HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » When the president does i...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:08 AM

 

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal



Any other questions?

48 replies, 2825 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal (Original post)
Leslie Valley Feb 2013 OP
leftstreet Feb 2013 #1
slackmaster Feb 2013 #2
Lionessa Feb 2013 #3
DJ13 Feb 2013 #8
Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #10
DJ13 Feb 2013 #21
Lionessa Feb 2013 #25
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #31
amandabeech Feb 2013 #34
CrispyQ Feb 2013 #38
amandabeech Feb 2013 #46
Solly Mack Feb 2013 #4
n2doc Feb 2013 #5
tblue Feb 2013 #17
bvar22 Feb 2013 #6
jeff47 Feb 2013 #7
Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #9
tblue Feb 2013 #15
Dawgs Feb 2013 #20
jeff47 Feb 2013 #30
AngryAmish Feb 2013 #32
jeff47 Feb 2013 #33
n2doc Feb 2013 #11
jeff47 Feb 2013 #29
grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #13
jeff47 Feb 2013 #28
grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #35
jeff47 Feb 2013 #43
grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #48
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #16
wtmusic Feb 2013 #19
jeff47 Feb 2013 #26
wtmusic Feb 2013 #37
jeff47 Feb 2013 #39
wtmusic Feb 2013 #45
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #47
wtmusic Feb 2013 #18
jeff47 Feb 2013 #27
wtmusic Feb 2013 #36
jeff47 Feb 2013 #41
wtmusic Feb 2013 #44
baldguy Feb 2013 #12
JEB Feb 2013 #14
mlevans Feb 2013 #24
Jack Rabbit Feb 2013 #22
triplepoint Feb 2013 #23
joeybee12 Feb 2013 #40
Cleita Feb 2013 #42

Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:25 AM

1. LOL

Nicely done

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:36 AM

2. Nixon was the one!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:43 AM

3. Kicked and rec'd BUT...

 

one does have to remember that Nixon also did some really good stuff too. So far I do think Nixon is the closest a-like that Obama resembles in his policies, not the whole personal and election fraud. But doing some really great things, definitely heading into reasonably strong liberal territory, and being a power-yielding warhawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:43 PM

8. So far I do think Nixon is the closest a-like that Obama resembles in his policies

Its close, but I actually see Nixon as the more 'liberal' between them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:46 PM

10. I predict an alert and a Meta thread about this post

in your future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:51 PM

21. You might be right



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:14 PM

25. Depends on the topic

 

there's nudge room for each depending on the topics most dear to one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:32 PM

31. Agreed.

Didn't Nixon propose something like an annual stipend for all citizens, to cover basic living expenses? Maybe I'm channeling an early 70s reefer buzz, but I thought I recalled something like that. From a repub prez, no less.

How far we've come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:54 PM

34. Your "early 70s reefer buzz" is spot on.

Nixon supported a negative income tax that would have sent a "refund" to low or no-income taxpayers to "top them off" financially to the point that they could make enough to cover basic living costs.

I was old enough to watch Walter Chronkite, read the newspaper, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, but too young and geeky to have had that buzz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:48 PM

38. Thanks for the history! I put it on my Google list & now I can cross it off.



What an incredibly liberal idea! I personally advocate for these things free for all Americans:

3 hots & a cot
health care
child/elder care
education

Just think if we sliced off enough from the military budget to take care of our citizens, how much healthier a society we would have. I'll bet domestic violence & gun violence would go down immediately. But of course, any solution that isn't all about siphoning wealth to the top is never considered. We're a sick society & I worry that so many are so immersed in it they don't see it.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:14 PM

46. I couldn't agree with you more!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:44 AM

4. K&R

Because it is a point well worth remembering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 11:53 AM

5. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:03 PM

17. What ^^^ said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:13 PM

6. The difference is...

...that when Nixon did that, he was universally condemned,
and laughed at for his over reach and pathetic claim of royal infallibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:23 PM

7. Except that his actions were actually illegal

Assassination's legal outside US jurisdiction. Via drone or any other method.

