Downsize.org calls for Impeachment of President

Downsize.org, which is a non-partisan organization, is calling for the impeachment of President Obama for the premeditated murder of an American citizen. The below quotation is the reason given in their letter to the US Congress which was provided to subscribers of their organization.

Additional information can be found at their website.

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/impeach/

While I do not adhere to all of Downsize.org's position on this one I must agree. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, just as the Bush Adminstrations use of torture violated the 8th Amendment, and the President, regardless of whether they are a Republican or Democrat must be held accountable for compliance with the US Constitution.

Regardless of individual party affilliations it's time for the American People to demand that Congress hold every US president accountable for their actions in office. Such clear violations of the US Constitution by a president, any president, warrant impeachment and removal from office. I would encourage Democrats and Republicans alike to write to their Congressional Representatives and demand the impeachment of President Obama for High Crimes and Misdomeanors in authorizing the premeditated murder of an American citizen in violation of the US Constitution.

 

Ridiculous.

While I would agree if that if the American citizen was here in the United States, and therefore within our jurisdiction, that it would be illegal. However, arguably this citizen had taken up arms against the United States and was beyond the jurisdiction of the American legal system. By bearing arms with a foreign power he not only was committing treason, he was acting as a foreign soldier and subject to attack as any of the other Al Qaeda terrorist killed by drone attacks in the last 5 or 6 years.

Just as American citizens who served in the Japanese and German armies in World War 2 were killed in action, so too was this citizen. Completely within the authority of the President as Commander in Chief in time of war.

However, that is only because the current interpretation is that Congress has authorized this war on terrorism, and that that authorization is Constitutional. Of course if it isn't, then a whole lot of people are in trouble. Personally, I think it should take a specific declaration of war by Congress, but no Congress or Administration has agreed with me since World War 2.

 

I agree with Downsize DC's stance and was pleased to receive this info from them today. If murder by Executive Order isn't an impeachable offense, what the heck is? What Nixon and Clinton did was mild in comparison to murder, yet they were impeached.

Good for Downsize DC. I hope this impeachment movement gathers enough strength to make a difference.

 

I guess if the president wears the killing of Bin Laden like a feather in his cap, he can't escape responsibility for ordering the execution of an American citizen.

As they say, what goes around, comes around.

 

There are numerous logical fallacies expressed in this.

First of all the United States is not at war with Yeman nor was Anwar al-Awlaki a member of the Yemani military. He was not killed on the battlefield in the normal course of a war so he cannot be considered to be an enemy combatant.

Next is the fact that extrajudical executions are by their very nature not authorized under the law nor can Congress authorize the White House to circumvent Constitutional limitiations. The Congress has never to my knowledge authorized murder and it would be unconstitutional to do so.

The US Constitution applies to all of the actions of our government regardless of where in the world those actions take place. It is our government that is limited and the order to execute Anwar al-Awlaki originated in the United States.

Whether Anwar al-Awlaki violated any laws that could justify capital punishment has never been determined by a court of law. While the evidence might seem obvious the President does not have the authority to determine of anyone has violated the law and to impose the death sentence. The determination of guilt is expressly limited to the Courts and requires due process of the law under the Constitution.

Congress cannot "declare war on terrorism" as terrorism is a tactic, not an entity, and it cannot authorize assassinations which violate international laws and treaties that the US is a party to. The Congress has not authorized assassinations.

International acts of terrorism are a criminal offense under Title 18 and as such must be prosecuted in a Court of Law.

Criminals suspects where an indictment exists that reside in a foreign country are subject to extradition where such treaties exist. If no treaty exists then it is a failure of the Office of the President to secure such a treaty and for the Senate to ratify the treaty. Such cases can be addressed by an ad hoc agreement between the nations but lacking an agreement between the United States and a foreign country the United States has no authority related to the arrest and extradition of the individual to the United States. There are international customs and laws related to the legal extradition of a person indicted for a criminal act and that is a component of the "due process" clause in the United States Constitution. Failure to comply with the Due Process clause of the Constitution is a violation of the US Constitution.

I would agree, and the US Supreme Court has agreed, that many of the actions by the Executive Branch have been unconstitutional related to the so-called "War on Terror" since 2001. Many of the actions by the Bush adminstration were determined to be unconstitutional such as the torture of individuals in custody and the denial of due process of the law to those in custody even when they were outside the territory of the United States. Former President Bush unquestionably violated the US Constitution and should have been impeached for those actions but he's no longer president. President Obama is the current president and his actions which violate the US Constitution warrant impeachment.

We cannot allow the President to conspire to commit murder or to commit the extrajudicial murder of any anyone whether they're in the United States or not. As noted "extrajudicial" by it's very definition is an act carried out that is not authorized under the law. The President is limited to only those acts that are authorized under the law.

