Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 15 of 45 pages
Neither he, nor any President, should be trusted with the power to decide these things themselves -- and of course they aren't so trusted in the Constitutional framework.
Having the CIA or any agency kill a human being has always been illegal. That is why Kennedy or Eisenhower or Nixon didn't go around telling Congress about all the people they killed
Of course you are. You're shilling for Obama, and defending his illegal power grabs. What else are you doing?
It's self-evidently unconstitutional.
The President takes an independent oath to defend the Constitution. If Congress purports to cede to him powers he can't constitutionally exercise, he's duty-bound to not exercise them.
Not here, wherein it means "obvious and simple to explain and impossible to gainsay."
AS SBB points out do you really think Obama would have the guts to green light a drone strike on a White American 37 year old living in Akron?
And if he did do that how long do you think it would take to strip him of any powers that would give him that authority?
The executive is not empowered to kill Americans on his whim.
These are axiomatic constitutional principles, and utterly foundational principles of republican and democratic governance.
No, they're not. They're tried for treason. We have long-existing laws on the books outlawing treason, on and off the battlefield.
Even if that's true, and I doubt it is, there is no "heat of battle" here.
Please identify the military or civilian principle or law or rule of engagement that permits an American military officer to summarily execute an "enemy combatant
Under the jurisdiction of military law, summary execution is still illegal in almost all circumstances, as a military tribunal would be the competent judge needed to determine guilt and declare the sentence of death. However, there are certain rare exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal.
Prisoners of war
Major treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions, and customary international law from history, protect the rights of captured regular and irregular members of an enemy military, along with civilians from enemy states. Prisoners-of-war (POWs) must be treated in carefully defined ways which definitively ban summary execution, as the Second Additional Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) states:
"No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality." – Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977) Article 6.2.
Exceptions to prisoners of war status
However, some classes of combatants may not be accorded POW status, though that definition has broadened to cover more classes of combatants over time. In the past, summary execution of pirates, spies, and francs-tireurs have been performed and considered legal under existing international law. Francs-tireurs (a term originating in the Franco-Prussian War) are enemy civilians or militia who continue to fight in territory occupied by a warring party and do not wear military uniforms, and may otherwise be known as guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, etc.
Though these soldiers could be legally jailed or executed by most armies a century ago, the experience of World War II influenced nations occupied by foreign forces to change the law to protect this group. Many of the post-war victors, such as France, Poland, and the USSR, had the experience of resistance fighters being summarily executed by the Axis if they were captured. The war also influenced them to make sure that commandos and other special forces who were caught deep behind enemy lines would be protected as POWs, rather than summarily executed as Hitler decreed through his 1942 Commando Order.
According to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, irregular forces are entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. If they do not do meet all of these, they may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") and punished as criminals in a military jurisdiction, which may include summary execution.
Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat may be considered illegal combatants and subject to summary execution. Many armies have performed this kind of false flag ruse in the past, including both German and U.S. special forces during World War II. However, if soldiers remove their disguises and put on proper insignia before the start of combat in such an operation, they are considered legal combatants and must be treated as prisoners-of-war if captured. This distinction was settled in the post-WWII trial of Otto Skorzeny, who led Operation Greif, an infiltration mission in which German commandos wore U.S. uniforms to infiltrate U.S. lines but removed them before actual combat.
Under martial law
Within a state's policy, martial law may be declared in emergencies such as invasions or insurrections, and in such a case constitutionally protected rights would be suspended. Depending on a state's interpretation of martial law, this may allow police or military forces to decide and carry out punishments that include death on its own citizens, in order to restore lawful authority or for other vital reasons.
Note that this would not include killing a suspect who is directly endangering another's life, which police can always legally do, but rather, executing a suspect under one's control as a punishment. Proving that a summary execution fell under this legal exception would be exceptionally difficult, as one would have to show why a judgment and sentence of death absolutely needed to be meted out on the spot. Hence, these kinds of extraordinary acts are almost always seen as illegal violations of human rights, as can be seen in the recent protests against summary executions passed under martial law in the Philippines.
Finally, it is theoretically legal for a military to punish its own soldiers with summary executions in emergency situations that cannot wait for trial by military tribunal, such as desertion in the face of the enemy.[
Why did FDR bother interring American citizens of Japanese descent? He could have just executed them. Probably would have been easier, too.
The Americans aren't francs-tireurs, either, because they aren't "in territory occupied by a warring party."
WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio on Sunday said that he was ready to be president, becoming the second potential Republican candidate recently to drop big hints about 2016 as he vies for early attention in a crowded field of maybes.
In a wide-ranging interview on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Mr. Rubio, of Florida, also disagreed with accepted scientific wisdom that humans were having an effect on what he called the “always evolving” climate. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said. “And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.”
His comments challenged a major scientific report released Tuesday that found the effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, from dry regions where water is becoming more scarce to historically wet regions that are seeing increases in torrential rains....
