Only retarded cocksucking muslim piece of shit will say something stupid like that . People like you are the reason that society is so fucked up. There were about 100 witnesses who saw him shooting those boys and fucking jerk off like yourself is playing with words. You fucking ignorant prick. Welcome to ignore you fool .
Bullshit. Go back and try reading. Again... 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?
Thank goodness, your idiocy was getting tiresome. 100 witnesses saw Awlaki shoot someone? Really? Peace.
Again, I did go back and re read your previous comments. You stated you interpreted the referenced section of the Constitution differently than I did. Yet you never indicated what your interpretation was. I've been trying to ascertain what your alternate interpretation is ever since. Is it a secret? Also, I am not the only one accusing the President of betraying his oath of office. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29284.htm http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/10/0...erican-principles-of-justice-just-like-i-did/ (lol you know it's bad when Dick Cheney accuses you of violating our justice principles) http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-02/news/30252234_1_president-obama-citizen-protection/2 http://www.therightperspective.org/...paul-is-100-right-on-al-awlaki-assassination/ http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...n-trying-fight-terrorism-president-must-still So stop acting like I am the lone voice calling this out. The proof is in the Constitution, specifically article 3 section 3, that part which you refuse to now acknowledge and the part which you now refuse to explain your alternate interpretation on. You must realize that there is only one way to interpret the referenced section and are now attempting to tap dance away from it. Just so you know, you are not much of a dancer. If anyone is obfuscating, it's you.
For the third time, 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? Those are serious charges and a bunch of internet links, two by Ron Paul, one by a radio personality and one by the ACLU don't constitute proof of anything. You misrepresented Cheney. Did you even watch the video before posting it? So where's the impeachment and why didn't everyone in the military who had anything to do with this refuse? Would you have refused? Because it's their duty to NOT obey unlawful orders. Where are the courts-martial?
Asked and answered. As evidenced by the links, I am not the only one calling this out. Also, I did not misinterpret Cheney...I simply said he said it went against our justice principles. The proof is the White Houses' unwillingness to use the courts. It has been well documented the WH skipped this necessary step. It's all a matter of public record how this was done. Your whole argument here seems to hinge on the belief that since no one was a convicted or even charged with a crime, a crime did not occur. Crimes are committed all the time without someone either being accused or convicted so this belief is demonstrably false. And that brings us back to your unwillingness to give your alternate interpretation of article 3 section 3. "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." You see, this is where the violation occurred. The Constitution is very clear on this and in the case of Awlaki, the rule of law was not followed. Now, if you have an alternate interpretation of the aforementioned section of the Constitution, by all means share it...because it may prove your point. Would you care to prove your point at this time or do you wish to continue to obfuscate?
Bullshit. For the FOURTH time, 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? And you did misrepresent what Cheney said... watch the whole video. My reference to no charges or convictions isn't my argument, moron. YOU'RE the one making the wild accusations so it's up to you to prove them. I bring it up as a much needed reality check for you. It's also an ongoing policy BTW and al-Awlaki was only one of three Americans killed so far. Finally, I have written several times how I think article 3 section 3 applies. Go back and try reading. P.S. Would you have refused to carry out your part had you been involved and on active duty?
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch Section 3 - Treason Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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. ---- Now the first thing you should notice about this section, is that it refers to the judicial branch of our government. Why may one ask? Because it is the prerogative of the judicial branch to mete out justice, not the executive. See a problem yet? Trader666, all dramatic bluster and sophomoric gestures aside, the first thing one should realize, is that the White House assumed the role of the judicial branch and carried out an execution. Whatever the reason, however deserving Awlaki may or may not have been, this is a role the executive was never meant to have. One reason that comes to mind is because absent this separation of powers, the President could declare anyone a traitor and murder them without any oversight whatsoever. I mean, I know we are asked to trust our government, but that's a bit much if you ask me. It's all about establishing precedents. Emphasis mine. Only 3, so far. You see, you are confused again. I am not asking how you think it applies, I am asking how you interpret the article...in other words, what it means to you. To me, it means first defining what treason is, and second setting specific instructions on how that can be established legally. Do you have a different take as to what that section establishes? Oh, and just restate it now if you've posted previously. That's gotta be easier than retyping that same paragraph over and over right? Probably not. "When I was active duty my mental faculties remained in suspended animation"...to quote the most decorated Marine in history, SDB. Ok. Wha?
For the FIFTH time, 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? Who's really confused? The president is the commander-in-chief and it was a military operation to kill a member of al-Qaeda. It wasn't an "execution" or a "murder" or "assassination" as you've claimed in the past. And it's all about the article applying or not for reasons I've already given. If you're so concerned and outraged you should ask your messiah why he's doing nothing about this except blow hot air. Seriously. Because it's an ongoing policy.