Obama abuses the constitution is just pure BS ..

[MindMover]

""

[Kelvin Mace]

1. The place where he abuses the Constitution

is where he decided he can legally execute American citizens by drones because, well, just trust him on the "because".

[Thinkingabout]

2. Is this happening on American soil?

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Point to me where in the Constitution

the Bill of Rights' protection stops at the U.S. border?

If Bush did this, people would be outraged on this board. Can we have one standard of evil please?

[Thinkingabout]

7. Point to where in the Constitution where it stops at the US borders.

Going outside of our borders is not new, in other words strikes have been made maybe not with drones but in other forms. Was a drone strike used to kill bin Laden? Are you saying you would rather see boots on the ground rather than the drones?

[Kelvin Mace]

10. I would rather us not murder people in such a cold-blooded

fashion without even a facade of due process.

We established a precedent that we may kill anyone we wish with no proof that would stand up in a court of law. That standard works both ways. What is the difference between the "terrorist" bomber who plants a bomb to kill people deemed guilty of crimes against his people, and a U.S. president who uses a drone to kill people deemed guilty of crimes against the U.S. people?

Once you are OK with government officials committing murder on the basis of "he deserved killin", the standard is set for ALL other governments.

Also, how about those "oopsies" where wedding parties were identified as "terrorist operations"? How many innocent people are you will willing to be a party to murdering in order to get the odd guilty "terrorist"?

[Thinkingabout]

12. When one steps outside of our borders the ruof the country takes over.

In many of these strikes are at the request of the countries themselves, their rules.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. So, murder is okay

because someone asked us politely to commit it on their behalf?

Because being a dictator's assassin is so, so moral?

And again, the evidence these people are bad guys is... what exactly? The CIA said so? Dick Cheney is certain about it? The religious nutjob running the country and who turns a blind eye to burning little girls alive for going to school double-pinky swears? We are to kill people who thieves and murderers claim are thieves and murderers because thieves and murderers would never lie to us?

[Thinkingabout]

16. Perhaps these are hits to prevent little girls dressed in pink from a terrorist plot,

Would you prefer those little girls be killed or whatever instead of attempting to prevent the attacks anywhere in the world.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. Perhaps?

Your standard of proof "perhaps"

You are prepared to see people murdered because "perhaps" little girls in pink dresses are in danger?

[Thinkingabout]

19. Your dog doesn't hunt.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Cliches?

You argue via cliches?

So far, your evidence to support state sanctioned murder is that we should believe proven liars.

[Thinkingabout]

21. So far you have not said anything to change my opinion, but I will continue to have my opinion.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. I have asked you solid questions and you refused to anwser.

Apparently hearsay evidence from liars is valid justification for the state to commit murder in your view, as long as it is put it in a little pink dress.

[Thinkingabout]

25. I do not have the information which is given to those in charge of making these

Decisions. I realize there is request from countries officials to assist them because they are also trying to halt terror activity. These requests is not available to me either so don't go jumping to conclusions before the facts are know to you and you are totally familiar with aspects.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. So, you choose to believe that people who have lied in the past are now telling the truth?

Simple question.

It is easy to justify anything when you have to prove nothing.

[Thinkingabout]

27. it goes both ways

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Really?

How? My arguments are verifiable.

The CIA has lied to the American public and government official

Panetta Tells Lawmakers CIA Misled Congress Post-2001

Pelosi says CIA lied on 'torture'

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade

Iran-Contra: The Cover-Up Begins to Crack

MKUltra

Judge accuses CIA officials of fraud, unseals secret files

Nazi War Crimes Declassification Act (From the CIA's own site outlining U.S. protection of Nazi and Japanese war criminals

And must I provide links for the tons of articles linking the CIA to criminal activities in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Angola, El Salvador, Laos, Nicaragua, Panama and Iraq?

These are the people you choose to believe?

[Thinkingabout]

33. Who are you complaining about, I did not know this is a thread about the CIA.

If they checked there would be lots of lies told. I choose to believe those which has creditable thoughts and explanations, if it does not sound right to me, I don't believe it. You are going far back in history, you want to be a protester of deaths, then go ahead, I don't agree with you. I have my Constitutional right to have my opinion.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. You have a perfect right to believe anyone you choose

I choose to put more stock in people without a massive track record of lies. Proven liars seem to be believable in your book, as long as they say something the confirms your preconceived world view.

I have my Constitutional right to have my opinion.

Are you saying that that right is somehow being infringed? If so, please explain how?

[SunSeeker]

3. It was not "just because."

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/mar/19/kesha-rogers/four-us-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/

There were a total of 4 U.S. citizens killed by drone. All four occurred in the middle east. Only one of them was intentionally targeted, Anwar Awlaki, a radical Islamic cleric born in New Mexico who was actively plotting the killing of Americans when he was killed in Yemen in 2011.  The other three were not targeted but happened to be next to terrorists who were targeted and were killed by the blast.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. And what court convicted

Alwaki?

The Constitution is pretty clear on this point:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

5th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

6th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

8th Amendment

The point is that Obama decided he had the power to execute people without trial, including American citizens.

He has done precisely that.

The violation of the Constitution is pretty clear cut.

[Thinkingabout]

8. Was these Americans sigthseeing or why were they next to targets?

[Kelvin Mace]

9. So, simply associating with people the U.S. government

has decided must die is a crime warranting death?

And what evidence is there that these people who "must die" are guilty of any crime? Would it come from the same sources that told us Iraq had NBC weapons?

It is called "due process". The Constitution unequivocally requires it.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Since you do not know if they were sight seeing then you don't know if they are aidinf abetting

enemy. How many who died in the Twin Towers had the option to have a trial? when you lie with dogs you get fleas.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Please don't try to "9/11" the issue.

The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudi, when are we attacking the Saudi Arabia? Also, bin Laden was aided and abetted after the attack by Pakistan, when are we attacking Pakistan (Pakistan would also be the country that aided North Korea and Iran in their nuclear weapons programs)?

We have killed between 600,000 and 1 million+ people in Iraq, a country with NO part in the 9/11 attack, and still we have to kill other people on similarly dubious evidence?

We didn't accept the terrorist's excuse of "they needed killin" as a legal justification for murder, why are you offering it for a president?

Murder to avenge murder is still murder and only leads to more murder.

[SunSeeker]

15. Al Waki was sending bombs to the U.S. packaged in printer cartridges.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_planes_bomb_plot

He was in the midst of plotting the deaths of Americans. He had to be killed to prevent the deaths of Americans, just like a bank robber is killed--without arrest and trial--when he points his gun at cops. If he was on American soil we could try to capture him and put him on trial, but folks with more info on this than you or I determined that trying to capture him in Yemen was not possible, that he was an imminent threat to Americans and had to be taken out.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. Again, according to WHO?

When was the matter tried in a court of law, the evidence presented and the witnesses cross-examined? We are expected to believe the testimony of government agencies who have lied in the past, scores of times, and who, to this day, refuse to try people being illegally detained in Guantanamo because the evidence against them is "classified"?

"but folks with more info on this than you or I determined that trying to capture him in Yemen was not possible,"

And who are these people? What are their names? Why won't they appear before a grand jury and testify UNDER OATH as to what they do and don't know?

Our standard of proof for state-ordered assassination is the hearsay evidence of nameless people who can't be bothered to testify under oath?

It is okay to murder someone because a Wikipedia entry says they are guilty of something?

Again, my question: Why would we believe the CIA/NSA/FBI/Justice Department/Pentagon, et al, are telling the truth when they have lied with impunity hundreds of time in the past? (As recently as this past year).

[SunSeeker]

23. According to Obama administration folks who know what they are talking about.

If no one could rely on our intelligence services, we could not take any action to protect ourselves from imminent harm. At some point, you have to assume people are doing their jobs. Otherwise, we could not have a functioning society. Cops would never be able to take down a nutbag about to shoot you.

