close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Why Isn’t the Murder of an American Boy an Impeachable Offense?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Feb 24, 2013.

  1. TK-421

    TK-421

    10,314
    890
    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    It's war, stuff happens, it's in the past, get over it. Quit going on and on about impeachment, it will never get past the Senate, get over it.
     
  2. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012
    Our "Inalienable rights" include "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

    These things beyond that are Man's constructs to protect and preserve the "Natural" rights.

    Oh, I assure you I understand the Constitution.
    How do you figure, technically speaking, we have a "natural right" to firearm? After all, Firearms are a construction of man as well as the laws.

    We have a right to them because they are tools we use to protect those which actually ARE "natural" rights. If we take everything in the COTUS and the BOR as being "Natural Rights", then we would have to say those powers granted to Government in the COTUS are "Government's Natural Rights".

    You need to understand what the Founders felt were the "Natural Rights" and what the Founders created to protect those rights and do not confuse the two.
     

  3. Stubudd

    Stubudd

    6,020
    623
    Nov 4, 2008
    Kennesaw GA
    :rofl::rofl:


    It's not double crazy, it's just some people are absolutely fed up and done with the gop/dem nbc/fox news paradigm and all the false assumptions that are built into it.

    Double crazy is thinking any of these people are ever going to un**** what they've ****ed up, or that they even want to.
     
  4. Stubudd

    Stubudd

    6,020
    623
    Nov 4, 2008
    Kennesaw GA
    watch out the BBC is firing all the way from the other side

    don't miss 4:00 it's great

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c"]Al-Qaeda Doesn't Exist - YouTube[/ame]
     
  5. HarlDane

    HarlDane

    6,961
    1,705
    Jul 26, 2005
    San Joaquin Valley
    Those are certainly among the natural rights we have but they don't consist of the entire list.


    If you don't believe we have a natural, inalienable right to due process, I'm not sure there is anything I can say to change you're mind.
     
  6. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012
    Having a hard time with your Constitutional scholarship






    Now I took a look through the Constitution to see if I had missed something in my studies.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"


    Can't find any mention of "Due Process" in the preamble:dunno: Better look further

    Surely it will be in "Article I, section 9 (It talks about that "Law Stuff")

    article I
    .Section. 9.
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
    No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


    AHA now we are on to something

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,

    Now, maybe we are close....oh no...wait there is that pesky addendum

    unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


    Well, certainly the Founders wouldn't be so lax about suspending a "Natural Right"

    I even went through Article three sections I,II,III

    and no luck.

    Could you please point out to me where I missed the Founders even using the phrase "Due Process" ?

    If you can find it, then please show me where they declared it specifically to be a "Natural Right"?

    Because I am sure such great scholar as yourself would be pleased to help an illiterate soul such as myself to find these references.
     
  7. HarlDane

    HarlDane

    6,961
    1,705
    Jul 26, 2005
    San Joaquin Valley
    No problem, it's in the 5th amendment. I guess you haven't gotten that far in your extensive Constitutional studies.


    As I said before, if you don't believe that due process is a natural inalienable right, I'm not going to be able to convince you, especially considering you feel that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an exhaustive list of our natural rights and are confused as to why salmon don't have the same rights.
     
  8. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012
    Well I was aware of the fifth and just cut my post a bit short, but I still am waiting for you to show me where it was considered a "natural right" but given the rest of your post I (and you) are aware that you cannot.

    You are delving into the region of beliefs and almost of "faith" as it were. There is no basis for your beliefs except by extrapolation from documents you presume just overlooked mentioning it, I guess.

    The problem with your type of extrapolation is it leads others to presume they are entitled to cell phones and welfare because, after all, they "Have a right to pursue happiness".

    You still have the goal and the vehicle confused. Your natural right is "Liberty" that called Due Process" is the tool to protect it.
     
  9. HarlDane

    HarlDane

    6,961
    1,705
    Jul 26, 2005
    San Joaquin Valley
    The right to due process is based on political theory dating back to at least the Magna Carta and while I'd love to explain it to you in detail, it would take far more time than I have at the moment. I also don't think you'd be convinced considering you seem to think that we don't have rights beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution, which is understandable, I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with the 9th and 10th amendments if you haven't gotten to the 5th yet.
     
  10. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    3
    Feb 18, 2009

    Yes, our rights are natural.

    Let me explain this s l o w l y for your benefit. [​IMG]

    Our Constitution is for These United States, not for these United Nations. Our Constitution was written to protect these natural rights of US citizens from overreaching, overbearing government and the right to due process is one of the enumerated rights that our founders felt was imperative to protect.
    Yes, the rights of American citizens can be voided by our government after DUE PROCESS has taken place. They were pretty specific about this.

    Now, was the 16 year old boy, American citizen, [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abdulrahman [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]al-Awlaki afforded due process as set forth by our Co[/FONT]nstitution? What were his crimes? Was he actively engaging the US in war?
    Where in the Constitution does it state that the President can assassinate American citizens without due process?
     
  11. JimP

    JimP

    325
    101
    Mar 20, 2007
    Everyone is arguing about "due process". Please explain to me - s l o w l y - just what "process is due" to an enemy combatant ? An American taking up arms against his country and going to war doesn't get to use his citizenship as a shield against the Country defending itself.

