Elon recouping his investment…
- Thread starter mnole03
- Start date
Wait, what?!?
4th amendment seizure? They killed him with a drone fired missile.
This has nothing to do with lawfully conducted government searches.
What are you talking about?
CIA allegations are not 'due process' for an American citizen to be designated for execution by the President.
You understand that killing a suspect who is considered an imminent threat is a 4th Amendment issue, right?
Please explain, since there was no warrant obtained from the court, why you consider this a 4th amendment issue.
Because his capture was considered infeasible and his seizure was reasonable given the threat he posed.
He could have turned himself in.
Who decides if a search is reasonable?
The President, or a magistrate?
Someone refusing to turn themselves in doesn't mean the President can then decide to just execute them.
@St. Louis Hawk , am I wrong here?
It’s not a search. It’s a seizure. One that’s allowable if there is a reasonable belief that the person poses an imminent threat of serious harm and capture is infeasible.
These morons will find every way to piss on Obama for doing what he needed to protect Americans but will support biff who doesn't care about any of them. He is a grifter. A showman. A person who only cares about himself. I can't wait for those who voted for him to really feel the pain when he helps his rich friends to make more money while those of you who voted for him wonder why you suffer.
Can't even answer the question. You are a pathetic person. I bet you are alone. If your cared about this American killed you would have his name by now. Does the interwebs not even answer your question?
For the moment, let's entirely grant that notion.
Who decides under the 4th amendment if a search or seizure is 'reasonable'?
Is that just a determination made by the executive?
I haven't read the whole thread, but forget Europe, it would be an incredible catastrophe for the United States if it left NATO.
Every penny is worth it that we spend on NATO just for world stability and maintenance of US leadership of the world.
I wish Democrats would be more outspoken per the benefits of NATO membership but until Trump came along there was no reason to articulate support for NATO, membership had unquestioned support across both parties and ideological lines.
Even with the new MAGA dominated party, I would assume there are enough Republicans to prevent this type of insanity, especially if the rationale is defense of an Afrikaner fascist's business interests. Hunter Biden corruption alert everybody.
The US leaving NATO is the undreamable dream for Putin and China. Now, because half of the country are drones who will vote Republican no matter what they're in position for the dream to potentially come true.
Every penny is worth it that we spend on NATO just for world stability and maintenance of US leadership of the world.
I wish Democrats would be more outspoken per the benefits of NATO membership but until Trump came along there was no reason to articulate support for NATO, membership had unquestioned support across both parties and ideological lines.
Even with the new MAGA dominated party, I would assume there are enough Republicans to prevent this type of insanity, especially if the rationale is defense of an Afrikaner fascist's business interests. Hunter Biden corruption alert everybody.
The US leaving NATO is the undreamable dream for Putin and China. Now, because half of the country are drones who will vote Republican no matter what they're in position for the dream to potentially come true.
If we’re talking Americans in foreign countries killed during military operations, courts have said it’s a Political Question.
Who decides under the 4th amendment if a search or seizure is 'reasonable'?
If I understand you, you're saying that the President can just sign the death warrant of any American overseas on his own.
CIA isn't military, BTW. This wasn't a 'military operation'.
I can't see over 50 percent of the posts in this thread.
I feel validated about my choices.
I feel validated about my choices.
That name is not listed once in that article. Also thanks for making me laugh with what has to be yet another dumb look that Paul has on his face.
So still don't know the name. Yes an American was killed. He was plotting to kill other Americans. Who are you trying to defend here?
If the flight full of Americans who were taken over by terrorist was heading towards your trailer would you want it shot down?
You think it's that simple? Have you not paid attention? He raised the standard deduction AND took away several of the typical dedications we were allowed. For instance, I used to be able to deduct charitable donations. Gave thousands a year. Can't any more.
Hell, I'll grant that, because the CIA and DoD have both been using drones to kill people across the world, so let's accept that the President signed the death warrant of an American citizen and told the Pentagon to carry it out.
My question remains: Who decides under the 4th amendment if a search or seizure is 'reasonable'?
