• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gowdy:states should bypass Obama and enforce immigration law

loomixguy

Well-known member
Fatman wants to welcome teenage MS-13 members with open arms, and let them have their day in court.

Let his boy drop several hundred in Valley county, unannounced, stretching all taxpayer funded services, including schools, past the breaking point and he'd squeal louder and longer than Ned Beatty in "Deliverance".
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Fatman wants to welcome teenage MS-13 members with open arms, and let them have their day in court.

Let his boy drop several hundred in Valley county, unannounced, stretching all taxpayer funded services, including schools, past the breaking point and he'd squeal louder and longer than Ned Beatty in "Deliverance".

Yeah, according to blubber butt, illegals deserve the protection of the Sixth Amendment.....a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury as well as the right to be informed of all charges and have access to legal council.

American citizens? Not so much. Just kill the bastards.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
Why don't we just concentrate them in a specific area and take them out with HellFire missles? As loomixguy accurately stated, most of them are probably gang members who have already committed multiple murders.

Hasn't as much evidence been presented against them as was the American citizen who was executed by your Messiah?

You've been down there in commie land too long- flat turning into a bleeding heart liberal.... You'll lose your rightwingernut membership- as most conservatives think the rules of engagement for our troops against the terrorist militants should be loosened not tightened....
Now you want us checking their ID's for citizenship first :???: :roll:

I don't give a rat's ass what conservatives think and to paraphrase you, if protecting that precious constitution makes me a liberal, then so be it.

How do you know he was a terrorist militant OT? I assume you've read the warrant for his arrest? Or perhaps you've read the reasons given by the most transparent administration know to man? Which was it?

Will you answer? How do you know that particular American citizen was a terrorist militant? Please tell me.



Here's When It's Legal To Kill An American Citizen With A Drone


Brett LoGiurato

Jun. 23, 2014, 12:08 PM

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has released a secret Obama administration memorandum detailing the legal justification for a 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader born in the U.S.

The memo concludes that al-Awlaki's citizenship would not preclude the U.S. from "taking lethal action" against him, based on facts about the case submitted by the CIA, Department of Defense, and intelligence community. This summation of legality is predicated on the U.S. government's declaration of al-Awlaki as an "operational leader" of an "enemy force" — al Qaeda.

Here's the rationale, as summarized by Reuters:

The memo, prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says that because the U.S. government considered al Awlaki to be an "operational leader" of an "enemy force," it would be legal for the CIA to attack him with a drone "as part of the United States' ongoing non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda," even though he was a U.S. citizen.

The memo also says the killing of al Awlaki by U.S. military forces would be legal under an authorization for the use of U.S. military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

According to the memo, a U.S. citizen like al-Awlaki would be protected by the Fifth Amendment's due-process clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment, even while he is abroad. But the memo states a "decision-maker," such as President Barack Obama, could "reasonably conclude" that al-Awlaki's actions posed a "continued" and "imminent" threat to the United States.

"In addition to the nature of the threat posed by al-Aulaqi's activities, both agencies here have represented that they intend to capture rather than target al-Aulaqi if feasible; yet we also understand that an operation by either agency to capture al-Aulaqi in Yemen would be infeasible at this time," the memo reads.

The release of the memo comes after the White House allowed senators to see it amid a fight over the nomination of David Barron to fill a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Barron, who was then the acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote multiple opinions in support of the use of drones against American citizens, including this one.

Citing from the Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Barron wrote that "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including against U.S. citizens who have become part of enemy forces —and that "due process analysis need not blink at those realities.

The memo's release also comes in response to a suit from The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union. Jameel Jaffer, the ALCU's deputy legal director who argued the case, said the memo's release marked a "crucial step toward transparency."

"There are few questions more important than the question of when the government has the authority to kill its own citizens," Jaffer said. "This memo’s release will allow the public to better understand the scope and implications of the authority the government is claiming. We will continue to press for the release of other documents relating to the targeted killing program, including other legal memos and documents relating to civilian casualties."