    But, just what is "due process"?? (hint - it is a fluid/flexible construct depending upon the rights/interests and deprivations contemplated).

    The due process afforded someone on the battlefield waging war is very minimal....no more than the validation of the target folder/underlying information in most instances.

    I concur with many here that have no love for Obama - but whacking bad guys is a good thing. My only problem with this technique is that we are NOT taking any prisoners for exploitation and we may therefore be waging a war of "no quarter".

    Unwise in the instance in that we are not getting good intelligence from these clowns to 'climb the ladder"; and illegal from the aspect of waging a "no quarter" war.
     
  12. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Moderator

    34,207
    4,508
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    You are real good at the broad brush approach to stating issues. No matter how specific others are in defining when Americans living in foreign countries, operating against the United States become valid targets, you come back to "American citizens without due process," to include any citizen, anywhere, doing anything including acts of terrorism against the United States.
    Was the son kidnapped by the father, taken forcibly and held against his will?

    Is there any indication that he objected to his father's actions?

    Are there any indications that he didn't know what his father was doing?

    In the radical terrorist organizations, are there records of leaders' family members, immediate family like sons, even daughters who estrange themselves from the organizations and denounce their parents' actions?

    Is it common for sons and daughters to follow their parents and actively participate in terrorism, whether in the recruiting, training, leading, committing acts of terrorism?

    Was the son in training? Was the son to return 'home' and recruit teenage sympathizers?

    Don't know?
     
  13. RussP

    RussP Super Moderator Moderator

    34,207
    4,508
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Gibbs: I was ordered not to acknowledge drone program existed
     
  14. RWBlue

    RWBlue Mr. CISSP, CISA CLM

    23,545
    847
    Jan 24, 2004
    I think that is basically the case right there.

    There is collateral damage at times. It is unavoidable. We do a pretty good job, but .....

    I guess for those that want to bring up Adam Lanza or Casy Anthony, lets look at ratios. How many bad guys did they kill? How many good guys?


    How many bad guys has the Army killed in the last year?
    How many good guys has the Army killed in the last year?
     
  15. whoflungdo

    whoflungdo

    8,412
    134
    Jul 15, 2008
    MS
    So, goodbye with you doesn't really mean goodbye?
     
  16. Kablam

    Kablam

    3,420
    455
    Jan 12, 2005
    "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Article I, Section 9.

    Is that close enough or have I somehow missed your question? I doesn't say anything about war, although it doesn't say who gets to be the "decider" either.
     
  17. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012
    Once again you are overlooking the obvious just for the sake of arguing and to avoid the possibility of your being wrong.

    You are the one who made the erroneous claim that the right to bear arms was a "NAURAL RIGHT" as was Due Process.
    You are still wrong about that. The Founders never said such a thing.

    You will notice that I speak of them as "Rights" as indeed I believe they are. This is in sharp conflict with your false representation of my position. Rights the well are but even the Founders made sure they were separated from the "Natural Rights" that they protect.

    It may seem petty difference t the ignorant, and a semantic issue, but if one is to understand the Constitution and it's purpose and truly respect the men who crafted it, one must see it clearly, not as a statement of some of all encompassing ethereal and undefined natural rights that they just decided to put into writing. It must be seen as a set of natural rights basic to men "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", and the further rights that the Founders committed to our founding document to protect those natural rights.

    It is the genius of our Founders that you steal from when you claim everything in the Constitution as "Natural Right". The Founders took from Magna Carta and principles a writings older than that and CONSTRUCTED a set of laws and foundation around the basic NATURAL rights using stalwart principles and great knowledge of human nature.

    Due Process is a term applied to courts and a legal system, those things do not grow in nature, they are constructs of man and do not exist in places on this Earth, Due Process is a principle imbued in OUR belief system by the Founders as a protection of our natural right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    What the Founders laid out was a set of created rights as a bulwark to protect the natural ones. That they did so at such a time and so completely is a tribute to their genius (and some might say divine inspiration) to claim they just plucked it off the "natural tree" is truly a child's version of events.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  18. HarlDane

    HarlDane

    6,961
    1,705
    Jul 26, 2005
    San Joaquin Valley
    So it's your contention that the Constitution does not prohibit the government from violating the rights, due process or otherwise, of non-Americans?
     
  19. HarlDane

    HarlDane

    6,961
    1,705
    Jul 26, 2005
    San Joaquin Valley
    Considering the depth of the philosophical and political hairs were splitting here as well as the fact that we've both arrived at the same conclusion on the original topic, I'm not sure this is the best venue to continue our debate. It's also much more than I can acomplish in a break from work when I have board meetings tomorrow that I need to finish preparing for and I have yet to convince my employer that they hired an internet political philosopher instead of an accountant.

    You believe that the protections enumerated in the Constitution are political rights derived from man. I believe that because they are so inheiriently tied to our natural rights that the two can not be seperated. For example a natural right to self defense implies a natural right to the tools with witch to defend oneself.
     
  20. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    18
    Mar 9, 2012
    And, of course the right to free speech derives from making cave paintings...:upeyes: