In the time of war, read up on Awlaki-Fort Hood connection, is sometimes necessary to make a judgment call and get a bad guy out the most efficient way. Even he is a US citizen and his rights were violated, it was a right call and there is no need to stop this kind of killings. However when mother and teenage boy living at Ruby Ridge were murdered by federal agents, that case deserves your and mine outrage.
Alleged connection and not the right call. Subverting the rule of law was unnecessary. If there is evidence of a connection (Ft Hood Shooter, Underwear Bomber (who was assisted by our own State Department)) then that evidence should have been presented to a judge. If it was classified then the information could have been redacted in order to protect sources and methods. The judge could have been given an interim clearance so he or she could have made an informed judgement. Then, the rule of law would have been preserved. He could have been tried in absentia and based on the evidence, convicted and sentenced to death. There was absolutely no reason to skip this step if the evidence exists, save one...in order to establish the precedent that it's ok for the POTUS to murder a US citizen on his say so. That's the problem.
Don't pretend that a prime example of you jumping to a false conclusion has anything to do with me being "at peace." Or that "the Constitution requires no interpretation as far as article 3 section 3 is concerned" in this case. Where's YOUR "supporting documentation" and "analysis" other than your insistence that it's "plain as day"? Is it unconstitutional for police to kill a shooter without a trial? At some point, it must also be constitutional for the military to kill an enemy combatant without a trial, even if he's a citizen. I don't think POTUS should have dictatorial powers. But I do think he should be able to authorize the military to kill terrorists on the battlefield. If someone's worried about becoming a target, then don't join Al-Qaeda.
I'm taking your word for it and respecting your wish not to discuss it. However, the more you bring it up the more I question your bona fides. Still waiting for your interpretation of the referenced section. You stated earlier you had a different interpretation so what is it? Remember, back it up with supporting documentation. I simply read it and comprehended it. If my comprehension is wrong, then it is on you to show me why. False equivalence. Is Obama the police and did Awlaki pose an imminent (as in if we don't kill him right this second other people around him will be harmed) threat? If so, where's the proof? Ironically enough, killing him killed innocents around him but that's water under the bridge right? So what oversight do you propose to ensure we are actually killing terrorists? Please be sure to link that to the oversight we currently have in place.
Grow the fuck up and back up YOUR childish assertions that you "think" are fact. YOU'RE the one accusing the president of ordering murder and subverting the Constitution for authorizing the military to kill a member of Al-Qaeda on the battlefield... which isn't a courtroom, dumbass. And I didn't say the situations were equivalent. When to act or not given the totality of circumstances isn't black and white and neither of us know the details. Link to your details if you "think" you have any. Oversight? How about impeachment? Which will never happen because this isn't what you and your messiah claim it is.
What was your alternate interpretation of the referenced section again? We'll skip the documentation for now. I would simply like to know what you think the following means: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." What is your interpretation of that?
Go back and read my posts and quit obfuscating by answering a question with a question. YOU'RE the one accusing the president of ordering murder and subverting the Constitution for authorizing the military to kill a member of Al-Qaeda on the battlefield, so where's YOUR proof?
None of your previous posts give your interpretation of the following excerpt from the US Constitution: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." This whole argument hinges on this point. You stated you interpreted this differently than I did. If so, how?
Yes. Something not yet proven is alleged. That's how we describe it when someone is suspected of something. Alleged. Do you need me to link to websters for you?