I am not saying you shouldn't question authority. But you seem to believe everyone is lying, whether or not the evidence is disputed, and that exigent circumstances don't matter. As far as I am aware, no credible source has disputed that Al Waki was sending bombs. Under the circumstances, Obama did the right thing.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. I need names

and I need evidence they "know what they are talking about".

Also, WHY should we believe an intelligence service that has a 50+ year string of failures? A 50+ year record of willfully violating the law?

When it comes to whether or not we commit murder as a national policy, I have MUCH higher standards of proof.

I don't think "everyone is lying", I think that MANY in government have lied often enough that we must require much more than just their word before we believe them.

As far as I am aware, no credible source has disputed that Al Waki was sending bombs. Under the circumstances, Obama did the right thing.

Seriously, that is now the standard of proof? Last I checked, the U.S. criminal code REQUIRED the presumption of innocence and that the state must PROVE guilt. You are telling me it is sufficient that the state make an allegation, and unless some "credible source" disagrees with them, the allegation is assumed true and their life is forfeit.

In terms of logic, that is right up there with "He must be guilty, otherwise he wouldn't have been arrested."

[SunSeeker]

30. Barack Obama. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Well, there's a problem right off

I am afraid his credibility is not the best. He has claimed he welcomes transparency, then is zealous in prosecuting whistle blowers. He claims he has a legal justification to kill people via drone, then refuses to let us see the legal justification.

Again, presidents lie all the time, therefore I require more proof of than simply "Obama said it so it must be true."

[Maedhros]

28. Killing Al-Awlaki in no way protected the United States from imminent harm.

The analogy to "cops taking down a nutbag about to shoot you" is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones, based out of a secret CIA Base in Saudi Arabia,[237] fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Awlaki and three other suspected al-Qaeda members.[238][239][240] A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle.[241] According to U.S. sources, the strike was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA.[244]

Al Awlaki was having breakfast while traveling. He was not committing any kind of attack, was not armed, and was not commanding any troops engaged in violent conflict. There was no "imminent threat" by any measure of the term.

He was also not in a "war zone." There was no battle in progress. The United States could easily have inserted a special operations team to capture Al Awlaki while he was eating his breakfast. Heck, they were able to capture Bin Laden from deep inside Pakistani territory, an infinitely more difficult task.

The U.S. Constitution requires a trial by a jury of one's peers before being executed. This was not done, and the strike was authorized by the President. Hence, the President violated the Constitution. It's cut and dried.

[SunSeeker]

29. We'll have to agree to disagree. nt

[Occulib]

34. Does the US create Terror?

I have been reading along for a couple of weeks and decided to make this my first post.

In terms of Obama throwing the constitution out the window for Al-Awlaki and his son, I am convinced this definitely happened after extensive reading. Al-Awlaki was a muslim cleric in the US that was wrongfully targeted in the wake of 9/11 for having talked with two of the hijackers. He simply offered them religious consult in a mosque in the US. If Tim McVey had sought the council of a priest, would they have targeted that priest for his ties to a terrorist? Anyway, The CIA was watching him already and they found no proof that he advised anyone on 9/11 or was a radical militant. Prior to his being targeted, Al-Awlaki actually was pushing his fellow muslims to vote for Bush in 2000 because of the GOP's stances on abortion and other similar ideals that happen to be pro-republican and pro-religious. I am not denying that Al-Awlaki said horrible things, but how does a bright young muslim man in the US go from being a simple cleric, devoted to his faith, citizen of the US, to a American hating radical? Well, he was falsely imprisoned and placed in solitary without ever being charged while he lived in the US. He was constantly detained and questioned for quite a long time, and his fathers even says, after his harassment by the CIA, he went off the deep end and became more anti-American. This is when he left and began his decent down the road to radical fundamentalism. He elected to leave the US. His father stayed and I do believe that his son was also still here. His son would later seek out his father in the middle east, only to meet his fate at the hands of a drone attack at a birthday party. When the US decides to us drones, they look at the age of clusters of young men. If they happen to be of fighting age and there happens to be plenty of them, they are labelled as "targets" and bombed. Al-Awlaki's son was attending a birthday party and seeking out the location of his father.
Now I know we talk about the constitution quite a bit when it comes to this topic. I just wish that when we kill people abroad, we take a look back at the persons history to see where and when the terrorist comes out in American citizens. Hell, Al-Awalaki actually went to the White House and was actually going to seek office at one time to protect the rights of his fellow muslim brothers and sisters. That all ended after 9-11.
All of the information I posted can be found in Jeremy Scahill's book Dirty Wars and the accompanying documentary with the same title as well as multiple interviews with Al-Awalaki's father on Democracy Now. I encourage folks to read the book and watch the movie. There is definitely no denying that Al-Awalaki said and was planning some awful stuff. However, how did this young, very bright American citizen go from being a devoted cleric to blood thirsty terrorist? And how can the Obama administration justify the murder of his son? Again, his son had no contact with his father and was at a birthday party when he was murdered by a drone and he was also an American citizen, born in the US.

