Right, you’re obviously correct that the President has to prove various things before using military force against the enemy. I’d like to see you give us any cite at all to support the absurd notion that any President in history has been required to get approval prior to taking specific military action against an enemy Congress has already authorized the use of force against.
Al Awlaki, a US citizen, was seized, and deprived of life, without a warrant or due process of law.
Sorry you don’t ping my memory. Help me out with a cite.
ETA: Found it. You were asking about using the technology from the 1800’s to do something or other. I couldn’t really find a reason it was relevant. Please, explain it to me.
Keep dodging. Speaks volumes.
No, he was killed in a military strike.
Not my problem.
Join the club and pay your dues. We’re still $39.999.994 and 95 cents short of our first Predator drone, so every little bit helps.
I will also reiterate your bullshit, pussy fairy tale hypothetical situation has nothing to do with this thread. So your blasting me for “dodging it” just makes you look like a little bitch, you don’t get to mandate people respond to off topic bullshit just because your arguments here have nothing to do with what actually happened and nothing you’ve said here has any substantiation under U.S. law.
Which deprived him of his life and counts as a seizure under the 4th Amendment per Garner v. Tennessee. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I know it’s not. It just tells me what kind of “debate” you’re pretending to do. Tells me a lot about you.
Say “military strike” 10 more times and I might be convinced.
I’m pretty sure he was free to go afterwards.
When was the last time the SCOTUS ruled a military strike that resulted in deaths counts a a seizure? I’m genuinely curious on that one.
Wow, I can tell when you run out of actual points that you have to resort to “pussy fairy tale” and “you look like a little bitch”. I can see I’m wasting my time with you.
Obviously you’re no longer debating, see you when you decide to come back to the big boy table.
Oooooh, give me more of that manly-man rhetoric, it’s so effective.
I see what you’re saying, and I do understand your argument, but does that mean that, if Yamamoto had been a US citizen; lets say he, hypothetically, had been born in San Francisco and then moved to Japan as a baby where the rest of his life had played out the same way; if that had been the case, you would have had a problem with the Pacific Forces in WW2 shooting him down?
I think the one who is wasting time is the person who blathers on about the Constitution and then has no evidence to support any of those things have ever been held to relate to military strikes ever. If they have, please give us the evidence. Until then all you’re doing is being an asshole by trying to make people play your game when you’ve done nothing to support your assertions, you are the one making assertions, you are the one that must support them.
My side on this is backed up by what is accepted by all: the President did this, and he’s not been punished for it or legally chastised in any way. No one that I’m aware of has filed any suit against him, the SCOTUS has not ruled on it and probably never will. So in the face of all the evidence of legal acceptance, if you believe it is legally unacceptable you need to demonstrate that forcefully and you have not.
military strike, bitch!!!
This wasn’t “participation”. The strike was carried out by a CIA drone operated by CIA personnel under the command of CIA senior management.
Is the CIA part of the United States military? If yes, is the Department of the Interior also part? NASA? The Marshals Service?
The CIA is often involved in military actions.
Executions are carried out against criminals by the State. No such thing happened here.
Why do you hate the Constitution, Martin?