The full memo is embedded below (the memo begins on Page 67):


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/memo-drone-strikes-american-citizens-2014-6#ixzz37y3INwm9

Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

The courts in some areas have added that law enforcement has the right by law to use deadly/lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

The military needs this ability too...Especially now that they are dealing in the hunting down of dangerous criminals that want nothing better than to kill some more Americans....

Anwar al-Awlaki (an alleged felon) got much more review of his case than some alleged felons do when a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision on whether the suspects escape endangers himself or other officers and/or citizens...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Jesus this is rich....Fatman marching in lockstep with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld....WHEN IT SUITS HIS PURPOSE. Otherwise they are demonized.

MS-13 isn't here to be productive members of society, they are flooding the border to PREY on productive members of society. Yet OT wants them to get their day in court.... :???:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

Only problem with that is that he wasn't a felon nor was he fleeing anyone.

Oldtimer said:
The courts in some areas have added that law enforcement has the right by law to use deadly/lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

What's that got to do with this situation. There was no court invovled.

Oldtimer said:
The military needs this ability too...Especially now that they are dealing in the hunting down of dangerous criminals that want nothing better than to kill some more Americans....

Aside from being a stupid statement that adds nothing to this particular conversation, from what I understand, the military already has these powers. They're allowed to kill any armed combatant who displays aggression, tries to flee, or otherwise in not in surrender mode.

Oldtimer said:
Anwar al-Awlaki (an alleged felon) got much more review of his case than some alleged felons do when a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision on whether the suspects escape endangers himself or other officers and/or citizens...

Another stupid comment though I'm glad you've pointed out that he was only an alleged felon. Bet that was like choking back a bad clam.

So let me ask you a question OT. Can we assume that you're perfectly comfortable with President Obama making such a decision as long as he had legal advice from the Justice Department?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Oldtimer said:
The courts in some areas have added that law enforcement has the right by law to use deadly/lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."


Oldtimer said:
Anwar al-Awlaki (an alleged felon) got much more review of his case than some alleged felons do when a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision on whether the suspects escape endangers himself or other officers and/or citizens...

Another stupid comment though I'm glad you've pointed out that he was only an alleged felon. Bet that was like choking back a bad clam.



LIKE this one???????

\http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/officer-in-fatal-ny-arrest-stripped-of-gun-badge
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

Only problem with that is that he wasn't a felon nor was he fleeing anyone.

Oldtimer said:
The courts in some areas have added that law enforcement has the right by law to use deadly/lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

What's that got to do with this situation. There was no court invovled.

Oldtimer said:
The military needs this ability too...Especially now that they are dealing in the hunting down of dangerous criminals that want nothing better than to kill some more Americans....

Aside from being a stupid statement that adds nothing to this particular conversation, from what I understand, the military already has these powers. They're allowed to kill any armed combatant who displays aggression, tries to flee, or otherwise in not in surrender mode.

Oldtimer said:
Anwar al-Awlaki (an alleged felon) got much more review of his case than some alleged felons do when a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision on whether the suspects escape endangers himself or other officers and/or citizens...

Another stupid comment though I'm glad you've pointed out that he was only an alleged felon. Bet that was like choking back a bad clam.

So let me ask you a question OT. Can we assume that you're perfectly comfortable with President Obama making such a decision as long as he had legal advice from the Justice Department?


A person does not have to be convicted to be considered a felon:

Felon
An individual who commits a crime of a serious nature, such as Burglary or murder. A person who commits a felony.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Anwar al-Awlaki is the US-born leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula (AQAP) - a 300-strong band of ferociously dedicated fighters living in the mountains of Yemen. He was recently named as "the most dangerous man in the world" by a US security official.