Doesn't mean it's good, but it's legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:45 PM

9. And it's keeping us safe!

Besides, do some people want Republicans to win? If that happens they'll start using drones in ways that should make us all very upset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:01 PM

15. When they do it, we'll be upset.

When Obama does it, < one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:40 PM

20. Woohoo for you.



Great post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:31 PM

30. It's the least-awful of 3 awful options.

Option 1: Ground troops. I really shouldn't have to explain how this option is awful.

Option 2: Disengage. Well, live-and-let-live didn't work in the past. The terrorists are motivated by history, not the future. So assurances that we'll leave them alone aren't going to stop future attacks. With time and space to plan and prepare, another large attack within the US will happen - we aren't perfect at stopping them. And after the last attack, we almost lost our Democracy.

Option 3: Drone strikes. Pisses some people off, could kill some innocents, but disrupts planning and denies a safe haven for training. Local governments aren't actually all that upset - the islamists threaten them too, but have sufficient power that they can't openly act against the islamists.

Option 3 is awful. It's less awful than option 2 or option 1.

I'd love it if we could simply disengage, but we fucked up in the 1950s and Republicans continued to fuck up the situation since. Without a time machine to go back and stop those fuck ups, just leaving them alone isn't going to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:36 PM

32. option 4 letters marque

outsource the war on terror

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:44 PM

33. Yeah....not so much interested in Blackwater doing the fighting with even less oversight. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:48 PM

11. How does it differ?

We 'assassinated' our enemies by bomb back then. We do it more 'carefully' and more 'targeted' now, but we still kill people, including many who have nothing to do with whatever fight we are in. And we do it in countries that we are not 'at war' in.

It's 'legal' because he says it is. Because W defined the war as being on a concept, not a country, and Obama ran with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:24 PM

29. No, it's legal because the Constitution says it is.

The Constitution grants near-absolute power to the Executive branch outside US jurisdiction.

Wanna stop it? Congress needs to either use "the power of the purse", or much better, repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11. That way it stops future presidents of either party from doing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:51 PM

13. No it's not. It violates habeus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:21 PM

28. It would if these attacks were happening within US jurisdiction.

But they're not. The attacks are outside US jurisdiction. And the Constitution gives the president near-absolute power outside US jurisdiction.

Plus, Congress gave permission when they passed their "Authorization for the Use of Military Force". As ill-conceived and dangerous as the AUMF is, it still gives the Executive branch permission for these assassinations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:17 PM

35. "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended"

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion"

Which makes the AUMF unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:35 PM

43. Again, you're still arguing as if the killings are within US Jurisdiction

The Writ applies within US jurisdiction.

Think about it: It was Constitutional to kill a German soldier without trial in WWII, yet that was not a case of insurrection or rebellion.

Outside US Jurisdiction the Constitution is silent, except in the cases of war, treaties, "power of the purse" and giving everything else to the Executive branch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:37 PM

48. Wrong. War was declared. Our government is obvioulsy subject to our laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:03 PM

16. My copy of the US Constitution says it's very very illegal.

 

Since when does a memo or whitepaper trump the Constitution? The Executive is always making the case for "Executive power", that does not make it Constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:09 PM

19. Not to mention - the Constitution says the UN Charter is "law of the land"

and the UN has a big problem with state-sponsored assassinations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:16 PM

26. Could you point to the part of your copy that says the Constitution applies outside US jurisdiction?

It's legal because it's not within US jurisdiction. The Constitution gives near-absolute power to the Executive branch outside US jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:30 PM

37. It's called the Supremacy clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Many international treaties forbid extra-judicial assassination, the U.N. Charter, Geneva, the Hague. They're the law of the land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:29 PM

39. And since we're at war, as far as those treaties are concerned, the killings are legal. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:07 PM

45. Per below, we're not at war.

Word matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:16 PM

47. As a US citizen the Constitution applies to me where ever I am, geez.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:04 PM

18. You know nothing about international law

which, of course, is the only law that applies internationally. Hence the name.

