Obama's Tyranny

[antsi]

find it hard to believe that you are not smart enough to see the difference between American citizens, even criminals, going about their business here at home, and a man actively waging war against the United States.

You're not giving this power to Obama to use against verified enemies. You're giving this power to Obama to use against anyone he privately, secretly, with no verification or oversight, declares to be an enemy.

I find it hard to believe you are not smart enough to see how this could get out of hand - indeed, presents a far greater threat than any number of terrorists.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm all for laws telling the government what it can't do. Laws that tell me what I can't do are another matter entirely. I'm hypocritical like that.



But, as stated above, that is EXACTLY what he's arguing in court, and you're totally cool with it.

That's not true at all Fletch. Have you read the government's motion? If not it's here http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Al-Aulaqi_USG_PI_Opp__MTD_Brief_FILED.pdf

The government motion to dismiss is based upon plantiff's lack of standing and no actionable claims. The state secrets plea is for the judge's consideration if and only if he denies the motion based upon standing and lack of actionable claim.

It's a 60 page motion. About 12 pages address the state secrets issue, which is secondary to the lack of standing and lack of actionable claim, which amounts to 48 pages.

This is just not the thing it's being painted to be.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
This is just not the thing it's being painted to be.

Propaganda never is.

 

[Fletch]

That's not true at all Fletch. Have you read the government's motion? If not it's here http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Al-Aulaqi_USG_PI_Opp__MTD_Brief_FILED.pdf

I'll admit that I sort of skipped ahead and said "what if someone with standing & claim brought the case", and what I'm left with is state secrets. I don't think that technicalities of the court proceedings should bar the way to considering the greater principle here: should the president be vested with this kind of arbitrary power over anyone he sees fit, should it be limited to individuals who match certain narrow definitions, or should it be allowed at all?

Say the thing is dismissed on standing. Then say the next plaintiff they find to carry the ball has standing. And a claim. Now what? Are we going to continue being bogged down in minutiae, or are we going to discuss the substantive problem of the Imperial Presidency?

 

[Woodrow]

Eh...I'm not sure that we can compare ol' Anwar to Ruby Ridge and Waco. No, those two incidents represented times in which individuals (law enforcement personnel) overstepped the law in the heat of the moment. This is a case of an individual engaging in sedition and terrorism. He can't be arrested in Yemen. He is an enemy combatant engaging in an on-going campaign against the United States. On the other hand, he is a US citizen and does fall under the protection of the Constitution, whether he chooses to recognize it or not. Treason is one of the 5 Capital crimes though, it has always been punishable by death (yes, I know, death after a trial to determine guilt--just ask the Rosenburgs and Mssrs. Sacco and Vanzetti--guilty, not guilty, I don't know).

It is a curious situation, and I believe that Constitutional scholars could structure an argument either way without a great deal of difficulty.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'll admit that I sort of skipped ahead and said "what if someone with standing & claim brought the case", and what I'm left with is state secrets. I don't think that technicalities of the court proceedings should bar the way to considering the greater principle here: should the president be vested with this kind of arbitrary power over anyone he sees fit, should it be limited to individuals who match certain narrow definitions, or should it be allowed at all?

Say the thing is dismissed on standing. Then say the next plaintiff they find to carry the ball has standing. And a claim. Now what? Are we going to continue being bogged down in minutiae, or are we going to discuss the substantive problem of the Imperial Presidency?

So at least we agree we are debating hypotheticals. That's a start.

In this guy's case he is an enemy combatant of the US and not entitled to any relief, IMHO. He can surrender if he doesn't want to die.

I maintain that the principle is little different than when the government puts out a reward for someone's capture "Dead or Alive". I would definately have a problem with ordering a secret "hit". But dead or alive captures have been offered long before this nation was formed. I have no problem with them as long as properly disclosed.

Having said that, I would not support a finding and execution. Even the worst in our society are entitled to their judgment day, even if they don't deserve it. However unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunity should not in and of itself halt the wheels of justice.

 

[rambone]

Good for him, I'm surprised he's had the backbone to do so.

Everytime somebody around here uses the term "backbone" around here, they are talking about how far somebody is willing to bend the constitution, expand government, or nuke a city.

Just an honest observation.

And what is it that says only people "in a foreign country directing attacks against America in a time of war" can be treated thus? Where is the legislative restriction that prevents any other person from being put on the hit list? All I'm asking for is a reference, and all you're giving me is "trust Obama" or "trust the government" to know where the line is.

Seems to me we are going on the "common sense" defense... Basically there are no safeguards against misuse of a particular law except for the common sense of the officer... Or the president in this case.

Don't kill him and those like him now, and it won't take 20 years before the Constitution has been kicked to the curb. We will have been conquered because we were too weak and stupid to kill our enemies.

Been there a long time. It causes me to lose no sleep. My oath was and is to the Constitution, and if I fall in battle, it will be defending it.

If we don't ignore the Bill of Rights right now, won't we be conquered? Maybe we should defend the constitution...right now, all the time, so you won't have to fall in battle in the 2nd war for independence.