I gave you the name. Senator Paul was trying to get the administration on the record for when they thought they could sign an American's death warrant without judicial review.
People get pissy when I post from articles (reading being an aggravation to some I suppose), so google that name and read about the cases.
I made you a link: link
Show me anywhere in the article that the name Anwar al-Awlaki was listed.
I can't seem to find that name.
<sigh>
I linked that article initially in the hope it might jog your memory on the subject, because it became clear to me you didn't know about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Paul's filibuster about the Obama drone policy got way, way more news time than the targeting killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, so I thought maybe you'd recall that. The filibuster was a direct consequence of that killing, and the Attorney General's unwillingness to explain the rationale and limits the administration placed upon itself to let the President sign death warrants for Americans with no due process.
This started with me asking you, "Are you actually unaware that Obama authorized the killing of an American born citizen with a drone?"
I'm gathering your answer is, "no, I didn't know about that."
Correct?
Most NATO countries until very recently (A war in Europe will do that). Prior to this year only a handful of countries were paying their share.
This has been an issue for decades which has been discussed on this very message board. Guess who pushed for all members of NATO to meet the military spending obligation? He did it during his first term, and like him or not, it began a small but upward trend of NATO countries meeting their spending obligation.
Liberals on this very board freaked out when he told these countries that they needed to start meeting their spending requirement. They acted as if he was being unreasonable in that ask to meet the very minimum spending requirement.
I read the legal analysis last night that found the action legal. As I under it, that would not have been legal had he been in the US. So the fact he didn’t turn himself in is a part of it - the other part being he remained at large outside the US.
I’ll add that the lawsuit was in 2012 or 2013.
In 2018 a number of Americans were tried for sending money to Al-Qaeda, and it came out that Al-Awkaki had been planning an attack when he was killed.
Can you share?
The court dismissed, I haven't read that they found the administration's actions themselves legal.
ACLU:
In May, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged responsibility for the killings, but the Justice Department continued to argue in court that national security concerns bar any judicial review of the government’s actions. In response to this broad claim, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer stated at oral argument that “the executive is not an effective check on the executive,” and in her opinion, she rejected the government’s argument that the case presented a “political question” that prevented the judiciary from hearing it at all. Nonetheless, she dismissed the case.
My question is, what is the check on the administration declaring whomever they want to be a target and killing them 'legally'?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/enemy_combatant
The term enemy combatant is a concept creating an extraordinary legal status with specific rules that were established by President George W. Bush’s Administration to describe the combatants suspected of having supported or participated in armed and/or terrorist activities against the United States. The term “enemy combatant” has therefore been used by U.S. military authorities to detain suspects, indefinitely and without charge. The extraordinary status that accompanies the concept of “enemy combatant” has allowed the U.S. military to override the rules of international law and deny the detained suspects the rights and protections granted to prisoners of war by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.
Outside my strike zone on how that is done. I think there is a procedure to inform the majority and minority leaders and some cabinet members but I don’t know.
Here’s one of the links I read. I have not seen the opinion (if it is even exists or is public).
The Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki: A Constitutional Analysis
Abstract. This chapter analyzes the constitutionality of the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen whom the executive branch believed to be a
academic.oup.com
"Over the past 75 years, the U.S. contributed $21.9 trillion to NATO's defense budget,"
"Last year, the U.S. contributed 68 percent, which worked out to be 3.49 percent of America's total GDP for $860 billion of the $1.26 trillion NATO spent. "
Not sure how to calculate the ROI on this but I think it's pretty low.
It's time we start spending money on US.
Fix homelessness, fix drug abuse, fix mental health, fix A BUNCH OF SHIT.
"Last year, the U.S. contributed 68 percent, which worked out to be 3.49 percent of America's total GDP for $860 billion of the $1.26 trillion NATO spent. "
Not sure how to calculate the ROI on this but I think it's pretty low.
It's time we start spending money on US.
Fix homelessness, fix drug abuse, fix mental health, fix A BUNCH OF SHIT.
