Which law did Obama (read: Bush) break?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Title encapsulates the OP.

EOTE  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-11-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Presumption of innocence is a legal tool.
 One can firmly believe in the presumption of innocence while already having a particular person convicted in their own mind. Just because I'm quite certain that someone is guilty of something does not mean that I want to dismantle the system that would give them a fair trial.

 

Romulox (1000+ posts)        Wed May-11-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Presumption of innocence is a civil concept*, with no application on a battle field.
 Edited on Wed May-11-11 03:46 PM by Romulox
Soldiers do not have a right to a trial before being shot on a battlefield, for example. It stands to reason, therefore, that irregular combatants can't gain such a right by adhering to a lower standard of conduct (e.g. not openly wearing uniforms.)


(* "civil" as opposed to "martial", rather than "civil" as opposed to "criminal".)

   

EOTE  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-11-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. I wasn't suggesting that it's applicable to the battle field.
 But certainly international law applies when it comes to assassination. 

 

"international law"

*giggle*

Romulox (1000+ posts)        Wed May-11-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. Do you have a specific citation to the specifically applicable international law?
 Something can be morally incorrect while remaining perfectly legal. And vice versa.

 
 
The "international law" (whatever that is) argument doesn't pan-out so...

EOTE  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-11-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #43
61. Well, U.S. law, anyway
 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/760110e.htm...

Moreover, I'm more interested in what the ramifications would be if this WERE legal. Do we have the ability to go into any sovereign country to take out people who we believe to be guilty of certain crimes? If you take this to its logical extreme, it's insanely scary. Yet people suggest that it's OK in just this one case. We don't have the ability to pick and choose when extreme examples will be used.

Except this is not law, this is an executive order. One EO is easily abrogated by any subsequent EO as they are not laws but policies issued by the chief executive to his subordinate agencies.

ProSense  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-11-11 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #61
69. What exactly are you citing?
 "(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

What does that have to do with killing a terrorist?

Exactly.

UBL was not a political figure.

EOTE  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-11-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Killing a terrorist in a sovereign land.
 As much as you'd like to believe it the case, we can't just go into sovereign countries to kill people whom we believe to be guilty of crimes whenever we'd like. Funny how that works.

Except it wasn't a crime, it was an act of war. 

ProSense  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-11-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. What? n/t

Seriously.

When did UBL become a political leader?

If they're really worried about assassinating political leaders why aren't they in a bunge over Obama targetting Q'Daffy?

Name removed (0 posts)      Wed May-11-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Deleted message
 Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

   

ProSense  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-11-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. What?
 That's a question not a statement. What does the EO have to do with "killing a terrorist in a sovereign land"?

EOTE  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-11-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. "What?" is a question. What I said (and what you were responding to) was a statement.
 Now that you've got a better idea of what constitutes a statement and a question, do you care to actually respond to what I said? Probably not.

If facts turn against you, bitch about semantics.
 

ProSense  (1000+ posts)        Wed May-11-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. You
 first, because "killing a terrorist in a sovereign land" has nothing to do with the EO and didn't address the question.

Name removed (0 posts)      Wed May-11-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Deleted message
 Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And once again, Name Removed, carries the intellectual day at the DUmp.

And now for the false equivalency of the year day hour:

AlabamaLibrul  (1000+ posts)      Wed May-11-11 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. If you believe there is nothing illegal about going into a country without permission
 then open the borders and give full amnesty to everyone here "illegally".

Pick one or the other.

SEAL Team 6 = Pablo the gardener

And apparently if Pablo the gardener was intent on killing as many Americans as possible the fact he might skitter back across the border somehow is supposed to stop US forces from further pursuit absent the host nation's prior consent...even if that nation were in league with Senor Pablo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1083556#1083697

[thundley4]

I have no problem with the way bin Laden was killed. It cracks me up to see the way the DUmmies twist themselves into knots trying to justify Obama doing it, though. 

