Obama's Fate Sealed

[longfisher]

5th Amendment:

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"

Obama just killed an American citizen without even the barest hint of due process. He didn't even try to indict him.

He's abandoned all pretext of defending civil liberties. The left will leave him now, en mass.

And you guys thought the Republicans would do him in. Nope, that dope did himself in.

I guess I'm hoping for Romney now. He won't govern from the Tea Party perspective, although he's having to play rope a dope with them to get through the conventions.

Neither did Obama govern from the left. He's actually Bush-II. He's cooked.

LF

[longfisher]

...has to say about the destruction of our liberties before you post here.

He says it better than anyone else can...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37X1gt2YYTo

[longfisher]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,7542436.story

[Avenger]

Okay longfisher, I'll bite. Who do we blame here? The President, or the idiot Attorney General that he's supposed to consult on this decision?

And while we're at it, let's hear your learned legal opinion on this: Don't you basically renounce your citizenship when you join a foreign enemy and take up arms against the United States? Or is there paperwork you have to file to make it official?

Obama's fate? As the LA Times article pointed out, the left will still support him. What choice do they have? Besides, if they were really such constitutional scholars they'd be voting for Ron Paul. Most of them are only about civil liberties when it suits the leftist agenda.

[Big Fish Billy]

Obama's fate is only sealed if the Republicans can find someone to run, so far I'm not seeing anyone who can beat an incumbent. All the illegal immigrants are going to vote for him, however that happens, as well as all the other minority groups, the minority is now the majority. All he needs to do is advertise a couple things that would benefit this group such as a jobs bill, lower gas prices, or some other bullshit story, and he's back in....I'd plan on it......

[longfisher]

Okay longfisher, I'll bite. Who do we blame here? The President, or the idiot Attorney General that he's supposed to consult on this decision?

And while we're at it, let's hear your learned legal opinion on this: Don't you basically renounce your citizenship when you join a foreign enemy and take up arms against the United States? Or is there paperwork you have to file to make it official?

Obama's fate? As the LA Times article pointed out, the left will still support him. What choice do they have? Besides, if they were really such constitutional scholars they'd be voting for Ron Paul. Most of them are only about civil liberties when it suits the leftist agenda.

Although I do believe Obama is principally to blame for this incredible violation of constitutional law, similar but, importantly, lesser outrages have been committed by previous presidents also. You may recall the name of John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla. Both were denied their constitutional rights on many occassions and in many ways. Jose Padilla was subjected to what Bush has deemed enhanced interrogation techniques (AKA torture) to the point that he's been driven out of his mind (his lawyer says his treatment during incarceration was so devastating that he cannot participate in his own defense, i.e., he's a blithering idiot now).

But this Obama crime stands out because every conceivable constitutional protection afforded to American citizens was utterly disregarded. This one stands out because it may very well be the assassination of liberty itself.

The 5th Amendment clearly states "“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Avenger, do you deny that Obama assassinated this individual American citizen without any form of indictment? It's the law, Man.

Furthermore, Obama acolytes say that whereas this man was not, apparently, guilty of any particular crime (there is absolutely no evidence open to public scrutiny that he did anything more than preach firery sermons against Western influence in Muslim lands and, in particular, the U.S.) he violated the most sacred of statist expectations of benevolence of American citizens, he criticized U.S. policy in such a way that he "inspired" others to fight against it.

Had he not been a Muslim and were he not preaching to Muslims overseas he would be no different from any of our own home-grown militias and their leaders who do exactly the same thing domestically. Furthermove, if you do a search on the word revolution in this forum alone you'll find numerous examples of individuals here using incendiary language which is explicitly supporting and inciting violence (revolution) against the U.S. government. Should the militia leaders be snuffed out by a drone? Should some of you be similarly exterminated?

He, like anyone who opposes the U.S. government's policies and whose actions appear to violate U.S. law, should have been indicted, if the evidence would have supported that, and then his arrest should have been sought. If the CIA knew where he was so accurately that it could send a Hellfire missile to blow him up then they could have just as easily captured him on the same spot with one of the now famously-capable JSOC teams who so regularly hunt terrorist and Taliban leaders throughout the ME. He should have been brought him to trial. His American citizenshhip should have guaranteed this consideration.

Now, we as citizens are faced with the chilling prospect that our government can not only monitor our electronic communications with ease and outside the law, then can arrest us and detain us indefinitely without charge (the writ of Habeus Corpus is non-existent since GW's reign) and now they can simply kill us by declaring our words to be against the state's interests. And, they can do so all the while keeping all evidence of our supposed criminality under top secret protection without any sort of judicial review whatsoever.

If ever there existed in America a more crimogenic environment which encouraged anti-constitutional barbarity against U.S. citizens by the Executive branch I'm ignorant of it.

Given this crimogenic environment, as an American, I can no longer live in liberty. Given these recent arrogations of the powers of tyrants by the Executive branch of government, neither can you. Instead, our very existence and that of our families persists only at the whim of the government.

So, how come it only troubles me here? I thought you right-wingers were all about the Constitution. Why are liberals, which I'm not, and libertarians, which I am, the only ones coming to the defense of the Constitution?

You people show your real selves in situations like this. It's not a pretty sight. And, it's not what conservatism used to be. You're jokes and bad ones at that.

LF

[longfisher]

Okay longfisher, I'll bite. Who do we blame here? The President, or the idiot Attorney General that he's supposed to consult on this decision?

And while we're at it, let's hear your learned legal opinion on this: Don't you basically renounce your citizenship when you join a foreign enemy and take up arms against the United States? Or is there paperwork you have to file to make it official?

Obama's fate? As the LA Times article pointed out, the left will still support him. What choice do they have? Besides, if they were really such constitutional scholars they'd be voting for Ron Paul. Most of them are only about civil liberties when it suits the leftist agenda.

Now to your specific points, Avenger, uninformed, as usual.

There is no evidence open to public scrutiny that Mr. Alawki "joined a foreign enemy" or "took up arms against the United States". If you're privy to such information please provide it. But I warn you, if you provide the same sort of illusory crap that the government and it's acolytes have been serving up, nothing but guilt by association which is also prohibited by the Constitution I'll jump on it like a dog on a bone and make you look as stupid as I truly believe you are, Avenger.

If the Times said the left will support him no matter what, they're a standout counterexample of what I'm reading elsewhere. Besides, neither the left nor the right decide elections anymore. It's the middle. And, the middle has decidedly shifted against Obama.

I've read recently that even among self-identified Democrats 58% do not believe he'll be re-elected. Within that report is a certain decided resignation that he's a looser. And, if you've not noticed the Left can only muster it's minions effectively for a presidential election when the liberal base is excited about a candidate. I certainly don't hear a single younger voter voice of any substance defending Obama anymore or hoping for hope and change. I guess they, unlik you Avenger, are mindful of their quite recent instruction in civics and the Constitution.

I like Ron Paul a great deal. I think he's overly ideological at times. And, I think that were someone to take his positions seriously and try to enact them the country might be better off in the long run but would suffer enormously in the short-run. Like most if he were elected I think he would govern more moderately than he speaks.

Now, regarding leftist agendas and the use of civil liberties to forward those agendas I decline to defend the left. I certainly don't have to do so as, despite the many ignorant charges of being a leftist or liberal that have been leveled against me on this board, I'm a conservative with decidedly libertarian leanings.

So, I'll allow someone who is genuinely left to respond to your charge of convenient values by the left.

LF

[scattered_grass]

but maybe he will find another great "green company" like Solyndra to invest half a billion in after the "jobs bill" passes. He seems to be really good with the country's finances doesn't he? I mean look at how great the "stimulus" worked out. Btw, this whole "green company, jobs" thing is a huge joke.

[Avenger]

Avenger, do you deny that Obama assassinated this individual American citizen without any form of indictment? It's the law, Man.

Not at all, there must be a dozen legal loopholes that could have been used. Revoking his citizenship, trying him in abstentia and sentencing him to death. None of which would be regarded as anything but a kangaroo court trick, BTW.

Furthermore, Obama acolytes say that whereas this man was not, apparently, guilty of any particular crime (there is absolutely no evidence open to public scrutiny that he did anything more than preach firery sermons against Western influence in Muslim lands and, in particular, the U.S.) he violated the most sacred of statist expectations of benevolence of American citizens, he criticized U.S. foreign policy in such a way that he "inspired" others to fight against it.

If you drive the getaway car during a bank robbery and one of the robbers shoots and kills the security guard, guess what?... you're getting charged with murder and probably convicted of it too. Even though you didn't pull the trigger. He was clearly an active participant in a murderous terrorist organization even if he never planted a bomb he's just as guilty as the bombmaker he was with.

Had he not been a Muslim and were he not preaching to Muslims overseas he would be no different from any of our own home-grown militias and their leaders who do exactly the same thing. Furthermove, if you do a search on the word revolution in this forum alone you'll find numerous examples of individuals here using incendiary language which is explicitly inciting violence against the U.S. government. Should the militia leaders be snuffed out by a drone? Should some of you be similarly exterminated?

