From blusky: https://bsky.app/profile/jacob...

”Would it help if we described the hypothetical to the Court as "the president could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate members of the Supreme Court so that he could fill their seats with new appointments"?

(And don't say "they'd impeach him" when he could also order hits on members of Congress.)”

 kurtster wrote:
I admire your support for anchor-babies, but according to the link you posted, he was not the target. I don't know one way or the other if he was, but it is highly likely imo that he was aligned with his father in al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula. If you remember, post-911, Bush instituted a policy of taking the fight against terrorism overseas and that has continued under all administrations from both parties. The war on terror doesn't fit into the old declare war on another country system. I don't know the details of how the US court system works, but yeah, I think it would be wise to have more checks on US actions against citizens. It's a pretty big reach to turn that into an accusation that Obama, personally is responsible for a decision to assassinate an American citizen abroad, when there is no evidence that the young man was even the target.

But of course the continuation of Bush's war on terror under Obama is somehow related to your false accusation that Democrats want open borders in your weird mind. Right.

 kurtster wrote:
Where did you read anything about not leaving office the second time?  He tried not to leave the first...sure, but I never said that.  That's obviously a talking point on your MAGA sites.

When in doubt... call on TDS.  It excuses any and all sins of your leader.   

 rgio wrote: 
Your thoughts regarding Trump are ridiculous.  You and most others here (and have actually said so) really believe that if Trump is re elected he would not leave office after his term is over.  Who is telling you this stuff ?  I mean that you actually believe that tells me everything I need to know about you and matters regarding Trump.  The only people I know who believe that suffer from TDS.

 kurtster wrote:
or maybe... Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes?  

 kurtster wrote:
We have all already lost having made him POTUS once.  Now we're discussing destroying everything by letting him rape the place again for his ego and wealth.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Yeah.  From what I've been getting from careful listening is that the SCOTUS has been avoiding the question of POTUS immunity for 30 or 40 years or more.  Too big of a can of worms to open.  Which I would have to agree.  The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes and the areas that have yet to be decided are now being forced into decisions.  How this ends, I do not know.  I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.

 kurtster wrote:
Yes, I read that part also.  Obama had plenty of enemies in the Republican party; they could have brought impeachment proceedings against him but they didn't - even after he left office.   Similar proceedings could've been brought against LBJ, Nixon, and G.W. Bush for wartime deceptions.  Does that translate to 'immunity"?  It's hard to say - depends who you ask, I guess..

 Proclivities wrote: 
From your article ...

The case was dismissed only because the plaintiff lacked standing.  In other words, it was never decided.

A federal district court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff, Al-Aulaqi’s father, lacked standing to bring suit, and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised “political questions” that the court could not decide.

 kurtster wrote:

Vaguely, but since you were in a kerfuffle over all things Obama it didn't really stand out. Remember the whole Obama's brown skin suit thing you were all pissy about? Yeah, sort of makes the rest of your argument meaningless. See also all the other follow up here about involving congress/DOJ and being transparent about the whole thing.

 Proclivities wrote:
Not that it matters, but Obama got DOJ and Congressional acknowledgment before killing a sworn enemy of the US, who had successfully plotted and continued to plan ways to kill Americans.  

He then unsealed the documents for transparency.  Here is a link to his explanation (can't imbed...CBS News won't allow it).

If he'd have blown up a plane over the US, Kurt would have complained that Obama was soft on crime, and was making us a target for terrorism.  This kid was no different than a serial killer reloading his gun in the mall. If it's geography that's the problem, we should also press charges for killing Bin Laden. If a US citizen is a known, active, proven risk to others... they forfeit their rights as a citizen. Kurt...look up the definition of citizenship. Rights and privileges come with duties. Stop doing your part, and the benefits are forfeited.

Immunity to protect the country and its citizens has nothing to do with immunity for personal benefit.  Suggesting Trump was doing anything concerning his role as POTUS is foolish.  He was attempting to maintain power by breaking the law.

 kurtster wrote: FWIW:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

 haresfur wrote: 
Do you remember when Obama took this guy out ?  I said the same thing then that I did now.  I said he should have been impeached for that at the very least.  You can go back and search if you like.  Obama assumed that he was immune.  He deliberately murdered this guy without a trial or conviction.  A US citizen.  Shows you how little democrats value the Constitution, citizenship and why they want open borders.  They do not care about this country.  They only care about holding onto their power.

 kurtster wrote:
By your logic, the US shouldn't attack terrorists because there might be a US citizen in the vicinity. The arguments trump is putting forward is that he does have the right to take out Obama if he feels like it, not the other way around. Obama has never claimed presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes, unlike trump who is trying to avoid due process and a trial. Period, end of story.

UN Charter, Articles 10 & 11 (and 5)

No leader should be immune from the rule of law.

 rgio wrote: 

You meant to say that, comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a US citizen without a trial to a riot on Capitol Hill is idiotic.  I would have to agree with that.

But given what you wrote, you would approve of Obama taking out Trump with a drone, because he deserved it, right ?

It is about presidential immunity.  Without it, Obama would be toast on that cold blooded murder of a US citizen.  Enemy or not, a US citizen is entitled to due process and a trial.  Period, end of story.

 rgio wrote:
Oh, they don't have to file charges, the next republican president can just have him assassinated.

Never mind that the policy at least since Bush has been to take the war on terror abroad and there has never been an asterix that no US citizens be harmed. I mean Richard probably has objections to the policy, and it is certainly legitimate to question both the implementation of policy and the morals of any particular action, But there is no way Obama's decisions were illegal. Funny how no previous president has had to claim immunity that trump is trying to claim. Kurt's whataboutism is grasping for straws. 

 kurtster wrote:
The layers of stupidity in your comments are a new low for you.  Republicans supported the attack on a traitor who openly planned terrorist activities against the US, whilst the Democrats whined about free speech.  Now that the leader of your cult wants protection of attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election, you suddenly worry that Obama is going to be tried?   

Do it!  File charges against him!  Throw Obama in jail...right next to Trump.  We can save on the Secret Service detail.

Comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a sworn enemy in Yemen with organizing false electors, attempting to coerce your VP to ignore his Constitutional duties, and sitting with your thumb up your ass for 3 hours whilst your supporters attack the US capital is idiotic.

 islander wrote:

Works for me.

 rgio wrote: 
If immunity is removed then we can go after Obama for that drone killing of the US Citizen in Yemen.

Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

That would be cool, eh ?

But then again, we couldn't prosecute Obama cuz that would be racist.

 Red_Dragon wrote:

13 districts should have 13 judges.