The Republican Thread

[The Sir]

Obama Fried Chicken opens in Beijing. This is hilarious. Props to the Chi-Coms.

[Balta1701]

Not really true thought. The government has always picked and choosed when it came to which laws it obeyed.

And how many good things have come from that?

[southsider2k5]

And how many good things have come from that?

 

Reverse discrimination makes most happy.

[Texsox]

Again, you're 100% ignoring the point.

 

Repeating the ways that the bad guys are bad does not change the fact that what happened in this case is not permitted by the law.

 

If the bad guys are as bad as you say they are, and its been known for months, years now that this particular person was a target, then why has Congress not adjusted the law to deal with this scenario? Your argument that these guys are so bad because they don't follow the law is a great reason for Congress to act and fix the law. It is not an argument for why the law should be ignored. There is absolutely nothing stopping Congress from acting if you're right.

 

The only logical conclusion that one can draw from Congress not acting is that Congress has higher priorities than dealing with people willing to commit acts of war against the U.S. Therefore, I must judge that Congress believes your points about how bad these guys are must be incorrect, because otherwise Congress would have acted.

 

Because this isn't the first, nor will it be the last time, we have dealt with this kind of situation and used deadly force. Let me phrase it this way, during a war is it not appropriate to kill the enemy using drones, bombs, and assorted other weapons? The only difference I see is the enemy has no one national affiliation, there are no clear battle lines. You law does not apply.

[Texsox]

Obama Fried Chicken opens in Beijing. This is hilarious. Props to the Chi-Coms.

 

They should have the rest of the Colonel's troops in there as well

[Balta1701]

Because this isn't the first, nor will it be the last time, we have dealt with this kind of situation and used deadly force. Let me phrase it this way, during a war is it not appropriate to kill the enemy using drones, bombs, and assorted other weapons? The only difference I see is the enemy has no one national affiliation, there are no clear battle lines. You law does not apply.

Again, you're simply ignoring every single real issue here. What legal basis has determined that this American Citizen is no longer a citizen and is now an enemy in the wartime sense?

[Balta1701]

And can someone please tell me why having Congress actually deal with this issue over the last year when it was clear this person would be a target is a bad thing?

 

The real answer of course is that Congress can't do anything that would give Obama anything approaching a win, and small edits to make fighting this campaign more effective or legal are therefore impossible.

[Texsox]

And can someone please tell me why having Congress actually deal with this issue over the last year when it was clear this person would be a target is a bad thing?

 

Because the situation defies easy definitions which are requirements before writing the law.

[Balta1701]

Here's a different writer's version. Yeah it's a blog.

As it happens, I don't think the Awlaki precedent means that President Obama is going to go hog wild and start mowing down Americans overseas. I don't think that President Rick Perry would, either. But there are good and sound reasons that presidents are constrained in their ability to unilaterally kill U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and we allow these bright lines to be dimmed at our peril. Unfortunately, the war on terror has made poltroons out of every branch of government. The president hides behind the post-9/11 AUMF, using it as a shield to justify any action as long as it's plausibly targeted at al-Qaeda or something al-Qaeda-ish. Congress, which ought to pass a law that specifically spells out due process in cases like this, cowers in its chambers and declines to assert itself. And the courts, as usual, throw up their hands whenever they hear the talismanic word "war" and declare themselves to have no responsibility.

 

If the president wants the power to kill U.S. citizens who aren't part of a recognized foreign army and haven't received a trial, he should propose a law that spells out when and how he can do it. Congress should debate it, and the courts should rule on its constitutionality. That's the rule of law. And regardless of whether I liked the law, I'd accept it if Congress passed it, the president signed it, and the Supreme Court declared it constitutional.

 

However, none of that has happened. The president's power in this sphere is, in practical terms, whatever he says it is. Nobody, not liberals or conservatives, not hawks or doves, should be happy with that state of affairs.

[Balta1701]

Because the situation defies easy definitions which are requirements before writing the law.

Bullplop. Complete and utter bullplop. Hell, go back a page and I can find the section of the law that you'd have to edit.

 

Here's how you edit it.

 

"In the event that a citizen foreswears his citizenship and pledges loyalty to a non-State organization hostile to the United States while residing outside of the U.S. borders, the executive branch can remove that citizenship, subject to review by court xxx upon challenge by the citizen."

 

Done. President is explicitly given the right, by Congress, to strip citizenship in the event that a person does exactly this. Court review is possible so that the Exec can't do so indiscriminantly.

 

Of course, edits to the law = wins for the President. So that can't happen.

[Texsox]

You keep looking for a perfect law in an imperfect word.

[Balta1701]

You keep looking for a perfect law in an imperfect word.

And writing it too. Remarkable.

[The Sir]

Wait a second...

 

The president OKs an operation that you find to be against the law, and even though he made no effort to get Congress to change the law and happily carried through on the operation, you blame Congress for not obliging him and making sure his actions were legal?

 

That's what I get from you sarcastically noting that Congress couldn't possibly give Obama a win, and frankly, that's ridiculous.

[Texsox]

Actually he placed blame on all corners of the government. unlike some here, he'll criticize both sides of the aisle. Of course since I want to support the troops, I support whatever mission the President has for them.

[EvilMonkey]

And how many good things have come from that?

Sanctuary cities seem to make a lot of illegals pretty damn happy. Selective enforcement on immigration cases by INS makes a lot of illegals happy. Selective prosecution in the Justice Dept on discrimination cases seem to make progressives happy. Seems the side in power now chooses to ignore a lot of laws.