Read Geneva, UN Charter. If you want an A+ learn about the Treaty at Westphalia. Then come back with an informed comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:18 PM

27. No, you're making the mistake of thinking there isn't a war on.

Congress's Authorization for the use of Military Force is the equivalent to a declaration of war. And since that AUMF was passed in the wake of 9/11, it is considered a defensive war. These assassinations are part of that war.

Yes, the AUMF is horrible, open-ended and a massive danger. But that doesn't mean the AUMF doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:25 PM

36. No, they're not equivalent. As much as you and Dubya want them to be.

I traversed this territory maybe 40 times ten years ago when the MIC had too many smart bombs on their hands and not enough countries to drop them on. The President and the U.S. Congress do not have the right to re-define war as they see fit. If you don't like it, take it up with the Congressional Research Service.

"Traditionally, peace and war have been deemed under international law to be distinctive forms of relations between states. Thus, peace has been defined as

a condition in which States maintain order and justice, solve their problems by cooperation, and eliminate violence. It is a condition in which States respect each other’ s sovereignty and equality, refrain from intervention and the threat or use of force and cooperate with one another in accordance with the treaties which they have concluded.


War, in contrast, has been described as “a condition of armed hostility between States,” “a contention, through the use of armed force, between states, undertaken for the purpose of overpowering another.” War has been said to terminate or suspend the laws and customs that prevail in peacetime and to substitute for them the laws of war. Under the traditional laws of war enemy combatants can be killed, prisoners of war taken, the enemy’s property seized or destroyed, enemy aliens interned, and other measures necessary to subdue the enemy and impose the will of the warring state taken. Moreover, the existence of a state of war traditionally has been deemed to terminate diplomatic and commercial relations and most of the treaty obligations existing between the warring States. A state of war also has brought into play the law of neutrality with respect to relations between the belligerent and non-belligerent States.
In this traditional understanding a declaration of war has been deemed, in and of itself, to have the effect of creating a state of war and changing the relationship between the states involved from one of peace to one of war. That has been the case even if no hostilities actually occur. Some question exists as to whether international law traditionally deemed a declaration of war to be a necessary prerequisite to the existence of a state of war; but it is clear that under international law a declaration of war has been viewed as “creating the legal status of war ... and giving evidence that peace has been transmuted into war, and that the law of war has replaced the law of peace.”

Authorizations for the use of force, in contrast, have not been seen as automatically creating a state of war under international law."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wtmusic (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:31 PM

41. So the Vietnam War wasn't a war?

Neither was the first Gulf war? Nor the invasion of Afghanistan?

They were all under authorizations for the use of force. Yet everyone considers them wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:06 PM

44. Don't forget Korea, Somalia, Kosovo.

Not everyone considers them wars, in fact a good part of the world recognizes none of them as such.

It's no coincidence that most were, and are, resounding failures. Seems that most civilized people these days realize ground rules are necessary even in armed conflict. Even these conflicts at least involve two states; the "war on terrorism" is nothing more than an excuse to bomb the hell out of people that look from 15,000 ft like someone that we might have reason to be afraid of, as well as everyone else in the immediate area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 12:50 PM

12. Nixon didn't quite have it right.

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - until CONGRESS steps in and says it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:01 PM

14. I guess there were good reasons

we called him Slippery Dick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:09 PM

24. We didn't.

We called him Tricky Dick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:06 PM

22. IOKIYAR

That's principle means the "Nixon Doctrine" applies only to Republican presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:06 PM

23. Executive Orders That Violate the Constitution Are Not Legal

 

and eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the legality of drone striking a U.S. Citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:31 PM

40. KNR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:32 PM

42. Nixon seems to have always thought he was above the law.

Like the King in Medieval Europe. His words and actions seem to point there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread