Should a US President of any Party be able to declare an American citizen

[Winterblues]

an Enemy Combatant while that person is living within the USA and has committed no known crime; and in doing so remove all Constitutional rights granted all Americans. If the answer is no then Bush* should be held accountable for doing so. To me this is his highest crime. To arbitrarily and single handedly remove a US Citizen's Constitutional Rights without any form of trial or redress. This is tyranny IMO. Bush* did this and no one seems to feel he did anything wrong..

[Donnachaidh]

1. you should poll this question

I'd be interested in seeing what DU has to say about it.

[cloudythescribbler]

12. Try polling this question here on DU AND at other sites, including Protein Wisdom!

[havocmom]

2. No! Any President with that power is actually a monarch

And a pre-Magna Carta monarch at that!

It is a violation of all the logic and law this nation was founded upon.

[Winterblues]

3. I would like to see this question asked at a Presidential Debate

How would McCain answer or Hillary or Obama? It strikes to the very core of American Values IMO.

[mtnester]

9. Sad thing is, you won't see a question like this asked

and that is a real shame.

[superkia]

30. The media is corrupt and agenda driven, so they would never...

ask a question about our constitution, the north american union, the bilderberg meetings, impeachment, the war for oil and so on. Dennis Kucinich tried to attack the corruption topic and the erosion of our constitution but they blacked him out and belittled him and many here on DU followed their lead? Its sad that so many Americans have been dumbed down and actually fight against themselves and take sides with the corrupt that are destroying our lives. I read today that the drug companies are trying to get a law passed so that citizens cant sue them and I would guess that our corrupt system will pass such a law.

[El Pinko]

4. Of course not - it's against everything the Constitution is supposed to stand for.

Unless a person has reounced their citizenship, they are supposed to be INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

[Winterblues]

6. key words being "supposed to be"

Ask Joseph Padilla what his "inalienable rights" are...

[LSK]

5. no, and Ried should resign for not filibustering the Millitary Commissions Act

[Wizard777]

7. I don't think DEA Agents fighting in the "WAR" on drugs should be labeled enemy combatants.

After all they are quite clearly commiting TREASON.

[spanone]

8. no one man alone should have that power imo

[alfredo]

10. So he could name Obama or Hillary as an illegal enemy combatant

days before the election.

[Winterblues]

11. He got away with it once so why not?

Who would object? Obviously our Democratic representatives in congress saw no need.

[alfredo]

13. He could hold him long enough to keep him from winning the election.

I don't think he would do such a thing, but I don't trust them one bit.

[leftofthedial]

14. what time is American Idol on?

[Winterblues]

16. "USA" ~ "USA" ~ "USA" ~ "USA"

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

17. in many countries, full-scale riots would be taking place right now

in response to this "government"'s outrages. But not here . . .


:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

18. IMHO, that makes THEM more deserving of self-governance than us.

We no longer demonstrate that we deserve self-governance. Having abandoned responsibility for the behavior of our own government, we deserve whatever happens. Unless and until the Cheneey/Bush regime is prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, we are a nation of cowards and outlaws, imho. (... and that's an inclusive "we" FWIW.)

[leftofthedial]

21. Georgia, Monte-frigging-negro . . .

people have become so apathetic and, as you said, cowardly here . . .

[bemildred]

15. Bush America, where citizenship is provisional and people have "alienable rights". nt

[Solly Mack]

19. Yep

:(

[jmg257]

20. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

NO liberty will be deprived without Due process. For ANY reason - those rights enumerated in the BoR were considered absolute for a reason! To protect WE the people from the abuses of tyrants, usurpers and over-bearing majorities.

ANY such actions by the people in power that infringe on ANY of the rights of we the people is through a usurption, and is an example of tyranny at it's best (or worse)...and especially when such tyranny is enforced via agents of the state.

[verges]

22. Oh c'mon

"It's just a piece of paper.":sarcasm:

[Winterblues]

23. "A Goddamned Piece of Paper"

:shrug:

[Usrename]

24. Agreed!

He is the first American despot, and history should remeber him this way.

He won't be compared with other presidents, he'll be compared with tyrants. Not as bad as Hitler, but worse than Saddam Hussein.

[NGinpa]

25. No a president should not be able to do this and

yes he should be indicted for breaking constitutional law!

[Jack Rabbit]

26. Absolutely not

I consider doing so an impeachable offense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Unless you are planning to crown them, NO

[Recursion]

28. In ancient Rome, the addition of that power...

...was what transformed the Consul Octavian into Caesar Augustus.

[Cant trust em]

29. Can't there be some kind of tribunal for this?

I guess guarding our most basic civil liberties just takes too much time. But a terrorist attack could strike any minute, people!

[Hydra]

31. The law has been suspended here in America

The law is what Bushco says it is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is smoking something.

Btw, that particular fact SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME.

[jmg257]

32. Oh and don't forget this gem, which gives * the power to call out the armed forces for ANY reason HE

thinks necessary...

Section 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of
the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the
United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the
militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he
considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the
rebellion.

[endarkenment]

33. "Enemy Combatant" - fiction invented by criminals to cover up war crimes

There is no such thing. It is a dodge to avoid the geneva conventions. To answer your question, that would be 'no'.