[Texsox]

Sanctuary cities seem to make a lot of illegals pretty damn happy. Selective enforcement on immigration cases by INS makes a lot of illegals happy. Selective prosecution in the Justice Dept on discrimination cases seem to make progressives happy. Seems the side in power now chooses to ignore a lot of laws.

 

Are you thinking of the same laws that have been ignored for the past 30 years by every administration?

[Jenksismyhero]

Bullplop. Complete and utter bullplop. Hell, go back a page and I can find the section of the law that you'd have to edit.

 

Here's how you edit it.

 

"In the event that a citizen foreswears his citizenship and pledges loyalty to a non-State organization hostile to the United States while residing outside of the U.S. borders, the executive branch can remove that citizenship, subject to review by court xxx upon challenge by the citizen."

 

Done. President is explicitly given the right, by Congress, to strip citizenship in the event that a person does exactly this. Court review is possible so that the Exec can't do so indiscriminantly.

 

Of course, edits to the law = wins for the President. So that can't happen.

 

How exactly would that work? Is the person in question going to be dumb enough to come to court and risk arrest? Is he going to be able to find an attorney willing to represent him? Is he going to be given a public defender? Not to mention the fact that 99.9% of the "evidence" establishing his treasonous acts would be considered state secrets of national security and probably protected from being released in court.

 

I agree with you guys that the law should be updated and that some independent person should be appointed to review the executive's request (the SC maybe)? But in reality it's just more work for a process that ultimately will be flawed and heavily in favor of the government over the citizen. So you'll create the system and then have the ACLU battle it out in courts for the next decade. In the meantime, this never-before-used power of the executive will remain an incredibly rare event left for the most obvious of people. Like this guy. Who put out a video calling for people to attack America.

 

And I have issue with your last statement. I don't see Democrats running to the cameras claiming that we need to get this thing passed right now. I don't see anyone from the WH doing the same thing. Fact is the WH DOESN'T want any sort of approval process because they'll risk the military option of taking the guy out at a moment's notice.

[StrangeSox]

Putting out a video calling for people to attack America is protected speech.

[Balta1701]

How exactly would that work? Is the person in question going to be dumb enough to come to court and risk arrest? Is he going to be able to find an attorney willing to represent him? Is he going to be given a public defender? Not to mention the fact that 99.9% of the "evidence" establishing his treasonous acts would be considered state secrets of national security and probably protected from being released in court.

That's exactly the point...if the Executive branch is right and the person has sworn loyalty to a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the United States....I seriously doubt that he's actually going to show up to challenge his loss of citizenship. The only case in which this step would be reasonably taken is if the Executive branch oversteps the goal of the law and tries to strip someone of citizenship for unjust reasons.

 

It doesn't need to ever be used, but the path for how to do it legally needs to be codified. That's all.

[Jenksismyhero]

Putting out a video calling for people to attack America is protected speech.

 

That's a secondary issue to whether a traitor and enemy of the state loses his citizenship and therefore loses his rights under the Constitution. I agree the wording needs to be updated to include people like this (unaffiliated terrorists).

[Jenksismyhero]

That's exactly the point...if the Executive branch is right and the person has sworn loyalty to a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the United States....I seriously doubt that he's actually going to show up to challenge his loss of citizenship. The only case in which this step would be reasonably taken is if the Executive branch oversteps the goal of the law and tries to strip someone of citizenship for unjust reasons.

 

It doesn't need to ever be used, but the path for how to do it legally needs to be codified. That's all.

 

But my point is that process is just as useless as having no process. Assume for the sake of argument that they change the law as you suggest. Obama (or whichever President) seeks to kill a citizen abroad. They do so. The ACLU files a suit claiming the same thing - lack of due process. SS and others like him will argue that the only information used to establish the guy has sworn his loyalty to some other group/nation that's an enemy of the US is information from the US government. He can't defend himself in court. He can't do anything to clear his name. At the end of the day the government is still basing that decision on government information that will never be reviewed by any independent tribunal or administrator (since that information would fall under state secrets/national security exceptions). I think you're just creating process for the sake of a process. The fundamental issue remains.

[Balta1701]

But my point is that process is just as useless as having no process. Assume for the sake of argument that they change the law as you suggest. Obama (or whichever President) seeks to kill a citizen abroad. They do so. The ACLU files a suit claiming the same thing - lack of due process. SS and others like him will argue that the only information used to establish the guy has sworn his loyalty to some other group/nation that's an enemy of the US is information from the US government. He can't defend himself in court. He can't do anything to clear his name. At the end of the day the government is still basing that decision on government information that will never be reviewed by any independent tribunal or administrator (since that information would fall under state secrets/national security exceptions). I think you're just creating process for the sake of a process. The fundamental issue remains.

The fundamental issue, IMO, is that there is no process for this. It's that the law says you can't do this. If you create a process, even if the hurdles are difficult, then you've satisfied me.

[StrangeSox]

That's a secondary issue to whether a traitor and enemy of the state loses his citizenship and therefore loses his rights under the Constitution. I agree the wording needs to be updated to include people like this (unaffiliated terrorists).

 

If the thing being used to justify stripping him of his rights is him exercising said rights, you've got yourself a nice circular argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

If the thing being used to justify stripping him of his rights is him exercising said rights, you've got yourself a nice circular argument.

 

How else could you lose your citizenship by swearing your loyalty to a foreign enemy?

[StrangeSox]

How else could you lose your citizenship by swearing your loyalty to a foreign enemy?

 

He never lost his US citizenship and there is no mechanism for doing so by calling for attacks on America, short of being tried for and found guilty of treason.