 

This is certainly a very interesting scenario.
On one hand, we have non citizen enemy combatants at GITMO, and our 1st lawyer wanted to grant a trial on U.S. soil, yet, in contrast, we have a U.S. citizen residing in Yemen, who is taken out by presidential order.
I don't know much about legalese, so I will stay away from that.
But my sense of fairness makes the hair in my neck stand up straight on this one.
Even if a case for treason could be make, do you wonder who could be next, depending on the administration? How far can we take this?
Is it ok to kill this guy, because he is presented to us as a terrorist? How do we know for sure? Because the media tells us so? He wasn't taken out on the battlefield, since we don't have one in Yemen, so it leaves me with the worry that anyone traveling abroad could be targeted.
Also, the timeline strikes me as odd. Is Obama trying to act tough to garner more support? Distraction from such things as jobs and ...ooops..."fast and furious"?
I agree, if he is given credit for taking out OBL, he must own this one as well, with all its consequences.
Yes, I will sign this petition, because the possible, although still imaginary, next step really scares me.
My guess though, since he is/was called a terrorist, he's been found guilty by public opinion. I doubt this petition will go far, because most people don't care about future implications.

 

There are equities on both sides of this argument. But the American people can't stand another impeachment process. Their condition is fragile enough as it is. The country is on the verge of a figurative civil war. Let Obama's fate be decided at the polls.

 

I am so sick of hearing this legal mumbo jumbo!

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) the ENTIRE WAR ON TERROR is a NASTY, knock down drag out fight against a shadowy enemy that knows no national border, answers to no government or military authority and could, if all the Laws of the West were followed, act with impunity across the planet would NEVER EVER BE CAPTURED OR KILLED.

Face it, SOMETIMES THE LAW IS INADEQUATE because there are certain bastards out there, regardless of nationality who are beyond the reach of lawyers judges and law enforcement officials.

When such bastards are discovered, they must be eliminated as quickly and cleanly as possible using State Power.

(*)(*)(*)(*) THE LAW, I DON'T CARE I DEMAND SUMMARY VIGILANTE JUSTICE AGAINST AL QAEDA! I WANT COWBOY LAW, THE WAY JUDGE ROY BEAN WOULD ADMINISTER IT. Whether Libertarians like it or not, too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad. There are going to be special exceptions made for Al Qaeda linked terrorists regardless of nationality and if you don't like it too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bad. Libertarians should just **** and suck it up and quite being a bunch of anti-war wet towels.

I do not beleive for one minute that the rights of upstanding American Citizens are in danger in any way shape or form and all of this second guessing is PARANOIA and SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY. FDR did FAR worse (*)(*)(*)(*) during his term and he got reelected 4 times.

I'm no interested in bull (*)(*)(*)(*) legal technicalities when it comes to Al Qaeda, I want them dead. Every single one and America has always endorsed swift, brutal summary judgement when the situation has called for it. When it comes to fighting this war on terror, there is no law, there is no morality, there is no decency.. only swift, violent, summary judgement of the American People.

The Mainstream does not want to take a moral high road, they don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). They are angry and mean and want Al Qaeda operatives killed with extreme prejudice and if that is compromising a few bull (*)(*)(*)(*) ideals then so be it. Being global hegemon means you have the luxury of being a hypocrite.

If the rest of the world doesn't like it then they can suit up, go to war and if they beat us then they can be the global hegemon but that is the only way America is going to stop, when someone else stops us and I'm anxious to see someone try.

 

In summary the United States should not be a nation based upon the US Constitution and the Rule of Law but instead it should be a nation where the President is nothing more than an elected tyrant that can incarcerate, torture and murder anyone he chooses at anytime without any consequences.

Say good-bye to freedom and justices and say hello to absolute tyranny.

 

The fact is that the President does not have the authority to determine if a person is guilty of a criminal act. That can only be accomplished in a court of law.

Of note this is not similar to the case of Osama bin Ladin as the Seal team did have directions to apprehend OBL if he surrendered. There were plans in place had this happened. Of course how OBL could have surrendered are somewhat questionable but as a former soldier I would assume that had the Seal team members entered the room where OBL was and he had his hands raises in a gesture of surrender that they wouldn't have shot him.

I have a serious problem with GITMO detainees as there are about 170 still being detained as I recall off-hand but less than 40 are facing any criminal charges. The United States government has no authority to detain a person unless they are: A) a Prisoner of War, or B) there is a criminal indictment against the individual. That is the only legal authority our government has for the detentions of an individual that has not been convicted of a criminal act.

 

Has any one seen this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111006

 

I read something similar.
Doesn't this 'need to know' 'sensitive' criteria give a pretty blank nod to anything "senior officials" want to hash out in their smoke filled back rooms?
Makes me wonder if the same who are having us on each others proverbial throats, are those who hang out together and slap each other on the back on regular basis.

 

Slippery Slope Fallacy and you know it. Stop trying to be all black and white about (*)(*)(*)(*). There is a huge grey area and your absolutely religious belief in the rule of absolute law is astoundingly naive if you think that America can't play around at the margins with the Law.

Yes, the US Government is allowed to make certain exceptions and you're going to have to accept that.

 

Yup..............

 

I don't think we can be sure.

 

I guess these dopes have never seen a wanted dead or alive warrant.