Under al-Awlaki's leadership, AQAP has become the most active al-Qaeda cell on the planet, claiming responsibility for the attempted airline bombings on Christmas Day 2009 and a foiled plot to send parcel bombs into the US in October of the same year.

Al-Awlaki is also thought to be involved in the Fort Hood shootings in 2009, where a US army major went on a rampage, killing 13 innocent people.

Awlaki was a self admitted felon who was on the Top 10 Wanted list of dangerous terrorists/criminals around the world...Conspiracy to commit murder is a felony anywhere I've ever seen.... Even the rightwing's propaganda station FAUX News has said they found evidence tying him as a conspirator on the 9/11 incident...

So you think even tho a law enforcement officer on a split second decision can decide whether a wanted person believed to have committed a felony and who you have probable cause to believe will endanger the officer or others if he escapes can shoot and kill that person to prevent their fleeing
BUT
that the President of the United States, after consultation with all his military, intelligence, and legal advisors cannot shoot and kill a wanted felon that he/they believe will pose a danger to the country and innocent people worldwide if allowed to flee and is not in a position allowing apprehension ? :???:

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.... I have a different persective on this....
I guess this comes from my experience of being someone in authority- just like at times when chief law enforcement on the scene have to make the decision to give the green light to take someone out to try and prevent further harm to innocent folks or officers-- I think the President as someone in authority has to sometimes make that tough decision too in order to protect our citizens and our troops..
 

hopalong

Well-known member
SAD SAD oldtimer!!!!


http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/officer-in-fatal-ny-arrest-stripped-of-gun-badge

USE OF FORCE???? EH????
 

redrobin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I guess this comes from my experience of being someone in authority- just like at times when chief law enforcement on the scene have to make the decision to give the green light to take someone out to try and prevent further harm to innocent folks or officers-- I think the President as someone in authority has to sometimes make that tough decision too in order to protect our citizens and our troops..
:lol: That is funny. :lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
.............BUT
that the President of the United States, after consultation with all his military, intelligence, and legal advisors cannot shoot and kill a wanted felon that he/they believe will pose a danger to the country and innocent people worldwide if allowed to flee and is not in a position allowing apprehension ? :???:

What you've just described here is what President George W. Bush did before attempting to capture and/or kill Saddam Hussein except that Bush followed the constitution to the letter.....going to Congress to get approval before taking action and going to the American people ahead of time to lay out his case for the action he was going to take.

To this day you blast Bush for lying to the American people (but providing no support) and lying to Congress via NSA reports that you claim were altered by Bush...again, with ZERO support of your assertion. Did you read that OT, ZERO support of your assertion though I've asked for it at least a dozen times.

Oldtimer said:
I guess this comes from my experience of being someone in authority- just like at times when chief law enforcement on the scene have to make the decision to give the green light to take someone out to try and keep further harm to innocent folks-- I think the President as someone in authority has to sometimes make that tough decision too..

You make me chuckle OT every time you play your cop card. I'm betting you've never lifted that weapon of yours against anyone and frankly fatman, I'm totally unimpressed.

But here's the main point. When any president is given the unilateral power to decide that a particular American citizen is an enemy of the state based on secret evidence and with zero input or review from a single court, it goes against EVERYTHING our Constitution stands for and the citizens it was supposed to protect.

I would bet my life that if this were happening under the GWB administration you'd be screaming bloody murder and, of course, you'd be right to do so. The fact that you're not only provides further proof that you're a blow-hard hypocrite who carries The Messiah's johnson in his mouth 24/7.
 

Mike

Well-known member
redrobin said:
Oldtimer said:
I guess this comes from my experience of being someone in authority- just like at times when chief law enforcement on the scene have to make the decision to give the green light to take someone out to try and prevent further harm to innocent folks or officers-- I think the President as someone in authority has to sometimes make that tough decision too in order to protect our citizens and our troops..
:lol: That is funny. :lol:

Buckwheat is compared to "Chief Law Enforcement On The Scene"?

