Should Obama be impeached?

[Guns Guns Guns]

The Obama administration had long argued that Mr. Awlaki, 40, had joined the enemy in wartime, shifting from propaganda to an operational role in plots against the United States, and last year it quietly decided that he could be targeted for capture or death...

Civil libertarians questioned how the government could take an American citizen’s life based on murky intelligence and without an investigation or trial, claiming that hunting and killing him would amount to summary execution without the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...revives-contentious-constitutional-issue.html

 

[Alias]

The Obama administration had long argued that Mr. Awlaki, 40, had joined the enemy in wartime, shifting from propaganda to an operational role in plots against the United States, and last year it quietly decided that he could be targeted for capture or death...

Civil libertarians questioned how the government could take an American citizen’s life based on murky intelligence and without an investigation or trial, claiming that hunting and killing him would amount to summary execution without the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...revives-contentious-constitutional-issue.html

So what do YOU think?

 

[poet]

The Obama administration had long argued that Mr. Awlaki, 40, had joined the enemy in wartime, shifting from propaganda to an operational role in plots against the United States, and last year it quietly decided that he could be targeted for capture or death...

Civil libertarians questioned how the government could take an American citizen’s life based on murky intelligence and without an investigation or trial, claiming that hunting and killing him would amount to summary execution without the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...revives-contentious-constitutional-issue.html

Which side are you on?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no American shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


In ordinary circumstances, that requires a trial and conviction before government officials can order an execution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...s-constitutional-issue.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes

 

[poet]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no American shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


In ordinary circumstances, that requires a trial and conviction before government officials can order an execution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...s-constitutional-issue.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Except when treason is conventional wisdom. Did John Wilkes Booth deserve a trial? Further, did he get one? Hello? Ifn 3 folks said you did it......you did it.


Black folks have been wrongly convicted on less compelling testimony. Move around.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Except when treason is conventional wisdom. Did John Wilkes Booth deserve a trial? Further, did he get one? Hello? Ifn 3 folks said you did it......you did it. Black folks have been wrongly convicted on less compelling testimony. Move around.

Booth certainly deserved a trial. The Constitution guarantees all Americans due process of law.

He was tracked down and shot by Boston Corbett, a Union soldier who acted against orders. Eight others were tried and convicted, and four were hanged shortly thereafter.

Corbett was arrested but was later released by order of Wm. Stauton in a travesty of justice.

All kinds of people have been wrongly convicted. Does that mean the Constitution no longer applies?

Past injustices don't excuse present ones, do they?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth

 

[Rune]

You know, when bypassing the constitution is convenient at the moment, almost everybody seems O.K. with it.

The slippery slope is geting steeper and slicker by the day.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You know, when bypassing the constitution is convenient at the moment, almost everybody seems O.K. with it.

The slippery slope is geting steeper and slicker by the day.

its amazing how quickly people stop caring about the constitution when it suits them

 

[poet]

Booth certainly deserved a trial. The Constitution guarantees all Americans due process of law.

He was tracked down and shot by Boston Corbett, a Union soldier who acted against orders. Eight others were tried and convicted, and four were hanged shortly thereafter.

Corbett was arrested but was later released by order of Wm. Stauton in a travesty of justice.

All kinds of people have been wrongly convicted. Does that mean the Constitution no longer applies?

Past injustices don't excuse present ones, do they?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth

No...but stretching the truth or fantasizing doesn't amount to much more than masturbation.

 

[poet]

its amazing how quickly people stop caring about the constitution when it suits them

Isn't it, though?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No...but stretching the truth or fantasizing doesn't amount to much more than masturbation.

Care to explain?

 

[poet]

Care to explain?

Not really. Try reading between the lines you drew, yourself. Impeached? Really? What rational person would come to that conclusion? If there was a snowball's chance... the line would be long, and President Obama could relax before he was up.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So asking a question in a poll is "stretching the truth" and "fantasizing"?

Please. Don't be such a drama queen.

You know, if Bush had done this, the left would've been howling for his blood.

Nobody is above the law.

 

[poet]

So asking a question in a poll is "stretching the truth" and "fantasizing"?

Please. Don't be such a drama queen.

You know, if Bush had done this, the left would've been howling for his blood.

Nobody is above the law.

Well, I will if you stop being so pollyanna-ish. Are you such a glutton for attention? A poll? This is more about you than a real query. Nobody is stupid, except the usual suspects.

Look, either we have a war against terrorism, or we don't. Bush locked away enemy combatants.....and the left did howl.
You're up in arms about a "high-ranking" Al Qaeda operative, simply because he was an American citizen? He jettisoned his rights when he declared war on America......sorry.
You can't have it both ways, even though you're trying.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Well, I will if you stop being so pollyanna-ish. Are you such a glutton for attention? A poll? This is more about you than a real query. Nobody is stupid, except the usual suspects. Look, either we have a war against terrorism, or we don't. Bush locked away enemy combatants.....and the left did howl. You're up in arms about a "high-ranking" Al Qaeda operative, simply because he was an American citizen? He jettisoned his rights when he declared war on America......sorry. You can't have it both ways, even though you're trying.

It seems the Fifth Amendment prevents executing an American citizen without due process. Care to discuss that fact?

 

[poet]

It seems the Fifth Amendment prevents executing an American citizen without due process. Care to discuss that fact?

Not when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Due process is, of course, only when it's convenient. There are exceptions to rules, as sanctimonious as you're pretending to be.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Not when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Due process is, of course, only when it's convenient. There are exceptions to rules, as sanctimonious as you're pretending to be.

So asking if the government should adhere to the Constitution is "sanctimonious"?

Please, do cite some case law that proves your assertion that due process is waived "when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".

I await your next nonsensical reply with a growing sense of amusement.

 

[poet]

So asking if the government should adhere to the Constitution is "sanctimonious"?

Please, do cite some case law that proves your assertion that due process is waived "when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".

I await your next nonsensical reply with a growing sense of amusement.

Shall I cite the instances where the government, itself, did not adhere to the Constitution for convenience or political sakes? We'd be here for a while.
And you do know what I mean by "the government", don't you? Or do I have to spell it out? You know, to some, bending laws to suit one's agenda ain't nothing but a thang.
And do as I say, not as I do, has become conventional wisdom. You do know we're living in Amerikka, don't you?
Don't come at me with this bullshit...I went to school, and I keep up with current events. Go play with the children.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Shall I cite the instances where the government, itself, did not adhere to the Constitution for convenience or political sakes? We'd be here for a while.

I have time. Go ahead and cite them - with sources, please.

And you do know what I mean by "the government", don't you? Or do I have to spell it out? You know, to some, bending laws to suit one's agenda ain't nothing but a thang.

Spell it out.

And do as I say, not as I do, has become conventional wisdom. You do know we're living in Amerikka, don't you? Don't come at me with this bullshit...I went to school, and I keep up with current events. Go play with the children.

I thought that's exactly what I was doing when I engaged you in discussion, kid.