Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.

Technically, for the US to legally recognize the renouncement of US Citizenship, you have to do three things.

1) Appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer
2) Be in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate)
3) Sign an oath of renunciation

If you haven't done that, you haven't actually renounced your citizenship.

See the US State Department info here: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html


And, I think this is an appropriate time to throw out one of my favorite quotes:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

Frazzled wrote:You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.

We aren't at war with Yemen. Are we at war with Yemen? I don't think we're at war with Yemen, but I guess we could be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Oh, nope, guess not. Hey, we didn't even get that authorized by congress as a military action! Neato! You should sell your guns fraz, you're a darn terrible constitutionalist.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Polonius wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent

What?

Trial court decisions aren't considered very valuable precedent in any other court, unless the facts are nearly identical. The idea is that the trial court made a decision based on those facts, not on an overall decision of law. Appeals courts decided general issues of law.

Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.

Actually it hasn't set a legal precedent yet as the legal process is still in motion. When the process is finished than we will have a precedent or we will not.

agroszkiewicz wrote:[Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.

I haven't read the decision, but this isn't the job for trial courts. The executive branch made a decision, and that's not reviewable unless it violates the constitution.

It really doesn't matter what else the trial judge wrote. The father didn't have standing, which means the case can't go forward. The judge could write 500 pages of legal musings after that, but none of it matters. The case was dismissed based on standing.

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing

Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.

If you really think civil war legal precedents concerning war laws matter then you're in a league of your own.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.

We aren't at war with Yemen. Are we at war with Yemen? I don't think we're at war with Yemen, but I guess we could be.

We are not at war with Yemen, we have always been at war with Yemen.

Frazzled wrote:You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.

Please show me where we are in a state of war with ANYONE on the globe. You are confusing an official declaration of war with Congress approved military action.

"In the United States, only the U.S. Congress may declare war"

"the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing

Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.

If you really think civil war legal precedents concerning war laws matter then you're in a league of your own.

+1

I still can't tell if Frazzled is trolling or being serious. Thats not a flame.....I've been told by more than 1 folks that you are really good at pwning noobs in efights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:[Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.

I haven't read the decision, but this isn't the job for trial courts. The executive branch made a decision, and that's not reviewable unless it violates the constitution.

It really doesn't matter what else the trial judge wrote. The father didn't have standing, which means the case can't go forward. The judge could write 500 pages of legal musings after that, but none of it matters. The case was dismissed based on standing.

Hmm, well thought out response that makes sense.

And of course, whether we admit it or not:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.

Please show me where we are in a state of war with ANYONE on the globe. You are confusing an official declaration of war with Congress approved military action.

"In the United States, only the U.S. Congress may declare war"

"the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing

It doesn't say war has to have been declared by Congress. It says a state of war.

Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.

If you really think civil war legal precedents concerning war laws matter then you're in a league of your own.

+1

I still can't tell if Frazzled is trolling or being serious. Thats not a flame.....I've been told by more than 1 folks that you are really good at pwning noobs in efights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:[Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.

I haven't read the decision, but this isn't the job for trial courts. The executive branch made a decision, and that's not reviewable unless it violates the constitution.

It really doesn't matter what else the trial judge wrote. The father didn't have standing, which means the case can't go forward. The judge could write 500 pages of legal musings after that, but none of it matters. The case was dismissed based on standing.

Hmm, well thought out response that makes sense.

Frazzled wrote:
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...

Personally I find some of the comments you've made such as "you're wrong, let me give you my glasses" to be a flame, but apparently thats OK since you're a mod.

Folks are being quite civil in the thread, lets not have it degenerate into nasty little name calling and "yer stoopid".

Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?

*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.

Putting Frazz on ignore is the best thing I've ever done on Dakka. He's simply a troll that abuses his pathetic power every chance he gets.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...

Personally I find some of the comments you've made such as "you're wrong, let me give you my glasses" to be a flame, but apparently thats OK since you're a mod.

Folks are being quite civil in the thread, lets not have it degenerate into nasty little name calling and "yer stoopid".

I was serious. He can use my glasses. But watch out they are right next to the koolaid Shuma says I am drinking. But of course, as he has confirmed, it may be laced with LSD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Putting Frazz on ignore is the best thing I've ever done on Dakka. He's simply a troll that abuses his pathetic power every chance he gets.

Thank you thank you. I'm here all week.

Polonius wrote:Putting Frazz on ignore is the best thing I've ever done on Dakka. He's simply a troll that abuses his pathetic power every chance he gets.

I don't mind a decent debate opponent, I just want it to stay in the realm of factual data as opposed to personal interpretation....where ever possible that is. I'm not going to ignore someone simply because they take a stance that doesn't mirror my own.

Frazzled wrote:Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?

*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.

So you think that constitutionally illegal events that were suspended following the civil war (a war of the U.S. against itself wherein the functionality of law broke down at its core) is a legal precedent for then copying them again during a time of peace and international police operations?

Sell your guns fraz. You're about as soviet as they come. I thought you were a small government man.

Frazzled wrote:Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?

*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.

Do you support the suspension of habeus corpus on the specific orders of a US president ala Lincoln during the Civil War?


Edit: I know you are trolling just for the sake of trolling. It is however quite amusing to see almost 2 pages of "Frazzled, you are wrong" posted by other Americans.

Grakmar wrote:"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

Eh. I'd rather try and improve the game then sit down and root for two teams that both suck.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait you think events from the Civil War don't impact this?

*suspension of habeas corpus laws.
*reasoning for later posee commitadus (sp) restrictions
*massed warfare on US citizens.

So you think that constitutionally illegal events that were suspended following the civil war (a war of the U.S. against itself wherein the functionality of law broke down at its core) is a legal precedent for then copying them again during a time of peace and international police operations?

Sell your guns fraz. You're about as soviet as they come. I thought you were a small government man.

Now I know you don't mean that, because you didn't know my granddad escaped from said Soviets in his younger days (although they were Bolshevik Russians to him), and that, had you said that to me in real life, would elicit a negative emotional response. I know you didn't try to hurt my feelings. But alas, you have hurt me, hurt me as a person, hurt me as a human being.

To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you support the suspension of habeus corpus on the specific orders of a US president ala Lincoln during the Civil War?
***Nope. On the positive I wasn't Johnson (that name is ironical isn't following two dead presidents), else there wouldn't have been a South left.


Edit: I know you are trolling just for the sake of trolling. It is however quite amusing to see almost 2 pages of "Frazzled, you are wrong" posted by other Americans.
***Only two pages? I am losing my touch. Now are these South, Central, or Northern Americans?

Frazzled wrote:
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.

Are you implying that slavery no longer exists in America?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you support the suspension of habeus corpus on the specific orders of a US president ala Lincoln during the Civil War?
***Nope. On the positive I wasn't Johnson (that name is ironical isn't following two dead presidents), else there wouldn't have been a South left.

Lol, then don't use it as a basis of support for your arguement.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.

Are you implying that slavery no longer exists in America?

Wait... what? ? ?

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
To the topic you must have missed all those constitutional amendments that reared their ugly head because of the civil war too, that whole freeing the slaves thing and all.

Are you implying that slavery no longer exists in America?

Wait... what? ? ?

You stated that the abolishment of slavery was a result of the Civil War (which is true). To which I replied with the question of whether or not you think slavery exists in America today. Pretty cut and dry question. I'd love to hear your answer to it.

Warning, this is a loaded question.

Slavery is illegal in the United States and its Territories.


13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[



14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

To be honest, I do have three Venezuelan dwarfs that I bought at discount from the flee market for $45. Those guys really know how to tidy up. I haven't clean my house in years and they made it spotless in a matter of hours and it only cost me $45!

Frazzled wrote:Slavery is illegal in the United States and its Territories.


13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[



14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You quoted me the ammedment, but you didn't answer the question. Also, stating illegality does not make any kind of statement as to the existence or nonexistence of a behavior or pattern of behavior.

Do you think that slavery exists in America today?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:To be honest, I do have three Venezuelan dwarfs that I bought at discount from the flee market for $45. Those guys really know how to tidy up. I haven't clean my house in years and they made it spotless in a matter of hours and it only cost me $45!

Cute, I'll ask you the same question.

Do you think that slavery exists in America today?

Slavery is illegal in the US. My slavery to queso of course does not count. What are you on about?

Again, all this case proves is that if youy do not have proper legal standing you cannot file suit. Daddy did not have proper standing to file a suit for Crap Bag. That is why the judge tossed the case.

If Crap bag wants to file on his own behalf I am sure the case would not be chucked (at least for that reason).

Those stating this case sets a precedent for Evil Executive Branch Killing US Citizens have not read the decision or do not understand what they read. Again, the reason it got tossed is because Daddy did not have the legal standing to file the suit on his son's behalf.

Slavery will always exist on some small scale. It is known that girls are brought over and forced into slavery as prostitutes. I think the important fact here is that slavery is no longer an accepted industry within the country. It is illegal and the criminals are sought after.


Now if you try and say something such as people who work minimum wage are slaves, or Americans are slaves to the government or some hog wash you should be slapped.

Slavery in America was a dark spot, and a terrible travesty. What our country did to generations of people was aweful, and anyone who compares bad salary or our crappy government/tax system to slavery is disrespecting the pain and suffering of what real slavery was.

Frazzled wrote:Slavery is illegal in the United States and its Territories.


13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[



14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Slavery was already illegal via the preamble and constitution of the united states. This amendment essentially formalized what was already there but not explicitly stated (which was a central concern given the fact that slavery was prevalent from the inception of the country and at the time of the constitutions writings the freedoms it ensured were not given to the "subhuman" slave class). Abolition also pre dated the civil war, did it not? Besides, I said unconstitutional laws suspended immediately following a war that conceptually violated all forms of constitutional and judicial law anyway. They threw the constitution out the window for that fight, I'm loving the fact that you're so willing to do it again.

Conservatives are the last group that should ever try to claim that they honor the constitution.

Cute, I'll ask you the same question.

Do you think that slavery exists in America today?

Well obviously. I just said I own 3 Venezuelan dwarfs.

Frazzled wrote:Slavery is illegal in the US. My slavery to queso of course does not count. What are you on about?

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/23_16691.shtml

http://www.suite101.com/content/human-trafficking-a64311

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htm

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked into or transited through the U.S.A. annually as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves.

This is what comes of trying to use Civil War era precedents as a basis for your argument regarding modern conditions.

Fallacy is fallacy or more accurately....

Irrelevant Conclusion

* Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
o Example

Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.
Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.)

o Special cases:
+ purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
+ popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum—appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
+ fear (argumentum ad baculum),
+ conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam—appeal to authority)
+ to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
+ proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
+ assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself (genetic fallacy)
o Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

LordofHats wrote:[quote=]Cute, I'll ask you the same question.

Do you think that slavery exists in America today?

Well obviously. I just said I own 3 Venezuelan dwarfs.