Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

The sad part is no one will kick out the douchebag because of this.
 
And the cops followed an illegal order from someone outside the chain of command, so they are just as liable (if not more so) than the representative
 
Blind_Io said:
US Congressman orders police to confiscate phones and cameras from constituents attending a public meeting in a public building "to keep YouTube videos from making the rounds."

http://www.infowars.com/cops-confiscate-cameras-at-ohio-congressmans-town-hall/

Rights? What rights?
Click to expand...

A congressman has no right to order a peace officer.

Confiscating a cell phone is illegal without a subpena, even for a police officer.

Restricting photography in a public building available to the public is at the very least questionable constitutinally.

This congressman should be impeached in my opinion. I am partial to showing a broom up the arse of anyone who restrict photography in public, fair enough, but I really think he should be. And the police officers should have their employment status considered.

Just my .02
 
nomix said:
A congressman has no right to order a peace officer.

Confiscating a cell phone is illegal without a subpena, even for a police officer.

Restricting photography in a public building available to the public is at the very least questionable constitutinally.

This congressman should be impeached in my opinion. I am partial to showing a broom up the arse of anyone who restrict photography in public, fair enough, but I really think he should be. And the police officers should have their employment status considered.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

If our president can assassinate a U.S. citizen without trial who is saying a U.S. senator can't order the police to violate the Bill of Rights?
 
First of all, and let's get that very clear, the comparison is idiotic. For a few reasons.

1. The congressman is part of the legislative branch, while the president is the personification of the executive branch. Which is a very basic and real difference.

2. The president won't be able to order a hit on anyone willy-nilly within the United States. But hitting a military target in Pakistan or Afghanistan is something a little different. At the moment said American citizen joins a military of paramilitary force in war against the United States, he is as much a legitimate bloody target as a main battle tank or a military airport. There's far too many strikes that hit civilians for me to give even a shit about wether or not it's right to hit a military target. If we accept that wars have rights and wrongs, hitting military targets is right. In my mind.

3. The citizen recording or photographing in a public space has not broken any law, which makes any action in of itself unacceptable. Lots of Americans took up arms against the United States during WW2, Volkdeutsche I believe it was called. Were they not legitimate targets for the US GI's working their way through Europe? On the other hand, while the interning of Japanese-Americans WAS legal due to the Geneva convention, it was not legitimate due to the United States constitution. Thousands of innocent people were illegitimately detained for a long time, and that's wrong. Crucially, it happened in the United States, and against non-combattants. Even if the Geneva convention alloved it, the Supreme Court did strike down the internment ex post facto. Because it wasn't constitutional to incarcerate people regardless of any reasonable suspision.

That's the basic difference. I am sure a constitutional scholar might put forward an argument that's better, but that's my .02
 
What legal justification was Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated for again?

The executive branch isn't allowed to kill people without approval of the legislative. It is as wrong as this senator stepping over his bounds. Politicians are asserting powers they have no right to have because no one calls them out on it or seem to care.
 
Last edited:
Was he, or was he not a military target?
 
He was a US citizen living overseas, and he had the same right to a trial that I have.
 
Was he a military target?
 
That does not matter if someone is killed outside of a war, which is the case for Yemen. The US has also killed british and german nationals.
 
nomix said:
Was he a military target?
Click to expand...

Does the president have the right to kill anyone he deems a "military target"? The president has no right to step outside the bounds of his office. If a "military target" gets through the cracks because of this so be it, too many people died to keep this country a free republic for it to be pissed away. Freedom isn't an easy thing to keep.
 
In a war, killing a military target is warranted, of course you need to declare war first. An American fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan can be killed legally without much hassle, but in Pakistan or Yemen that cannot be defended as easily. The US constitution may give US citizens more protection here, but normally a military target in a war is fair game. Outside of war that may be very different, but the US cannot be prosecuted in front of the ICC.
 
We have three branches of government to prevent abuse. The problem is that the legislative branch has been giving the president too much power. I foresee another Augustus within the next thirty years.
 
Where do you see abuse here? Is it the killing of Americans inside a war or outside a war? The first is warranted, the second is not.
 
It is the killing outside a war. The legislative branch needs to approve war, the president shouldn't be able to circumvent that.
 
nomix said:
Was he a military target?
Click to expand...

No. He was a US Citizen living overseas in a nation outside the US theater of operations and active war zones. His assassination was a politically motivated killing in direct violation of both his rights as a US Citizen and habeas corpus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top