There's a big difference between advocating a change of government and participating in the wanton murder of thousands of people because you have a grievance with foreign policy. Of course the founding fathers were revolutionaries, and were regarded as terrorists by the British government and probably would have been summarily executed if the revolution had failed. While some of the militia people are kooks, most of them are more afraid of the government and seeking to protect themselves from it rather than taking up arms to overthrow it. Your buddy would have been a lot better off here preaching about his view of the unfairness and illegality of our foreign policy rather than going overseas to become an active participant.

He, like anyone who opposes the U.S. government's policies and whose actions appear to violate U.S. law, should have been indicted, if the evidence would have supported that, and then his arrest should have been sought. If the CIA knew where he was so accurately that it could send a Hellfire missile to blow him up then they could have just as easily captured him on the same spot with one of the now famously-capable JSOC teams who so regularly hunt terrorist and Taliban leaders throughout the ME. He should have been brought him to trial. His American citizenshhip should have guaranteed this consideration.

Now, we as citizens are faced with the chilling prospect that our government can not only monitor our electronic communications with ease and outside the law, then can arrest us and detain us indefinitely without charge (the writ of Habeus Corpus is non-existent since GW's reign) and now they can simply kill us by declaring our words to be against the state's interests. And, they can do so all the while keeping all evidence of our criminality under top secret protection without any sort of judicial review whatsoever.

If ever there existed in America a more crimogenic environment which encouraged anti-constitutional barbarity against U.S. citizens by the Executive branch I'm ignorant of it.

Given this crimogenic environment, as an American, I can no longer live in liberty. Given these recent arrogations of the powers of tyrants by the Executive branch of government, neither can you. Instead, our very existence and that of our families persists only at the whim of the government.

So, how come it only troubles me here? I thought you right-wingers were all about the Constitution. Why are liberals, which I'm not, and libertarians, which I am, the only ones coming to the defense of the Constitution?

I think we pretty much agree on constitutional principle here, but there's the tricky issue of dealing with a foreign enemy that isn't a government. Is there a precedent for declaring war on what is essentially an enemy militia? It's pretty tough to treat enemy combatants as civil criminals which is what you seem to be trying to do. Do you have any solutions on how we handle this constitutionally?

You people show your real selves in situations like this. It's not a pretty sight. And, it's not what conservatism used to be. You're jokes and bad ones at that.

BTW, you're not going to win any minds this way. I thnk you just piss on people because you like to argue.

[Avenger]

Now to your specific points, Avenger, uninformed, as usual.

There is no evidence open to public scrutiny that Mr. Alawki "joined a foreign enemy" or "took up arms against the United States". If you're privy to such information please provide it. But I warn you, if you provide the same sort of illusory crap that the government and it's acolytes have been serving up, nothing but guilt by association which is also prohibited by the Constitution I'll jump on it like a dog on a bone and make you look as stupid as I truly believe you are, Avenger.

I covered this in my other reply. If you're going to keep up the childish name-calling I'm not going to continue to try to have a discussion with you.

If the Times said the left will support him no matter what, they're a standout counterexample of what I'm reading elsewhere. Besides, neither the left nor the right decide elections anymore. It's the middle. And, the middle has decidedly shifted against Obama. I've read recently that even among self-identified Democrats 58% do not believe he'll be re-elected. Within that report is a certain decided resignation that he's a looser. And, if you've not noticed the Left can only muster it's minions effectively for a presidential election when the liberal base is excited about a candidate. I certainly don't hear a single younger voter voice of any substance defending Obama anymore or hoping for hope and change. I guess they, unlik you Avenger, are mindful of their quite recent instruction in civics and the Constitution.

My observation was that the left has no choice, they're certainly not going to vote for a Republican. The article said that their vote was always taken for granted, my opinion is it still can be, unless they choose to stay home. AFAIK most polls still show Obama beating any of the Republican front runners. That can be taken as having whatever value polls have.

I like Ron Paul a great deal. I think he's overly ideological at times. And, I think that were someone to take his positions seriously and try to enact them the country might be better off in the long run but would suffer enormously in the short-run. Like most if he were elected I think he would govern more moderately than he speaks.

I like Ron Paul too, but he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting elected. As far as short term pain, we're headed for a cliff anyway, might as well suck it up and get it right.

Now, regarding leftist agendas and the use of civil liberties to forward those agendas I decline to defend the left. I certainly don't have to do so as, despite the many ignorant charges of being a leftist or liberal that have been leveled against me on this board, I'm a conservative with decidedly libertarian leanings.

So, I'll allow someone who is genuinely left to respond to your charge of convenient values by the left.

LF

I don't really think you're a liberal, but some of your views seem to come from the Marxist brainwashing that seeks to use a contrived set of American values against us. I apologize if you felt maligned. I wouldn't want to be called a liberal either.