 

Basically this can be compared to the NKGB - "People's Commissariat for State Security" or the NKVD - "People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs" in Stalin's Soviet Union. When there is a government entity that is not accountable to the law it ultimately results in the absolute tyranny of government. The US Constitution was created to help prevent tyranny but if the leaders of our government are not required to comply with it then tyranny has already begun to take over the United States.

Where is the "gray area" related to "No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" as contained in the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. That doesn't just prohibit the extrajudicial murder of an American but it prohibits the extrajudicial murder of anyone by the US government. There are no areas of interpretation related to this simple and explicit prohibition in the US Constitution.

No, the US government is not authorized to make any exceptions to the US Constitution. The US Constitution provides sole authority for all actions of the US government as well as explicit restrictions and prohibitions. In spite of allegations of what President Bush might have said the US Constitution is not "just another god(*)(*)(*)(*)ed piece of paper." It is the Supreme Law of the United States and all government actions are either based upon it, limited by it or prohibited by it.

 

A grand jury cannot issue a wanted dead or alive warrant in it's indictment.

In fact the "wanted dead or alive" poster seems to have been predominately an invention of Hollywood although I've seen one poster for Billy the Kid that refers to "Dead or Alive" but it's authenticity is questionable as well as it's Constitutionality. Of note the $500 reward and warrant issued was for the arrest and detention of William Bonney aka Billy the Kid.

 

I hate the idea of agreeing with you.

For me, this is where the idea of small govt. comes in. What adage is Lord Acton remembered for?

 

While there are several acts for which Obama may be properly impeached, to all appearances this is not one of them, as everyone with at least a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law surely knows.

And neither does he need any such authority if that person is fighting on the side of our enemy in wartime.

 

If the extrajudicial (i.e. outside of the authority of the law) planning and murder of an American citizen is not an impeachable offense then I would have to question what would be an impeachable offense. Remember, because this was the "unlawful" (extrajudicial) killing of a person it meets the strick legal definition of murder.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

 

It is, but it's also nothing like what happened here.

No, an "extrajudicial" killing is not necessarily an unlawful killing, since the Judiciary has nothing approaching plenary authority to pass judgment on every killing by the US military.

Hell, as far as that goes, any killing done in self-defense that legal authorities never become aware of is "extra-judicial", but it sure as Hell isn't illegal.

It doesn't matter, because we are at war with AQ and he was a member.

 

I disagree. The so-called War on Terror is an excuse for perpetual war and a transparent excuse to destroy civil liberties in the US under the guise of protecting us. The drug war was a first step in the erosion of civil liberties, and since it has become obvious that it isn't working, the government has created a new "War" for the more gullible of our citizens to rally around. Unfortunately, we can see by all the people who support this perpetual war without end, that the propaganda machine has done its job well.

When the government violates the law and allows killing by Executive order, as it has been violating the Constitution for decades, no one is safe. Don't you see how the government has been taking incremental steps to expand its power and decrease the power and rights of its citizens?

The MSM has become the propaganda arm of the U.S. government. We may never know the truth about this assassination, just as we will never know the truth about Bin-Laden's death unless one of the participants talks, and that won't happen since they can be assassinated if they try. Think about it.

....as if apologists for a president who orders the killing of a citizen without a trial are any better. What differentiates Obama from another famous person named Hussein who had his own people killed? Only a matter of degree.

Al Qaeda and terrorism are the new bogey men the government is trying to scare us with. Others can put their heads in the sand and keep repeating, "My government is just doing this to protect me from those big, bad terrorists," but those are the people who are as much of a threat to freedom as the overreaching central government has become. Why? Because it is this mentality that gives it even more power, and the more it gets, the more it demands.

wtf?

Instead of being the world's bully, just because we can, and because war is so profitable for some as our nation's wealth is siphoned to the military-industrial complex, we should just bring our troops home, put some along our southern border which is so porous that those big, bad terrorists can cross with impunity, take care of our own nation, and let other people take care of theirs.

 

Listen to these words people !!!

 

Once again this is a false argument. Even the US military is prohibited from the premeditated murder of a civilian that doesn't present an immediate threat. They might accidently kill a non-combatant civilian during the conduct of a war but it is not intentional and premeditated. The Uniform Code of Military Justice classifies the premeditated killing of a civilian, even on the battlefield, as murder. Soldiers have been convicted of this criminal act and sentenced to prison.

Actually killing a person in self-defence is explicitly legal under the law.

Al Qaeda is not an organization with membership. It is a construct of the US intelligence services. There are no actual "members" of al Qaeda. It is a broad term created by the US intelligence services to stereotype Sunni groups involved in "Jihad" and the name originated from a communique from bin Ladin. The actual translation of "al Qaeda" is "the base" which bin Ladin used and, in it's original context only referred to those associated with bin Ladin. The vast majority of individuals that the US intelligence services identify today as "members of al Qaeda" have actually never broken any laws. In many cases they're not even Sunnis and in most cases they have no relationship to the organization formed by bin Ladin.