with Al Qaeda (and hence covered by the terms of the original Authorization to Use Military Force).

When it became public that the Obama administration had put Al-Aulaqi on a target list, the ACLU filed suit on his behalf through his father; it made international law arguments that included the proposition that he was outside of the war zone and hence could only be sought through law enforcement methods, as well as domestic law arguments that this amounted to the execution of a citizen designated by the President without judicial process. The suit was dismissed in December 2010 by Judge John Bates.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31


18 posted on 03/14/2012 8:22:06 PM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Iam1ru1-2

The thing about changing the rules in the middle of the game so that you will win is that the other players, when they find out, may decide that the rules don’t apply to them, either. Perhaps those shredding the rules of our society should consider that such a decision may have unintended consequences.


19 posted on 03/14/2012 9:01:39 PM PDT by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson