I've got a pen and a phone.

[HeyYou]

There are a fair few 'american citizens' fighting with al queda. It is impractical to bring them to trial, and also extremely expensive. Not just in money, but in the lives of those that we would have to send to arrest them. If you are hanging out with terrorists, BY CHOICE, then YOU are a terrorist, and abdicate all rights to anything other than what happens to the rest of the enemy combatants during a war. Demanding they should get a 'fair trial' is ludicrous. If you are FIGHTING against this country, that makes you an enemy. We tend to shoot first, and never ask the questions. So, join al queda, fight the US, be it at home or abroad, don't expect the niceties of a civilian trial. You can expect a bullet, bomb, or missile. That's it.

[Vagrant0]

 

And what part of this do you think I don't already know. and what part of my previous post is incorrect?

I stand corrected, read your posts wrong initially. Will have to remember not to make posts on mornings before work since I keep reading things backwards. I facepalm at myself and owe you an apology.

 

Regarding the President going over Congress, yeah, he actually can in situations where you have an emergency and Congress is in a state where they are unable (or unwilling) to act. Given that Congress currently can't even agree what day of the week it is, we may be getting to a point where such action is necessary just to keep the country from falling into ruin. I do however think people are reading too strongly at his wording though. Pen and phone doesn't mean that he will exercise any deliberate power, but rather that he will ensure that the needs of the people are listened to and addressed. Generally, dictators don't try to get feedback from their population about those areas that they need to improve upon. As the President is also the public face of the government this isn't any real departure from past presidents.

[Nintii]

@ HeyYou ... "If you are hanging out with terrorists, by Choice then, You are a terrorist"

 

According to US Intel, China's military trained Afghan Taliban militia and it's al Quada supporters, so seeing that they

are hanging out with terrorists does that make them terrorists ?

And if so then why doesn't the US attack China your largest merchandise trading partner and your biggest banker ?

I think I've just answered my own question.

[TRoaches]

Nintii's post nicely illustrates where the slippery slope of "we kill terrorists on sight" leads us. The difference between a terrorist and an accused criminal is arbitrary and subjective. Did the Black Panthers or Weather Underground "abdicate all rights" when they carried out their attacks against the US government, as HeyYou suggests? What about the Ruby Ridge "combatants"? Were the Branch Davidians killed because they "abdicated all rights" by refusing to comply with the ATF? An argument could be made that Julian Assange was actively working in opposition to the US military by leaking secret information. Should he be subject to execution by decree as well? What about Bradley Manning? Why should the military waste the money on a trial and subsequent imprisonment if they can just take him out back and shoot him?

 

The execution of US citizens without trial, even if they are living abroad, sets the precedent for any of the above mentioned people to be executed by executive decree. It really surprises me that everyone had such a big problem with waterboarding but now execution by decree is a fine thing. I would rather be transported to Gitmo for some waterboarding and a human pyramid photo-op than have my house droned.

 

Also, the argument that we save money by skipping the trial and going straight to the execution is simply insane, especially considering what a drop in the bucket it is compared to the rest of our budget. I'm all for cutting spending but I don't think we should start by eliminating the entire judicial process in favor of a Judge Dredd system.

Edited January 27, 2014 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

Here is the thing in regards to Awlaki... Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda. The real issue shouldn't be solely put on the president alone. Do I think it is right that they can do this? No... But framing any president as a dictator just for following existing framework of laws where as none of them even remotely interpreted as "stretched" most likely just has an issue with the president in general...

 

If anything or anyone is to really blame for the Awlaki example you only need to look back at the administration that put all these laws into motion.....

 

"As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R Ford."

 

"Both the C.I.A.and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said."

 

This being said if any American is really that paranoid that they are worried they are going to be killed without trial they would have to had to have done something horribly wrong threating national security to go through all that bureaucratic approval....

 

If anything the Awlaki example sets the ultimate precedent to deterrent anyone to "consciously" get involved in terrorist activities that threatens national security...

