POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

Did you know that the government has passed legislation that nullifies a number of constitutional rights? Given that, it is pretty obvious that the government DOES NOT respect the rights of americans.

 

You made the accusation - I'm asking for names. I'm stating nothing.

 

The ignorance on this forum never seems to disappoint. If we start making exceptions to rules on a case by case basis, we become ISIS, terrorist, traitors, liars, hypocrites, fools, etc. Everyone is treated equally, without that we're just a big bully with a superiority complex. An American Citizen gets his rights if you don't like it, please feel free to run for office on rewriting the constitution to not allow all Americans the same rights. I am sure people will get behind that.

 

Lincoln threw Confederate sympathizers in prison without a trial. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

This thread is NOT about Obama or Al Awaki, try to stay on topic.

 

"Everything Hitler did was legal" - Martin Luther King Jr.

So he did what he had to do (in his mind). However, this is not Nazi Germany and in America, all government servants are bound by Oath by the Constitution, there are no exceptions. In Amerika, well you gotta do what you gotta do, sometimes and every time.

 

Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes?

On Wednesday, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time that four Americans were killed in drone strikes since 2009as part of U.S. counterterrorism activities surrounding al Qaeda . Of the four, only one of them, Anwar al-Awlaki, was targeted, according to Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. The following are descriptions of the four men killed in drone operations.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-the-4-us-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/

are you really that uniformed? maybe it would be best you educate your self on the topic before you create a thread you would look much less foolish

 

An American citizen who takes up arms against the US loses his rights. There is nothing "ISIS" about that.

 

Maybe it would be best if you had a clue what I'm aware of and quit inventing crap about me. Stick to the topic, it isn't about me or Obama's war crimes and crimes against the Constitution.

 

Please point to where it says that, besides you.

 

My premise stands that you are woefully ignorant on the very topic you created this thread about

The Court has upheld the authority of the President to try enemy aliens (and United States citizens working with them) by military tribunal in Ex parte Quirin (1942). The Court held that enemy aliens (in this case saboteurs, who had entered the United States in secret for the purpose of committing hostile acts) are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, but are unlawful combatants who can be tried by military tribunal. The Court, in Rasul v. Bush (2004), relying on Burns and other cases, held that the federal habeas statute confers federal district court jurisdiction to hear challenges of alien detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. However, the Court explicitly did not decide the substance of those rights and limited the habeas extra-territorial reach to Guantanamo Bay, which it said had a unique relationship to the United States. At the same time, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004), the Court, on jurisdictional grounds, avoided ruling on the extent of the President's power to keep a U.S. citizen in military custody as an enemy combatant; but in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) the Court decided, without a majority opinion, that the government must give a U.S. citizen held in the United States some type of hearing at which he may contest the facts on which the government decided to treat him as an enemy combatant.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/54/military-regulations

 

The Court has upheld the authority of the President to try enemy aliens (and United States citizens working with them) by military tribunal in Ex parte Quirin (1942). The Court held that enemy aliens (in this case saboteurs, who had entered the United States in secret for the purpose of committing hostile acts) are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, but are unlawful combatants who can be tried by military tribunal.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/54/military-regulations

they aren't allotted due process curtailed in the constitution but instead are subject to military UCMJ

 

I will ask you for the last time to quit attacking me or you will be reported. You are clueless about what I know and what I don't know and you're making up crap about me for confrontational purposes. The courts also ruled that corporations (a paper created fiction) have the same protected rights as human beings and that money is speech. So much for court rulings. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land regardless of the courts and their perverted "interpretations".

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

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 defense.

Furthermore, there are multiple treaties that the US government is a signatory to that are part of the Constitution under the Supremacy clause that deal with war crimes and prisoners of war. However, this case is about an American citizen and the judge in this case:

"ordered the Trump administration to tell her — by 5 p.m. Thursday — whether an American citizen the government has detained incommunicado for months has been advised of his constitutional rights and whether he has asked for legal representation."

 

I have no idea.

 

Before you label anyone ignorant, check the mirror:

"how many more Americans must die at the alter of political correctness and diversity before it relieves you liberals of your white guilt?"

Alter - change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way

Altar - an elevated place or structure, as a mound or platform, at which religious rites are performed or on which sacrifices are offered to gods, ancestors, etc.

You're welcome.

 

Dude, it's not an accusation; it's fact. The fact you are inferring it didn't happen is funny.

Here, let me help you remember: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?search/2245694/&page=18&q=Anwar+al-Awlaki&o=date

 

Please cite the law you are basing this opinion upon. Keep in mind the dispute beginning April 12, 1861 and the Bundy standoffs.

 

You know you have won the argument when your opponent resorts to being a grammar Nazi

 

See above - thanks to TRFJr

 

See above - thanks to TRFJr

 

From your OP. I juxtaposed that against the murder of American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son by 2 separate drone strikes. They were American citizens specifically targeted for death by the Obama administration, where was their right to due process? That makes Obama a war criminal. Where is your outrage over that?

 

What if he wasn't fighting for ISIS?

Can the gummit come along and say you were fighting for ISIS and then lock you up?

 

The subject of the OP was too. What's your point?

 

At least they can let him go, what if the intel on Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son was wrong.....they're dead.

 

It is dissent, but unacceptable dissent.

How about a trial before we lock up U.S. citizens?