[SunSeeker]

35. If you really read Scahill's book, you'd know the son wasn't killed while looking for his dad.

The dad was killed by drone strikes in Yemen 2 weeks before his son. The son was killed while hanging out in Yemen with the same terrorists his dad hung with, and the son got unintentionally hit. When the son was killed, he knew his dad was killed in pretty much the same location two weeks earlier. At the time of his death, the son could not have been "seeking out the location of his father." http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3141688/

No matter how pissed you get at our government, it is never an excuse for turning into a terrorist and targeting innocent people or resorting to violence against your own country.

[Occulib]

37. Thanks for the clarification but...

Interesting,I read it twice and saw the movie. Scahill spends quite a bit of time talking about how the use of drones works and how the ages of targets and determining the strikability of groups of young men suspected of being terrorist because ether are communing with other men of the same age. He spends time talking about how we would target groups of men between , i think 18-25. They could be terrorist, they could not but they decided to shoot first.
According to Anwar Al-Awalaki's father Nasar in the NYT and I know it is in Scahill's book "Early one morning in September 2011, Abdulrahman set out from our home in Sana by himself. He went to look for his father, whom he hadn’t seen for years. He left a note for his mother explaining that he missed his father and wanted to find him, and asking her to forgive him for leaving without permission.

A couple of days after Abdulrahman left, we were relieved to receive word that he was safe and with cousins in southern Yemen, where our family is from. Days later, his father was targeted and killed by American drones in a northern province, hundreds of miles away. After Anwar died, Abdulrahman called us and said he was going to return home."

and from Scahill "As the Americans surveilled the house where Anwar was staying in Jawf, Abdulrahman arrived in Ataq, Shabwah. He was picked up at the bus station by his relatives, who told him that they did not know where his father was. The boy decided to wait in the hope that his father would come to meet him. His grandmother called the family he was with in Shabwah, but Abdulrahman refused to speak with her. “They said, ‘He’s OK, he’s here,’ but I didn’t talk to him,” Saleha recalled. “He tried to avoid talking to us, because he knows we will tell him to come back. And he wanted to see his father.” Abdulrahman traveled with some of his cousins to the town of Azzan, where he planned to await word from his dad."

"After Abdulrahman heard the news of Anwar’s death, he called home for the first time and spoke to his mother and grandmother. “That’s enough, Abdulrahman. You have to come back,” his grandmother Saleha told him. “That’s it.” The conversation was brief. Abdulrahman said he would return home soon, but that he wanted to wait for the roads to clear. There were police checkpoints and fighting along the route, and he did not want to be detained or caught up in any violence."

"As Abdulrahman mourned, the boy’s family members in Shabwah tried to comfort him and encouraged him to get out with his cousins. That was what Abdulrahman was doing on the evening of October 14. He and his cousins had joined a group of friends outdoors to barbecue. There were a few other people doing the same nearby. It was about 9 pm when the drones pierced the night sky. Moments later, Abdulrahman was dead. So, too, were several other teenage members of his family, including Abdulrahman’s 17-year-old cousin Ahmed."

Like I said, Al-Awalaki said and was planning terrible things but Id like someone to answer the question from my first post, how does a intelligent young man like Anwar Al-Awalaki go from being a devoted Muslim in America, devoted to the ideals of republicans turn out to be a blood thrifty terrorist? What did the US government do to force him so far?

[Occulib]

38. Still some pretty weak justifications from the Obama administration

'The CIA later claimed that it did not carry out the strike, asserting that the supposed target, al-Banna, was not on the agency’s hit list. That led to speculation that the attack that killed Abdulrahman and his relatives had been a JSOC strike. According to The Washington Post, senior US officials acknowledged that “the two kill lists don’t match, but offered conflicting explanations as to why.” The officials added that Abdulrahman was an “unintended casualty.” A JSOC official told me that the intended target was not killed in the strike, though he would not say who that was. On October 20, 2011, military officials presented a closed briefing on the strike to the Senate Armed Services Committee. With the exception of the statements from anonymous officials, the United States offered no public explanation for the attack. The mystery deepened when AQAP released a statement claiming that al-Banna was still alive. The Awlakis began to wonder if perhaps Abdulrahman was, in fact, the target of the strike." https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/25-9 Here is the entire article from Scahill that includes most of the quotes from up top and here is the NYT piece by Nassr Al-Awalaki http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0

[SunSeeker]

40. These days, having the "ideals of Republicans" does not require much "turning."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025083295

[Occulib]

39. Response to the last comment

I agree with you 100% wholeheartedly. There is never any excuse to kill innocent civilians. Anwar Al-Awalaki should have been detained for his suspected role in terrorist acts and tried under a court of law since he is granted that as an American citizen. I realize the "war on terror" is not the conventional war. The 'enemy" does not follow the same rules of engagement. I get that.

So when the United States bombs a village in Yemen or Pakistan and kills civilians, innocent civilians, doesn't that kind of make our government terrorist as well? And that is not a statement it is a legitimate question that I never hear people talking about. They want to just sneak back to Anwar Al-Awalaki and his role in a supposed terror attack which they still can't really prove. I mean, if we droned everyone for making video's speaking out against the US government the world would start to get smaller really fast.

[SunSeeker]

41. The US does not purposely target innocent civilians. That is what Al Waki did.

You appear to have an agenda and I'm not interested in helping you further it.

But you can keep replying to your own posts if you want. I guess if nothing else it will run up your post count. LOL.

[Occulib]

42. I dont get it

I am just trying to have civilized discussion about this. I have no agenda, I just joined the site yesterday. I came here looking for solice in expressing my opinion and talking with other like minded folks. Thanks for the welcome

[Rhiannon12866]

43. Welcome to DU, Occulib!

[Occulib]

44. Oh so they are just casualties of war?

Thats rich. Can you point me to evidence that shows Al-Awalaki actually targeted innocent civilians. I read that he was actually a "motivator" and recruiter for Al-Queda and made a few video's. That doesn't really seem like he was part of the planning or actual carrying out of operations. If I am wrong, please show me evidence where I can be corrected.

I am not trying to further an agenda. I just dont really have an avenue to talk to people about these sorts of things and just found the site.

[Sunlei]

4. many of the EOs issued cut off American businessmen from their massive investments with

countries who want to kill us or ruin our country.

So of course they hate him. A good EO usually doesn't 'name names', it just shuts the door on their gravy train. Some of them have made billions off our federal money over decades.

They should be happy, retire and enjoy their profits. They have cost Americans billions/trillions of their Federal funds. But no, I guess in their minds there is never enough money. Never enough wealth until they take every penny of Federal and State money until its gone.