That is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
.............BUT
that the President of the United States, after consultation with all his military, intelligence, and legal advisors cannot shoot and kill a wanted felon that he/they believe will pose a danger to the country and innocent people worldwide if allowed to flee and is not in a position allowing apprehension ? :???:

What you've just described here is what President George W. Bush did before attempting to capture and/or kill Saddam Hussein except that Bush followed the constitution to the letter.....going to Congress to get approval before taking action and going to the American people ahead of time to lay out his case for the action he was going to take.

To this day you blast Bush for lying to the American people (but providing no support) and lying to Congress via NSA reports that you claim were altered by Bush...again, with ZERO support of your assertion. Did you read that OT, ZERO support of your assertion though I've asked for it at least a dozen times.

Oldtimer said:
I guess this comes from my experience of being someone in authority- just like at times when chief law enforcement on the scene have to make the decision to give the green light to take someone out to try and keep further harm to innocent folks-- I think the President as someone in authority has to sometimes make that tough decision too..

You make me chuckle OT every time you play your cop card. I'm betting you've never lifted that weapon of yours against anyone and frankly fatman, I'm totally unimpressed.

But here's the main point. When any president is given the unilateral power to decide that a particular American citizen is an enemy of the state based on secret evidence and with zero input or review from a single court, it goes against EVERYTHING our Constitution stands for and the citizens it was supposed to protect.

I would bet my life that if this were happening under the GWB administration you'd be screaming bloody murder and, of course, you'd be right to do so. The fact that you're not only provides further proof that you're a blow-hard hypocrite who carries The Messiah's johnson in his mouth 24/7.


So if Bush had done the same thing - it would be alright ?

I have no problem with Bush killing Saddam- either if it had been done by the military- by a tomahawk missile- by a drone or whatever... Just like al Awlaki - he was given every chance to surrender himself and chose not to... I did oppose GW taking us into an unnecessary war tho... I don't think we needed to be there getting our boys killed and running up a $4-7 Trillion debt- for what now turns out to be a lost cause....

As far as Congress authorizing Obama's actions:
The memo also says the killing of al Awlaki by U.S. military forces would be legal under an authorization for the use of U.S. military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

Same authority GW gave for going after Osama- and GW used to do drone missile attacks on enemy combatants around the world-- during which 3 US citizens were "accidentally" killed...

What about those American Citizens GW killed :???:

If your going to fight a war you have to quit pussy footing around and fight it- otherwise get out...
You liberals from socialist countries and your rules of engagement get more soldiers and cops killed and injured than anything else... :wink:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
what about over zealous cops and those in power???

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/officer-in-fatal-ny-arrest-stripped-of-gun-badge

http://www.examiner.com/article/woman-beaten-by-police-officer-on-los-angeles-freeway

these are just a few the past week or so :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
what about over zealous cops and those in power???

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/officer-in-fatal-ny-arrest-stripped-of-gun-badge

http://www.examiner.com/article/woman-beaten-by-police-officer-on-los-angeles-freeway

these are just a few the past week or so :(

Just like there are bad soldiers, bad ranchers, bad car salesmen, bad housewives, bad politicians, etc., etc. that commit crimes or break the law- there are also law enforcement officers that break the law...

One of the toughest investigations my partner and I had was investigating a small town Chief of Police that we had both known for years... His stepdaughter had accused him of having sexual relations with him (statutory rape as she was under 18 ).... The evening before he was supposed to show up to change his plea to guilty- 911 received a call requesting a Coroner at the address he lived at- then heard a shot !
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
As far as Congress authorizing Obama's actions:
The memo also says the killing of al Awlaki by U.S. military forces would be legal under an authorization for the use of U.S. military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

Same authority GW gave for going after Osama- and GW used to do drone missile attacks on enemy combatants around the world-- during which 3 US citizens were "accidentally" killed...