Look at it this way. For a long time the left has said treat terrorists as criminals, not soldiers.  They should be arrested and tried in a court of law according to them.  Not just the DUmmies, but Obama and Holder feel this way.  By their own reasoning , what Obama did was to make himself judge, jury and executioner of UBL.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I have no problem with the way bin Laden was killed. It cracks me up to see the way the DUmmies twist themselves into knots trying to justify Obama doing it, though.

Yes, but they have to co-opt our arguments to do it.

They are correct, as demonstrated in my OP, but they hate to admit who had to school them for 8 years. 

Look at it this way. For a long time the left has said treat terrorists as criminals, not soldiers.  They should be arrested and tried in a court of law according to them.  Not just the DUmmies, but Obama and Holder feel this way.  By their own reasoning , what Obama did was to make himself judge, jury and executioner of UBL.

Those who maintain the terrorism = mass-scale teenage vandalism argument are in the worst position. Not only are they losing the debate to conservatives the ranks of their progressive brethren seeking to bolster Obama's cred has devastated their once uniform front.

Worse, while they insist the illegality is the same their silence in demanding Obama's impeachment or extradition to the Hague is telling. They will dismiss calls for punishing Obama and will even vote for him so long as they still get their government cheese.

Only Nixon could go to China; only Obama could cap UBL. The national security debate is over and we won decisively. 1/3 of the 3 pillars of conservatism has been won and economics is our next impending victory.

[thundley4]

Yes, but they have to co-opt our arguments to do it.

They are correct, as demonstrated in my OP, but they hate to admit who had to school them for 8 years. 

Those who maintain the terrorism = mass-scale teenage vandalism argument are in the worst position. Not only are they losing the debate to conservatives the ranks of their progressive brethren seeking to bolster Obama's cred has devastated their once uniform front.

Worse, while they insist the illegality is the same their silence in demanding Obama's impeachment or extradition to the Hague is telling. They will dismiss calls for punishing Obama and will even vote for him so long as they still get their government cheese.

Only Nixon could go to China; only Obama could cap UBL. The national security debate is over and we won decisively. 1/3 of the 3 pillars of conservatism has been won and economics is our next impending victory.

Yet the DUmmies will never admit to their hypocrisy  nor even see it.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Except this is not law, this is an executive order. One EO is easily abrogated by any subsequent EO as they are not laws but policies issued by the chief executive to his subordinate agencies.

In fact I would argue that if the Chief Executive issues an order completely contrary to an existing EO, the new order is legal (If it is otherwise within the law) without any formal notice to anyone or formal supersession of the old EO, since his authority is equal to that of the previous Executive and a fundamental tenet of legal interpretation is that the newer rule automatically displaces the older one, given the same level of issuer and clear conflict.  There is no public notice and comment period, or veto power vested in anyone else for an EO, and therefore a President could authorize even a secret, single departure from any of his predecessors' EOs and it would be entirely legal.  A protection of anything by EO alone is therefore not worth the paper it's written on.     

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

In fact I would argue that if the Chief Executive issues an order completely contrary to an existing EO, the new order is legal (If it is otherwise within the law) without any formal notice to anyone or formal supersession of the old EO, since his authority is equal to that of the previous Executive and a fundamental tenet of legal interpretation is that the newer rule automatically displaces the older one, given the same level of issuer and clear conflict.  There is no public notice and comment period, or veto power vested in anyone else for an EO, and therefore a President could authorize even a secret, single departure from any of his predecessors' EOs and it would be entirely legal.  A protection of anything by EO alone is therefore not worth the paper it's written on.     

Does it also take a lawyer 3 hours to ask for another beer?

[ReaganForRushmore]

Let's see, OBL "declared" war on the US in 1996. He conducted terrorist attacks in many foreign lands, none of which had the where with all to take him out. He presided over a worldwide network of terrorists in which he knew innocent people of every race, religion and creed would be his victims. He was not a duly elected leader of a sovereign nation in which he would be held accountable for his actions (Pinochet and Milosevic come to mind) in an international forum. What I find truly sad is that the Left want to extend
due process to a terrorist in which his victims were never given. You think the victims would have wanted
due process of being notified that an eminent terror attack was going to be executed on their place of work for them to make a decision of going to work at an embassy or WTC 1 or WTC 2?

OBL got what he deserved.