Edited January 27, 2014 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

I guess there's nothing quite like the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" argument to fall back on when defending this sort of stuff.

[colourwheel]

 

I guess there's nothing quite like the old "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" argument to fall back on when defending this sort of stuff.

 

I am not defending it. I stated I think this is wrong... But the real debate is framing the president as a "dictator".

 

Framing any president as a dictator just for following existing framework of laws where as none of them even remotely interpreted as "stretched" just has a personal issue with the president...

[kvnchrist]

 

 

And what part of this do you think I don't already know. and what part of my previous post is incorrect?

I stand corrected, read your posts wrong initially. Will have to remember not to make posts on mornings before work since I keep reading things backwards. I facepalm at myself and owe you an apology.

 

Regarding the President going over Congress, yeah, he actually can in situations where you have an emergency and Congress is in a state where they are unable (or unwilling) to act. Given that Congress currently can't even agree what day of the week it is, we may be getting to a point where such action is necessary just to keep the country from falling into ruin. I do however think people are reading too strongly at his wording though. Pen and phone doesn't mean that he will exercise any deliberate power, but rather that he will ensure that the needs of the people are listened to and addressed. Generally, dictators don't try to get feedback from their population about those areas that they need to improve upon. As the President is also the public face of the government this isn't any real departure from past presidents.

 

 

 

Yes but my point was that his emergency actions don't have the longevity, I guess I'll put it of law. They only extend to when the crisis that made them necessary has passed or he gets the congress or a new congress to cement them into a law of the land.

 

I believe that America is changing under President Obama in a way the scares the heck out of the Republicans and this is why he is coming under so much opposition. He isn't acting in the tradition of previous presidents and is reaching in area that weren't traditionally acceptable and they think he is out of control and dangerous.

 

Well, Duh! He's a Democrat for one and he is heading in a new direction faster that any other progressive president has ever accomplished and the country is in whiplash mode as we speak. They are not sure about anything and that's why he succeeded in getting a second term. They gave him a second chance, because the Republicans didn't have anything but a stale old stick-man with the likability of leprosy, with no message behind him.

 

Of course he's out of control, He's out of their control. Of course he's dangerous. He's dangerous because he's changing the playbook that they are so sure has been working for decades. The only thing is that they've never tried something new, which I think pretty well sums up the Republican party. New things are scary, so let's not try them. The boogie-man might get us. EEEEUUUUUWWWWWW! :blink:

 

I am sorry we had this little blow out. I actually look forward in your responses and that isn't a suck up. That's the honest truth. The Dark One was wise in his decisions of mods. Take care and have a great day.

[HeyYou]

Isnt' acting in the tradition of previous presidents? His immediate predecessor did some of the exact same things. Obama is merely continuing that trend.

 

But, Obama, cannot MAKE law. That is reserved for congress. (Article 1, Section 1 of the constitution.) He can issue orders within the framework of existing law. That's it. (basically, enforcement policy) Such orders are still subject to judicial review. He is by no stretch of the imagination a dictator. Now more than George Bush was.

 

Then trend for the government in general assuming responsiblity for more and more aspects of every day life, their free and loose interpretation of what constitutes "spying" on americans citizens and such though, THAT is becoming scarey.

[kvnchrist]

Isnt' acting in the tradition of previous presidents? His immediate predecessor did some of the exact same things. Obama is merely continuing that trend.

 

But, Obama, cannot MAKE law. That is reserved for congress. (Article 1, Section 1 of the constitution.) He can issue orders within the framework of existing law. That's it. (basically, enforcement policy) Such orders are still subject to judicial review. He is by no stretch of the imagination a dictator. Now more than George Bush was.

 

Then trend for the government in general assuming responsiblity for more and more aspects of every day life, their free and loose interpretation of what constitutes "spying" on americans citizens and such though, THAT is becoming scarey.

 

 

I'm not talking about the topic. I'm more targeting his foreign policy and his stance towards the Middle East.