What about those American Citizens GW killed :???:

Yes, I'm aware that despite campaigning against virtually everything that Bush had done as comander-in-chief, Obama turned around and embraced virtually all of it. And yes, just as Obama had congressional approval via Bush's already-established approval, Bush had approval too via Clinton's regime change in Iraq laws. Still, Bush sought out congressional approval.

In Libya, Obama didn't bother and you didn't whine.....yet another example of you not concerned with the constitution when it suited your needs.

As for Bush killing American citizens, please provide evidence that the killings resulted from known-American targets being hit.

Oh who am I kidding, you just make the claims and don't bother with proof.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hopalong said:
what about over zealous cops and those in power???

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/officer-in-fatal-ny-arrest-stripped-of-gun-badge

http://www.examiner.com/article/woman-beaten-by-police-officer-on-los-angeles-freeway

these are just a few the past week or so :(

Just like there are bad soldiers, bad ranchers, bad car salesmen, bad housewives, bad politicians, etc., etc. that commit crimes or break the law- there are also law enforcement officers that break the law...

One of the toughest investigations my partner and I had was investigating a small town Chief of Police that we had both known for years... His stepdaughter had accused him of having sexual relations with him (statutory rape as she was under 18 ).... The evening before he was supposed to show up to change his plea to guilty- 911 received a call requesting a Coroner at the address he lived at- then heard a shot !

So, the coroner ruled his death an accident to save the family grief and so they could commit insurance fraud? BTW, when talking about Valley County, isn't it redundant to describe anything there as small town?

And what was so tough about it? Difficult to cover for one of your own?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
hopalong said:
what about over zealous cops and those in power???

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/officer-in-fatal-ny-arrest-stripped-of-gun-badge

http://www.examiner.com/article/woman-beaten-by-police-officer-on-los-angeles-freeway

these are just a few the past week or so :(

Just like there are bad soldiers, bad ranchers, bad car salesmen, bad housewives, bad politicians, etc., etc. that commit crimes or break the law- there are also law enforcement officers that break the law...

One of the toughest investigations my partner and I had was investigating a small town Chief of Police that we had both known for years... His stepdaughter had accused him of having sexual relations with him (statutory rape as she was under 18 ).... The evening before he was supposed to show up to change his plea to guilty- 911 received a call requesting a Coroner at the address he lived at- then heard a shot !

So, the coroner ruled his death an accident to save the family grief and so they could commit insurance fraud? BTW, when talking about Valley County, isn't it redundant to describe anything there as small town?

And what was so tough about it? Difficult to cover for one of your own?
He just loves to pile bullchit on top of bullchit. Don't know why he thinks everyone wants to hear his lies...... :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
As far as Congress authorizing Obama's actions:
The memo also says the killing of al Awlaki by U.S. military forces would be legal under an authorization for the use of U.S. military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

Same authority GW gave for going after Osama- and GW used to do drone missile attacks on enemy combatants around the world-- during which 3 US citizens were "accidentally" killed...

What about those American Citizens GW killed :???:

Yes, I'm aware that despite campaigning against virtually everything that Bush had done as comander-in-chief, Obama turned around and embraced virtually all of it. And yes, just as Obama had congressional approval via Bush's already-established approval, Bush had approval too via Clinton's regime change in Iraq laws. Still, Bush sought out congressional approval.

In Libya, Obama didn't bother and you didn't whine.....yet another example of you not concerned with the constitution when it suited your needs.

I was not aware that we invaded Libya...

As for Bush killing American citizens, please provide evidence that the killings resulted from known-American targets being hit.

From what I understand- the American citizens were not the targets--but they were the ones killed in what was called accidents or "collateral damage"... My understanding is that the drone/missile use by both Bush and Obama- just like the bombing of Iraq/Afghanistan has killed hundreds of civilians by accident...

Oh who am I kidding, you just make the claims and don't bother with proof.
 

Latest posts

Top