I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it
No, it's not.
Nor is Yemen at war with the United States. Nor is al-Qaeda in territorial war with the United States.
No American can be deprived of his property, much less his life, without due process of law -- an axiomatic principle of constitutional law.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
It sounds more like a situation where Sam can't reason a principle to its logical conclusion, here being that Congress could pass a law saying black people were a threat to national security, and empowering the President to "take all necessary action" to end the threat, and the President flying drones over Detroit and killing a bunch of black people.
Without due process of law. Which isn't always a full-blown trial under civilian rules of justice.
I believe I recall Sam saying there was plenty wrong with that (droning). I suppose I could be wrong.
The courts have found a bunch of these Congressional WOT provisions unconstitutional.
I think that is an oversell. She came pretty close to winning the Democratic nomination. She won 1900 delegates, only 200 short of the required amount. Mostly I think she had bad strategy. Obama spent most of his energy and resources trying to win the caucuses. Clinton was focused on Super Tuesday. She won most of the big states and pretty much all of the states that the democrats win to get elected president (except for Illinois, Obama's home state) Obama did have a lot more fervor in support which explains a lot of the caucus wins.
I think she would have beat McCain, just because the electorate was tired of Bush.
I think this boils down to the fact that she is unappealing as a candidate, comes off as unlikeable and artificial, and sucks at debating. The crux of her resume is that she rode Bill's coattails to the White House and all along was played for an utter fool by Bill, who had so little respect for her that, unbeknownst to her, was bopping women on the side. (The alternate theory, that she agreed to an open/fake marriage purely as a de facto business relationship, does her no favors either.)
(*) I keep pointing out that she lost to a black man because liberals - even now - claim that the country is racist at its core; in fact, liberals claim that the country is so racist that people disagree with Obama because he is black. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the country is racist at its core, in which case she couldn't beat a black man in a racist country, or the country is not racist at its core, in which case liberals should STFU about criticism of Obama being driven by racism.
Those aren't on-point hypotheticals, as in none of them were particular peoples' lives targeted for "deprivation."
Try to understand: Congress does not have the authority to grant extra-constitutional powers to the executive. The powers of US Presidents are limited to those granted by the Constitution. Congress has no power to give them more. Under your reading, Congress could give Obama the power to pass taxing and spending bills.
Except the AUMF only grants the President those powers to wage a war against the planner and organization behind 9/11.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
And historically those powers have been walked back. For instance it would be virtually impossible nowadays to intern a whole race of American citizens simply because we are at war with a foreign country. Or look at the Espionage Act back in WWI.
Even by the terms of the unconstitutional-as-applied AUMF, the force he uses has to be both "necessary" and "appropriate" -- the explicit modifying adjectives in the law.
I'm looking forward to your backing that sentiment up with your money once Hillary declares her candidacy.
The executive is empowered only to use necessary and appropriate force. That limits his discretion. If he uses force that isn't both necessary and appropriate, he's gone beyond the authorization, and has acted illegally.
The Espionage Act is still good law. There was, and is, a reason for it. Some people want to think it's just paranoia to think someone would take the side of a foreign enemy. And there is a correlation between being a recent immigrant and loyalty. Sorry, if that offends, but.... In 1915 the German ambassador had been given carte blanche and a ton of money to engage in what can be called terrorism on US home soil. Wilson discounted the evidence for a long time, since most of it came from localities, until it manifested itself as incontrovertible.
The verbs in the AUMF are all past tense. The "organization in Yemen" would have had to have "harbored" al-Q before 9/11.
Yes, we're all aware you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your money where your mouth is.
The fact that you're insulting someone for refusing to put their money where your mouth - and fractured definition of unelectable is - is just base.
The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.
The fact is that if Hillary declines to run, that goes to proving MY point that she is unelectable.
Is this really the sort of logic they teach in law school?
Are you claiming that whether she can get elected does not factor into her decision of whether to run?
I certainly hope so, because it's obviously correct.
Wait. Is "goes to proving my point" the same as "proves my point"? Because the latter is what you said originally, and something almost being proven is not something one should pay out on.
1) the fact that Obama has decided that civilian casualties are a totally acceptable consequence of the strikes,
that they're often counterproductive-- by killing noncombatants in Muslim countries, we're breeding more 'terrorists' than we're eliminating, and
It definitely does. But it's one factor among many, and you've decided that if she decides not to run, you're going to attribute it to her seeing herself as unelectable. And your perception here is driven by a very obvious dislike for Clinton that will not allow you to interpret the decision any other way.
If you have figured out a way to kill terrorists without risking civilian lives, I'd like to hear about it.
They're obviously productive.
Now, now -- you don't understand. Now that a Democrat is in office, the AUMF is and always was intended to turn the President into Caesar.
And why do they think that? Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution. The more interesting question is whether we needed the AUMF dustup to make this clear. Probably not -- your hardcore lefties have always had something of a thing for strongmen.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 5.9689 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed