I wonder what other posters thoughts are on this...

[Reality_Check]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews

"As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said."

Please discuss in relation to this (please note that we are not in a time of war as Congress has not issued a Declaration of War):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[uki]

nice thread... read this (http://rawstory.com/2010/02/kill-americans/) and watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxhcMyn8rU). :)

[dimethylsea]

Unconstitutional both in letter and in spirit.

US citizens should not be the subject of deliberate action absent due process by a jury of their peers.


Anything else smacks of the Star Chamber and secret trials. It's un-American and runs counter to our own traditions of common law beyond that.

[David Jamieson]

Unconstitutional both in letter and in spirit.

US citizens should not be the subject of deliberate action absent due process by a jury of their peers.


Anything else smacks of the Star Chamber and secret trials. It's un-American and runs counter to our own traditions of common law beyond that.

yeah but your country has been doing this for a few decades now.

what makes it different now?

[Reality_Check]

yeah but your country has been doing this for a few decades now.

what makes it different now?

I guess the difference is that the Executive Branch has decided, unilaterally, to assassinate American citizens, without any due process and nowhere near a battlefield. While I don't condone extra-judicial killing of Americans or foreigners (neither did President Reagan who issued an executive order to that effect), a lot of Americans these days are remarkably authoritarian. If their favored President (either Bush or Obama) did it, then it must be okay since either one would only do what is right or just (or is evil personified depending on one's political leanings).

A lot of Democrats/liberals were up in arms regarding President Bush's illegal wire-tapping and indefinite imprisonments without trial. Now that President Obama is doing the same exact things, they say it must be alright because Obama is "good".

[uki]

I guess the difference is that the Executive Branch has decided, unilaterally, to assassinate American citizens, without any due process and nowhere near a battlefield. While I don't condone extra-judicial killing of Americans or foreigners (neither did President Reagan who issued an executive order to that effect), a lot of Americans these days are remarkably authoritarian. If their favored President (either Bush or Obama) did it, then it must be okay since either one would only do what is right or just (or is evil personified depending on one's political leanings).

A lot of Democrats/liberals were up in arms regarding President Bush's illegal wire-tapping and indefinite imprisonments without trial. Now that President Obama is doing the same exact things, they say it must be alright because Obama is "good".this goes to show you the extent of mass brainwashing of the citizens into a molded mentality - i won't be suprised to see people simply handing over their guns when they are asked... stalin, mao, hitler anyone?? i already have to show ID every single time i buy beer in the supermarket that i have been shopping for 7 years. everytime. :D

[BoulderDawg]

Sad isn't it? To appease teabaggers Obama is going down the same road as Bush.

Did anyone happen to notice that last year in January Obama said Gitmo would be closed within a year? What happened to that?

[uki]

Did anyone happen to notice that last year in January Obama said Gitmo would be closed within a year? What happened to that?i thought they were opening one for terrorists in illinois?? how ironic...

[Drake]

Sad isn't it? To appease teabaggers Obama is going down the same road as Bush.

Did anyone happen to notice that last year in January Obama said Gitmo would be closed within a year? What happened to that?

If you actually researched every now and then you'd know. Here's a hint; It was the same problem that kept Bush from closing it.

Kill yourself.

[dimethylsea]

yeah but your country has been doing this for a few decades now.

what makes it different now?


It's wrong now, and it was wrong then. IMO.

It's just getting more blatant since 9-11 is all.

[mawali]

I guess the difference is that the Executive Branch has decided, unilaterally, to assassinate American citizens, without any due process and nowhere near a battlefield. While I don't condone extra-judicial killing of Americans or foreigners (neither did President Reagan who issued an executive order to that effect), a lot of Americans these days are remarkably authoritarian. If their favored President (either Bush or Obama) did it, then it must be okay since either one would only do what is right or just (or is evil personified depending on one's political leanings).

A lot of Democrats/liberals were up in arms regarding President Bush's illegal wire-tapping and indefinite imprisonments without trial. Now that President Obama is doing the same exact things, they say it must be alright because Obama is "good".

1. Illegal wiretapping without cause on Americans is illegal.

2. Indefinite imprisonments of Americans is against the law but it has always happened under the wire

3. Enemies of the state (as evidenced by their actions) whether foreign or domestic must be punished to the full extent of the law. I realize many people misuse the term ONLY based on political agandas. These people who have targeted America for destruction must be hit where they are and if they fit the profile of those seeking to destroy (planning with malice aforethough as in 9/11 (1st and 2nd times) this great country, then must suffer the consequences of their actions.

[Reality_Check]

3. Enemies of the state (as evidenced by their actions) whether foreign or domestic must be punished to the full extent of the law. I realize many people misuse the term ONLY based on political agandas. These people who have targeted America for destruction must be hit where they are and if they fit the profile of those seeking to destroy (planning with malice aforethough as in 9/11 (1st and 2nd times) this great country, then must suffer the consequences of their actions.

This is somewhat incoherent in respect to my first post. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That is the full extent of the law (also note that it says person, not citizen), and it's pretty clear cut. So, these US citizens (as well as foreigners arrested on US soil) are entitled to due process, which includes a trial. Extra-legal assassination (such as that described in the article to which I linked) is not permissible under US or international law. In addition, Anwar al-Aulaqi is being targeted for what he says/said, not for his actions. There are no allegations that he has harmed another US citizen. The Supreme Court has already ruled (in BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)) that:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444


As we [395 U.S. 444, 448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control...

...Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. 4 Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?

[1bad65]

The guy left the United States to take up arms against the country. What is the solution? Go have the local police arrest the guy? Get real.

[Reality_Check]

The guy left the United States to take up arms against the country. What is the solution? Go have the local police arrest the guy? Get real.

There is no evidence he "took up arms". Regardless, the US Constitution (of which you are a huge fan) demands that he be given due process, which includes a trial.

So, am I to understand that the Government that you don't trust to do anything, you trust to assassinate US citizens? That the same intelligence agencies that said WMDs in Iraq were a slam dunk, are to be given carte blanche to kill US citizens without any oversight?

[1bad65]

Regardless, the US Constitution (of which you are a huge fan) demands that he be given due process, which includes a trial.

It's a tricky problem. However, make sure you read the entire link you post:

"As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said."

So again, if you are against this policy, how would you say we handle people like Anwar al-Aulaqi?

[Reality_Check]

It's a tricky problem. However, make sure you read the entire link you post:

"As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said."

So again, if you are against this policy, how would you say we handle people like Anwar al-Aulaqi?

Capture, trial and imprisonment, if found guilty.

[1bad65]

Regardless, the US Constitution (of which you are a huge fan) demands that he be given due process, which includes a trial.


This is incorrect. We are entitled to due process, but that does not always include a trial. What if someone shoots at a cop and misses, and the cop returns fire killing the suspect. Was he not given due process? After all, he didn't get a trial...

[Reality_Check]

This is incorrect. We are entitled to due process, but that does not always include a trial. What if someone shoots at a cop and misses, and the cop returns fire killing the suspect. Was he not given due process? After all, he didn't get a trial...

That is different from being on a hit list.

[David Jamieson]

This is incorrect. We are entitled to due process, but that does not always include a trial. What if someone shoots at a cop and misses, and the cop returns fire killing the suspect. Was he not given due process? After all, he didn't get a trial...

lol...no, that's not due process. That's an incident that cannot be further resolved through the means of a court of law.

Amerika, love it or....else? lol

[dimethylsea]

This is incorrect. We are entitled to due process, but that does not always include a trial. What if someone shoots at a cop and misses, and the cop returns fire killing the suspect. Was he not given due process? After all, he didn't get a trial...

If you don't understand the difference between a shooting involving an apprehension attempt by a domestic cop and conducting operations against our own citizens on another sovereign country's soil utilizing military troops and intelligence assets you really can't be talked to.

[1bad65]

If you don't understand the difference between a shooting involving an apprehension attempt by a domestic cop and conducting operations against our own citizens on another sovereign country's soil utilizing military troops and intelligence assets you really can't be talked to.

Of course I see the difference. But I want to see what you guys' solution to this problem is. I've asked several times. Again, how would you guys say this situation should be handled?

[1bad65]

lol...no, that's not due process. That's an incident that cannot be further resolved through the means of a court of law.

Amerika, love it or....else? lol

Actually it would be due process. There would be an investigation into the shooting. If the cop overstepped his bounds, and/or broke the law, he would then face the judicial system. So the incident would be handled through the legal system, it just may not involve a trial.

[Reality_Check]

Of course I see the difference. But I want to see what you guys' solution to this problem is. I've asked several times. Again, how would you guys say this situation should be handled?

I thought I answered this...


Capture, trial and imprisonment, if found guilty.

[dimethylsea]

Of course I see the difference. But I want to see what you guys' solution to this problem is. I've asked several times. Again, how would you guys say this situation should be handled?

Follow the Constitution. Either you have a Declaration of War (problematic given there is no state handy to blame) or you deal with it as a international police matter through the courts.

[BoulderDawg]

The US is only for the International court as long as it's someone else involved.

For example George Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

[Drake]

Of course I see the difference. But I want to see what you guys' solution to this problem is. I've asked several times. Again, how would you guys say this situation should be handled?

We issue a warrant for his arrest, and send the local police from his last known American address across the world, where they will knock on his door, notify him of his Miranda rigts, and lead him to the squad car. :D

[Drake]

FYI, one of the writers of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, shot a traitor dead on his lawn. Ad hoc trial, execution on the spot.

[Reality_Check]

FYI, one of the writers of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, shot a traitor dead on his lawn. Ad hoc trial, execution on the spot.

You're going to have to provide some evidence for that. Regardless, as I've stated earlier, the 5th Amendment is fairly straight forward. And for a person to be guilty of treason:

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Oh, and Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution. His writings influenced it, but he didn't write it. He was in France when it was drafted.

[Drake]

Actually, he contributed via correspondence. Why on earth would he not be involved with this?

[Drake]

You're going to have to provide some evidence for that. Regardless, as I've stated earlier, the 5th Amendment is fairly straight forward. And for a person to be guilty of treason:

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Oh, and Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution. His writings influenced it, but he didn't write it. He was in France when it was drafted.

So if we have open admission to working with Al Qaeda, visible to just about anyone, I think we have more than two witnesses. Would you reasonably state that this man is not guilty of treason? Would you say he, in fact, was not involved in a treasonous act? And if not, what would you call it?

[BoulderDawg]

Treason is aid to an enemy trying to overthrow the US government.

As far as I know AQ has no interest at all in our government....much less the overthrow of it. They just want us to leave the middle east the hell alone.

Now , if you want to talk sedition and treason I should refer you to the Teabagger speech that Sarah Palin gave. She openly espoused revolution.

I don't know about the teabaggers but if a liberal with a big following openly preached revolution he/she would be in big trouble.

Personally I don't think the teabaggers have what it takes to do a real revolution. I can't see a bunch of rich fat 40 and 50 year old white guys out in the streets.:eek:

[Drake]

Treason is aid to an enemy trying to overthrow the US government.

As far as I know AQ has no interest at all in our government....much less the overthrow of it. They just want us to leave the middle east the hell alone.

Now , if you want to talk sedition and treason I should refer you to the Teabagger speech that Sarah Palin gave. She openly espoused revolution.

I don't know about the teabaggers but if a liberal with a big following openly preached revolution he/she would be in big trouble.

Personally I don't think the teabaggers have what it takes to do a real revolution. I can't see a bunch of rich fat 40 and 50 year old white guys out in the streets.:eek:

I wasn't talking to you. And Al Qaeda is the very reason we're even out there to begin with. If you did happen to know anything, which you don't, you'd know that there is tension between the Taliban and AQ over this, and to a lesser extent, HQN and HiG.

[Reality_Check]

So if we have open admission to working with Al Qaeda, visible to just about anyone, I think we have more than two witnesses. Would you reasonably state that this man is not guilty of treason? Would you say he, in fact, was not involved in a treasonous act? And if not, what would you call it?

I can neither say he is guilty or innocent, nor can you. That is why we have due process and these things called trials. You know the things that are Constitutionally guaranteed (via the 6th Amendment).

[Reality_Check]

Actually, he contributed via correspondence. Why on earth would he not be involved with this?

You said he was a writer. He was not. His writings influenced it (as I noted). He did not draft it nor was he in the United States when it was adopted.

[Drake]

You said he was a writer. He was not. His writings influenced it (as I noted). He did not draft it nor was he in the United States when it was adopted.

Semantics. This fails the common sense test. Why, I ask you, would he not play a part in its writing? He was a definitive factor in the Declaration of Independence, and now he's going to let a trip to France remove him from this process?

[Drake]

I can neither say he is guilty or innocent, nor can you. That is why we have due process and these things called trials. You know the things that are Constitutionally guaranteed (via the 6th Amendment).

Again, you are basing this off the false logic that we can somehow issue a warrant and get him into court. How do you propose doing that? Mailing a letter to the training camp?

[Reality_Check]

Semantics. This fails the common sense test. Why, I ask you, would he not play a part in its writing? He was a definitive factor in the Declaration of Independence, and now he's going to let a trip to France remove him from this process?

First off, it wasn't a trip to France. He was Minister to France.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring07/jefferson.cfm

"Americans are so accustomed to associating Thomas Jefferson with the nation's founding documents that they easily overlook that he played no hands-on role in composing the United States Constitution."

I'm still waiting for your evidence that Thomas Jefferson executed a traitor after an ad hoc trial. The movie Swordfish does not count.

Regardless, we are going off on a tangent here. The discussion is about the Executive Branch of the US Government declaring that it can assassinate US citizens with out due process, and nowhere near a battlefield. In direct violation of the US Constitution. From an earlier post of mine:

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The 6th Amendment states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

That is the full extent of the law (also note that the 5th Amendment says person, not citizen, and the 6th says accused, not citizen), and it's pretty clear cut. So, these US citizens (as well as foreigners arrested on US soil) are entitled to due process, which includes a trial. Extra-legal assassination (such as that described in the article to which I linked) is not permissible under US or international law. In addition, Anwar al-Aulaqi is being targeted for what he says/said, not for his actions. There are no allegations that he has harmed another US citizen. The Supreme Court has already ruled (in BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)) that:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444


As we [395 U.S. 444, 448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control...

...Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. 4 Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?

[Drake]

You didn't answer my question. How do we get him into court?

[Reality_Check]

You didn't answer my question. How do we get him into court?

How did we get Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani or Wadih el-Hage or Mohammed Saddiq Odeh into court? We arrested them (or our allies did). Isn't that what our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are for?

You didn't answer my question:

"The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?"

I'll add another, can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

[1bad65]

Again, you are basing this off the false logic that we can somehow issue a warrant and get him into court. How do you propose doing that? Mailing a letter to the training camp?

Liberals have no clue how things work in the real world.

[Reality_Check]

Liberals have no clue how things work in the real world.

Who knew the rule of law doesn't exist in the real world?:rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Actually it would be due process. There would be an investigation into the shooting. If the cop overstepped his bounds, and/or broke the law, he would then face the judicial system. So the incident would be handled through the legal system, it just may not involve a trial.

actually..no it's not. BUt you like to twist things into some favour of yours, so be it.

also drake, the thomas jefferson thing about the execution is total bull****.
he was a minister of the republic of France.
France pretty much is responsible for watching the founding fathers backs while they acted in treason against the country that had gotten then there and in which they grew and were educated.

Lafayette was your first real military leader, Washington was dog meat without him.

The French wanted the formation of America to happen because of their dislike and distrust of the British monarchy and the fact that they wanted access to that wealth that is here as well.

Some of you guys have a really twisted ghey fairytale popsicle version of what the founding of america was.

It was a war between france, england and spain and the lot who threw in with France came out on top in America and failed in Canada and failed in Mexico.

So, Canada is a hybrid of French and British rule, America exists thanks to France and uses many French ideas to run itself and Mexico is clearly still a spanish concern.

[1bad65]

Who knew the rule of law doesn't exist in the real world?:rolleyes:

Answer Drake's question: How do we get him into court?

[Reality_Check]

Answer Drake's question: How do we get him into court?

Clearly you didn't see my post answering him.


How did we get Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani or Wadih el-Hage or Mohammed Saddiq Odeh into court? We arrested them (or our allies did). Isn't that what our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are for?

You didn't answer my question:

"The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?"

I'll add another, can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

[1bad65]

Clearly you didn't see my post answering him.

Yes I did. Your post did not address how it should be handled if he refuses to surrender peacefully.

[dimethylsea]

Yes I did. Your post did not address how it should be handled if he refuses to surrender peacefully.

How did the world handle the Nazi's after the end of WW2 who had escaped the Allies?

They put a price on their head and informed the police to chase them whenever possible.

And those guys actually WERE part of a state which we had declared formal war on.

If someone won't show up in court then you treat them like any other criminals. All US embassies and ports have an order to detain, revoke their passports, ask all our allies to do the same etc.

If they haven't had a trial all you can (constitutionally) do absent a formal declaration of war is try to detain them to stand trial, and shoot back IF AND ONLY IF they are shooting at you at the time.

[BoulderDawg]

France pretty much is responsible for watching the founding fathers backs while they acted in treason against the country that had gotten then there and in which they grew and were educated.

Lafayette was your first real military leader, Washington was dog meat without him.

The French wanted the formation of America to happen because of their dislike and distrust of the British monarchy and the fact that they wanted access to that wealth that is here as well.

Some of you guys have a really twisted ghey fairytale popsicle version of what the founding of america was.

I'm just wondering what would be Washington's opinion today if he was told about how much the conservatives hate the French.

Without the French this country would be a lot different.

[Reality_Check]

Yes I did. Your post did not address how it should be handled if he refuses to surrender peacefully.

What a ridiculous statement. I'm sure that everyone the FBI or your local police arrests (or has ever tried to arrest) surrenders peacefully.:rolleyes:

Terrorists (and those merely accused of being terrorists - which is not the same thing) don't have super powers. They are criminals and should be treated as criminals. Which means due process. And yes, that would include American citizens (i.e. the genesis behind this thread).

[1bad65]

You guys are insane. Do you really think a guy who has left the friggin country to hang out with terrorists is going to surrender peacefully?

Notice how no one other than radical leftists are defending garbage like this. Not the Democrats, not Obama, not the Republicans, not the Supreme Court. No one except you radicals. That speaks volumes.

[1bad65]

How did the world handle the Nazi's after the end of WW2 who had escaped the Allies?

They put a price on their head and informed the police to chase them whenever possible.

That's not how Adolph Eichmann was dealt with. ;)

[1bad65]

Without the French this country would be a lot different.

Without us, the French would be speaking German.

[Reality_Check]

You guys are insane. Do you really think a guy who has left the friggin country to hang out with terrorists is going to surrender peacefully?

Notice how no one other than radical leftists are defending garbage like this. Not the Democrats, not Obama, not the Republicans, not the Supreme Court. No one except you radicals. That speaks volumes.

Yes, it does speak volumes that belief in Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law are now considered radical leftist positions.

[1bad65]

Yes, it does speak volumes that belief in Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law are now considered radical leftist positions.

LMAO at liberals suddenly upset about Constituional rights.

Where were you when Clinton had those Branch Davidian children burned alive?

It's amazing how you liberals weren't outraged when a bunch of "Biblethumpers" were killed by the Government, but when we kill terrorists you guys are suddenly up in arms. :rolleyes:

[Reality_Check]

The Government has to demonstrate a person's guilt before it is assumed. You know those pesky Constitutional guarantees.

You are assuming that Anwar al-Awlaki is in league with terrorists. What evidence do you have of that? The say so of the US Government. It should be fairly self-evident that the fact that the Government labels someone a "Terrorist" is not proof that someone is, in fact, a Terrorist. So, the Government can label someone as a terrorist and then kill them. No need for any of that inconvenient "evidence".

[Reality_Check]

LMAO at liberals suddenly upset about Constituional rights.

Where were you when Clinton had those Branch Davidian children burned alive?

It's amazing how you liberals weren't outraged when a bunch of "Biblethumpers" were killed by the Government, but when we kill terrorists you guys are suddenly up in arms. :rolleyes:

I must have missed the post where I supported what happened in Waco. Could you direct me to it? Oh wait, you can't.:rolleyes:

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the current discussion. We are talking about the rights of US citizens, what happened in Waco almost 20 years ago is not relevant. Unless, of course, the Government said they were terrorists then it could have killed them with no problems, right?

It's amazing how you authoritarians suddenly lose faith in the Constitution, which you (falsely as it turns out) claim to revere. Those big, bad terrorists scare you that much, huh?

Someone once made this comment:


Read the Bill of Rights one day.

Notice how it when it says 'shall not' its ALWAYS in reference to the State/Government and NEVER in reference to the people. Anyone who tries to say the Constitution is about limits as to what the people can do has truly *******ized that great document."

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=879565&postcount=127

Here's a simple yes or no question. Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

[David Jamieson]

I think a few people here will need to understand the language that is being spoken at them.

Learn to speak teabag!
Teabag lesson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCqQRflUWd4)

[Reality_Check]

LMAO at liberals suddenly upset about Constituional rights.

Where were you when Clinton had those Branch Davidian children burned alive?

It's amazing how you liberals weren't outraged when a bunch of "Biblethumpers" were killed by the Government, but when we kill terrorists you guys are suddenly up in arms. :rolleyes:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=887649&postcount=1613


Again, why is Waco ok to you? That raid was based on bad intel. Those people were murdered.

So, if the Government uses bad intel to kill Christians, it's bad. But if they use bad intel to kill Muslims, it's okay?

[1bad65]

First off RC, get your facts straight.

It was not the US Gov't who solely labelled the guy as a terrorist. It was the authorities in Yemen where the raid took part who did also. He was in their country, and thus living under their laws.

Remember the case of Michael Fay?

[BoulderDawg]

Socialist, Nazi, Socialist, Nazi.........


After all in the end that's what all of that drivel comes down to!:D

[Reality_Check]

First off RC, get your facts straight.

It was not the US Gov't who solely labelled the guy as a terrorist. It was the authorities in Yemen where the raid took part who did also. He was in their country, and thus living under their laws.

Remember the case of Michael Fay?

So, we're going to kill an American citizen based on the say so of a foreign government? He's not on a Yemeni hit list, he's on a US hit list. Go back to the beginning of the thread, reading is fundamental

I must have missed where Michael Fay was on a US hit list. He was tried and convicted under Singapore's laws. Wow, due process, what a concept.

[David Jamieson]

Socialist, Nazi, Socialist, Nazi.........


After all in the end that's what all of that drivel comes down to!:D

I like how Palin refuses to recognize that Americans are ALL real Americans.

there's no such thing as an American who is a more real American than any other.
Who wants that kind of a person up there creating new hatred in the world.

Get rid of her. Or keep her for the entertainment value she brings with her retarded behaviours. :p

[Reality_Check]

Now stop dodging my questions.

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?

[BoulderDawg]

I like how Palin refuses to recognize that Americans are ALL real Americans.

there's no such thing as an American who is a more real American than any other.
Who wants that kind of a person up there creating new hatred in the world.

Get rid of her. Or keep her for the entertainment value she brings with her retarded behaviours. :p

Shhhhh.........Let's keep it quiet with the Palin criticism. There is nothing more I'd rather see than her as the GOP nominee in 2012.

[1bad65]

So, we're going to kill an American citizen based on the say so of a foreign government? He's not on a Yemeni hit list, he's on a US hit list. Go back to the beginning of the thread, reading is fundamental

I must have missed where Michael Fay was on a US hit list. He was tried and convicted under Singapore's laws. Wow, due process, what a concept.

What happened to Anwar al-Aulaqi happened under Yemen's laws.

Fay was denied his US Constitutional rights. He suffered what our courts have found is "cruel and unusual punishment". He was not protected by the US Constitution because he was in a foreign nation and he did not have diplomatic immunity.

Now stop dodging my questions.

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

Again, when on foreign soil you do not have your Constitutional rights, unless you have diplomatic immunity. It is what it is.

[Reality_Check]

What happened to Anwar al-Aulaqi happened under Yemen's laws.

Fay was denied his US Constitutional rights. He suffered what our courts have found is "cruel and unusual punishment". He was not protected by the US Constitution because he was in a foreign nation and he did not have diplomatic immunity.


Again, when on foreign soil you do not have your Constitutional rights, unless you have diplomatic immunity. It is what it is.

Seriously, are you really this dim?

Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen being denied his Constitutional rights by the US Government by being put on a US hit list. In other words, the US Government is targeting him for assassination. Not Yemen. What Yemen does is not my concern, nor is it the point of this thread. What the US does is. Planning on killing a US citizen by the US Government without due process is ILLEGAL under the US Constitution.

He wouldn't have US Constitutional rights from Yemen's government. That would be absurd. Nor have I stated that anywhere. I am speaking of the actions of the United States only.

Now with that cleared up, stop dodging my questions.

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?

[Drake]

After skipping through two-three pages "Uh huh / NUH UUUH!!" I still have yet to receive a suitable answer for my question. How do you arrest a man in a foreign country, at a militant training camp? Be advised that virtually every organization responsible for arresting US citizens has absolutely no jurisdiction there, and are therefore incapable of arresting him. In fact, the simple act of arresting him would be violating numerous laws regarding jurisdiction and foreign sovereignty, along with extradition laws to boot.

The second problem is that the man is hostile towards the United States, so we cannot ignore his presence. At the same time, we cannot arrest him, because he no longer falls under the criteria in which the Constitution was intended (ie, I'm sure James Madison didn't stop and say "Hey, what should we do when someone leaves the US, wages a holy war against us, and is unable to be arrested?"). One of the key warnings about the Constitution is that it is to be kept in context with the times.

The third problem is that when someone takes up arms against the US with a known foreign threat with a known objective of "Islami-fying" the rest of the world, at what point should we no longer consider him a citizen? I've sourced the goals of Al Qaeda a long time ago, and I'm not about to do it again. You can just Google Osama Bin Laden and quotes... see what comes up.

And as for the Nazi war criminals? German and international law, not American. If you cannot surmise that there are some very important differences between the two, it probably shouldn't have been brought up.

Finally.... BD, kill yourself.

[Reality_Check]

After skipping through two-three pages "Uh huh / NUH UUUH!!" I still have yet to receive a suitable answer for my question. How do you arrest a man in a foreign country, at a militant training camp? Be advised that virtually every organization responsible for arresting US citizens has absolutely no jurisdiction there, and are therefore incapable of arresting him. In fact, the simple act of arresting him would be violating numerous laws regarding jurisdiction and foreign sovereignty, along with extradition laws to boot.

The second problem is that the man is hostile towards the United States, so we cannot ignore his presence. At the same time, we cannot arrest him, because he no longer falls under the criteria in which the Constitution was intended (ie, I'm sure James Madison didn't stop and say "Hey, what should we do when someone leaves the US, wages a holy war against us, and is unable to be arrested?"). One of the key warnings about the Constitution is that it is to be kept in context with the times.

The third problem is that when someone takes up arms against the US with a known foreign threat with a known objective of "Islami-fying" the rest of the world, at what point should we no longer consider him a citizen? I've sourced the goals of Al Qaeda a long time ago, and I'm not about to do it again. You can just Google Osama Bin Laden and quotes... see what comes up.

And as for the Nazi war criminals? German and international law, not American. If you cannot surmise that there are some very important differences between the two, it probably shouldn't have been brought up.

Finally.... BD, kill yourself.

So, I guess we should modify the Bill of Rights and add some caveats that they don't apply if the US citizen is accused of terrorism and too difficult to apprehend. Then it's okay to kill them without a trial or any sort of due process.

However, it is nice to know that you and 1bad65 have absolutely no faith in our Constitutional institutions.

Regarding answering your question, it has been answered. You may not have liked the answers because it doesn't feed into your authoritarian mindset, but it has been answered.


How did we get Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani or Wadih el-Hage or Mohammed Saddiq Odeh into court? We arrested them (or our allies did). Isn't that what our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are for?

You didn't answer my question:

"The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?"

I'll add another, can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?


How did the world handle the Nazi's after the end of WW2 who had escaped the Allies?

They put a price on their head and informed the police to chase them whenever possible.

And those guys actually WERE part of a state which we had declared formal war on.

If someone won't show up in court then you treat them like any other criminals. All US embassies and ports have an order to detain, revoke their passports, ask all our allies to do the same etc.

If they haven't had a trial all you can (constitutionally) do absent a formal declaration of war is try to detain them to stand trial, and shoot back IF AND ONLY IF they are shooting at you at the time.


What a ridiculous statement. I'm sure that everyone the FBI or your local police arrests (or has ever tried to arrest) surrenders peacefully.:rolleyes:

Terrorists (and those merely accused of being terrorists - which is not the same thing) don't have super powers. They are criminals and should be treated as criminals. Which means due process. And yes, that would include American citizens (i.e. the genesis behind this thread).


The Government has to demonstrate a person's guilt before it is assumed. You know those pesky Constitutional guarantees.

You are assuming that Anwar al-Awlaki is in league with terrorists. What evidence do you have of that? The say so of the US Government. It should be fairly self-evident that the fact that the Government labels someone a "Terrorist" is not proof that someone is, in fact, a Terrorist. So, the Government can label someone as a terrorist and then kill them. No need for any of that inconvenient "evidence".

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=904981&postcount=1137



Originally Posted by Reality_Check
You have an inordinate fondness for seeing the Constitution as the end all be all...as some sort of talisman or trump card.

That's because it is? Who taught you politics?

Looks like fear of terrorism has caused you to turn your back that which you once claimed to be the end all be all. It's very sad.

It's apparent that you fully believe that the US Government can kill it's own citizens based merely on an accusation. Is that correct?

[David Jamieson]

After skipping through two-three pages "Uh huh / NUH UUUH!!" I still have yet to receive a suitable answer for my question. How do you arrest a man in a foreign country, at a militant training camp? Be advised that virtually every organization responsible for arresting US citizens has absolutely no jurisdiction there, and are therefore incapable of arresting him. In fact, the simple act of arresting him would be violating numerous laws regarding jurisdiction and foreign sovereignty, along with extradition laws to boot.

The second problem is that the man is hostile towards the United States, so we cannot ignore his presence. At the same time, we cannot arrest him, because he no longer falls under the criteria in which the Constitution was intended (ie, I'm sure James Madison didn't stop and say "Hey, what should we do when someone leaves the US, wages a holy war against us, and is unable to be arrested?"). One of the key warnings about the Constitution is that it is to be kept in context with the times.

The third problem is that when someone takes up arms against the US with a known foreign threat with a known objective of "Islami-fying" the rest of the world, at what point should we no longer consider him a citizen? I've sourced the goals of Al Qaeda a long time ago, and I'm not about to do it again. You can just Google Osama Bin Laden and quotes... see what comes up.

And as for the Nazi war criminals? German and international law, not American. If you cannot surmise that there are some very important differences between the two, it probably shouldn't have been brought up.

Finally.... BD, kill yourself.

dude, your last line of comment killed teh value of everything else you said. :rolleyes:

try to speak with each other without the hate.

You guys do realize you are just fomenting ill will within yourselves as you bash away at each other.

everyday that you get up and get angry and start angrily responding to each other is one more day that you are eroding your own self in some way.

food for thought. :)

[Drake]

I don't hate BD. :) Why would I waste so much valuable hate energy on him when I can use it for bigger and better things?

[1bad65]

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

I've answered this before. Do I need to cut-and-paste my previous reply? :confused:

This is nothing new here. The US Gov't has worked with foreign Governments in dealing with alleged criminals for decades. The FBI/CIA/ATF etc work with foreign Governments all the time in the war on drugs. And US citizens abroad are sometimes the targets. If they are captured in a foreign country, they do not have their US Constitutional rights. For example, if the country they are captured in does not grant them a lawyer, it's their problem. Their rights have not been violated. If someone does not like the fact that Yemen will bomb suspected terrorist compounds without benefit of a trial, the easy solution is to not go to Yemen.

[Dragonzbane76]

it doesn't matter any of it. We are all going to die soon anyways. Found this on the interwebss so it must be true. :) suprised Uki didn't post this and say the gov. was behind it.



http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm

[David Jamieson]

it doesn't matter any of it. We are all going to die soon anyways. Found this on the interwebss so it must be true. :) suprised Uki didn't post this and say the gov. was behind it.



http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm

good old yellowstone supervolcano.

yep, it's creating geysers even! Old faithful and many more.
You can actually set your watch by them.

anyway, check the USGS site instead of some tinfoil hat site for info on Yellowstone. It has always hosted mini-quakes for as long as it has been recorded.

If it does go off, well, what are you gonna do? Nothing, that's what. It doesn't mena the world will end, just part fo America. I think we can absorb the loss.

[Dragonzbane76]

haha i know i was poking fun of Uki and his crackpot conspiracy theories. :)

[BoulderDawg]

dude, your last line of comment killed teh value of everything else you said. :rolleyes:

try to speak with each other without the hate.

You guys do realize you are just fomenting ill will within yourselves as you bash away at each other.

everyday that you get up and get angry and start angrily responding to each other is one more day that you are eroding your own self in some way.

food for thought. :)

I was honestly floored.

I mean have you ever seriously told anyone to go and kill themselves? I sure haven't.

I believe this guy is from Colorado Springs however the one thing he's not telling us is that he's really into Dobson's Focus on the Family and seriously believes that I'm some sort of threat to his way of life.......no matter though.

If you want to hear hate up close and personal you should participate in a civil rights march down south...it's an eye opening experience!:D

[1bad65]

If you want to hear hate up close and personal you should participate in a civil rights march down south...it's an eye opening experience!:D

At least they don't openly brag about assaulting their wives like pacifists like Ward Churchill. :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

Nope they don't do that....as far as I know.

However you do hear "N loving (Place your favorite crude sexual insult here)" and comments about what they would love to do to your wife and your little girl.

I'm glad you like these people Bad.

[Drake]

You moron. I'm not from Colorado Springs. I'm stuck here for this assignment. I'll probably be going back to Europe or Maryland once this crap is over.

[Drake]

At least they don't openly brag about assaulting their wives like pacifists like Ward Churchill. :rolleyes:

The best part of it is that he's accusing ME of hate. This guy is full of so much hatred, racism, and loathing, it boils over in every post he writes.

Get it straight, BD... I don't hate you, and I don't want you to be hurt by anyone except yourself. Nobody should have to go to jail over you.

[Dragonzbane76]

I mean have you ever seriously told anyone to go and kill themselves? I sure haven't

If someone tells someone to go kill themselves and then that said person goes and kills themselves.... then they deserved to die imo for being that freakin dumb.

[1bad65]

I'm glad you like these people Bad.

I'm not the one using racial slurs, defending racists, defending wife beating, defending plagiarism, etc.

[BoulderDawg]

If someone tells someone to go kill themselves and then that said person goes and kills themselves.... then they deserved to die imo for being that freakin dumb.


It's not really him as much as it is that cultist group he's mixed up with. But you're right. If you tell somebody to kill themselves and they do it....That's murder.

[1bad65]

If you tell somebody to kill themselves and they do it....That's murder.

Can you please reference any laws that show this statement is correct? ;)

[BoulderDawg]

A law book?

Do you think I need a law book to know what is and what is not "murder"?

I could care less what any law says. I speak from my own morality and values. You're right, maybe a court would not convict such a act. Doesn't make it any less digusting does not? Also it doesn't mean that you're not guilty of murder.

[1bad65]

Also it doesn't mean that you're not guilty of murder.

Actually it does.

Funny how in one thread you are trumpeting the rule of law, but in this one you are making up laws to suit your viewpoint.

[1bad65]

Do you think I need a law book to know what is and what is not "murder"?

Do I need a law book to know what is and what is not spousal abuse? :D:D:D

[BoulderDawg]

So Bad, it's obvious from the above comments that you completely support someone on this board telling someone else to kill themselves. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

[Reality_Check]

I've answered this before. Do I need to cut-and-paste my previous reply? :confused:

This is nothing new here. The US Gov't has worked with foreign Governments in dealing with alleged criminals for decades. The FBI/CIA/ATF etc work with foreign Governments all the time in the war on drugs. And US citizens abroad are sometimes the targets. If they are captured in a foreign country, they do not have their US Constitutional rights. For example, if the country they are captured in does not grant them a lawyer, it's their problem. Their rights have not been violated. If someone does not like the fact that Yemen will bomb suspected terrorist compounds without benefit of a trial, the easy solution is to not go to Yemen.

Apparently you really are this dim.

Sigh...does an American citizen have Constitutional protections from the US Government? Why yes they do. It's called the Bill of Rights. So, a US citizen is being targeted by the US Government for death. Which would be in direct violation of US law and the Constitution (at a minimum the 5th & 6th Amendments, which are fairly explicit). This has nothing to do with Yemen, he just happens to be there. He could just as well be in London, the point would remain.

An American citizen is being targeted for death by the US Government based only on something which he is accused of doing. That is the problem Sparky. All of your dancing around won't change that. He is being denied his Constitutional rights by the US Government by virtue of them putting him on a hit list and attempting to assassinate him.

[1bad65]

So Bad, it's obvious from the above comments that you completely support someone on this board telling someone else to kill themselves. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

I admitted nothing. I didn't even reference Drake or his previous statements.

[1bad65]

This has nothing to do with Yemen, he just happens to be there.

Apparently you really are this dim.


An American citizen is being targeted for death by the US Government based only on something which he is accused of doing. That is the problem Sparky. All of your dancing around won't change that. He is being denied his Constitutional rights by the US Government by virtue of them putting him on a hit list and attempting to assassinate him.

He is not being denied his Constitutional rights. He gave them up when he left the US without diplomatic immunity. What part of this are you not understanding?

Look at it this way. In England there is no death penalty. They have the right to not be put to death by their Government. But if a British citizen comes to the US and commits a capital crime in a State with the death penalty, he can face the death penalty and be executed if found guilty and if he receives a death sentence. His rights under British law were not violated, as he gave them up the moment he stepped foot in the US. By doing so, he is now accountable under our laws, not Britain's. Get it yet?

[SanHeChuan]

I think that where Reality_Check and 1bad65 are missing each other, is the U.S. isn't carrying out attacks in Yemen directly. They are assisting Yemen. So, technically if this dude gets bombed in Yemen it was by the Yemeni forces and not U.S. forces.

“Airstrikes against al Qaeda targets in Yemen will be carried out only by the country's armed forces, the Yemeni foreign minister said Wednesday.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/30/us.yemen.strikes/index.html

So, technically the U.S. isn’t trying to kill this guy, they are just hoping really hard. But apartenlty wishing someone dead is murder so... :p

[Reality_Check]

He is not being denied his Constitutional rights. He gave them up when he left the US without diplomatic immunity. What part of this are you not understanding?

Look at it this way. In England there is no death penalty. They have the right to not be put to death by their Government. But if a British citizen comes to the US and commits a capital crime in a State with the death penalty, he can face the death penalty and be executed if found guilty and if he receives a death sentence. His rights under British law were not violated, as he gave them up the moment he stepped foot in the US. By doing so, he is now accountable under our laws, not Britain's. Get it yet?


Sigh...in your example he would be executed by the US Government after a trial (oh my...due process!). He is not being targeted by his own government. He would have been indicted, given a trial and subject to a verdict.

And, no, you don't give up your Constitutional protections (from the US Government) when you leave the country. What an utterly absurd idea. If I go to Canada, and the US Government shoots me in the head based on a suspicion (no due process at all), the US Government would have violated my rights. Not the Canadian government, the US Government.

So, if in your example, the British citizen was assassinated by British agents in the US, then his (British) rights would have been violated by his government.

It's really quite simple.

An American citizen has guaranteed Constitutional protections from the US Government.
US Government decides it wants to kill him/her, using agents of the US Government.
No trial, no due process.
The American citizen's rights were violated by the American Government.

[1bad65]

I think that where Reality_Check and 1bad65 are missing each other, is the U.S. isn't carrying out attacks in Yemen directly. They are assisting Yemen. So, technically if this dude gets bombed in Yemen it was by the Yemeni forces and not U.S. forces.

“Airstrikes against al Qaeda targets in Yemen will be carried out only by the country's armed forces, the Yemeni foreign minister said Wednesday.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/30/us.yemen.strikes/index.html

So, technically the U.S. isn’t trying to kill this guy, they are just hoping really hard. But apartenlty wishing someone dead is murder so... :p

Thank you. You just stated it better than I did.

[1bad65]

If I go to Canada, and the US Government shoots me in the head based on a suspicion (no due process at all), the US Government would have violated my rights. Not the Canadian government, the US Government.

US Government decides it wants to kill him/her, using agents of the US Government.

As San pointed out, it's not the US Gov't who did (and are doing) the bombing/killing. It was/is the Gov't of Yemen.

[SanHeChuan]

Reality_Check's question is still valid.


Intelligence chief acknowledges U.S. may target Americans involved in terrorism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303968.html


The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The question is can you be convicted of treason absentee and has such a trail been held for this dude. Or what are the legal grounds they are using to justify targeting this dude?


The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

Becoming naturalized in another country
Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
By being convicted of committing treason

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

An argument could reasonably be made that he is no longer a citizen. It's not clear cut, but it could be made.

[Hardwork108]

IF you guys take out a bit of time and watch the documentaries, linked in my signature below, then you will see the bigger picture as regards the subject matter of this thread.

HW108

[Dragonzbane76]

what to have some "blinding" revelation from your book of knowledge. no thanks. Another conspiracy theory crackpot. you guys are a dime a dozen. lol

[Drake]

Murder requires me actually killing you, which I am not going to do, ever. I am telling you to commit murder, and seeing as you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to do what I say, as you are not under my control, then in reality, you'd be the one guilty of murder. And, like a classic liberal, you'd also be guilty of trying to blame someone else for your mistakes. :)

[Reality_Check]

As San pointed out, it's not the US Gov't who did (and are doing) the bombing/killing. It was/is the Gov't of Yemen.

No, you are missing my point. From my first post on this thread:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews

"As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said."

Please discuss in relation to this (please note that we are not in a time of war as Congress has not issued a Declaration of War):

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
An American citizen is being targeted for killing by the US Government, without due process. He is accused of being a terrorist. That's it accused. He hasn't been tried and convicted. He's still an American citizen.


The Government has to demonstrate a person's guilt before it is assumed. You know those pesky Constitutional guarantees.

You are assuming that Anwar al-Awlaki is in league with terrorists. What evidence do you have of that? The say so of the US Government. It should be fairly self-evident that the fact that the Government labels someone a "Terrorist" is not proof that someone is, in fact, a Terrorist. So, the Government can label someone as a terrorist and then kill them. No need for any of that inconvenient "evidence".

[mawali]

Reality_Check's question is still valid.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html



There are a certain group of individuals who are allowed to serve in the Armed Forces of thier own country and hasve as much rights in both countries but no one speaks up and asks why? That is how it works. If no one says anything, it is OK!

[Drake]

If someone tells someone to go kill themselves and then that said person goes and kills themselves.... then they deserved to die imo for being that freakin dumb.

BD won't do it anyway. It requires a degree of effort, which is something he isn't willing to put forth. The whole debacle is moot, honestly. It also requires personal responsibility, instead of expecting someone else to take care of it for you.

[Reality_Check]

The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

Becoming naturalized in another country
Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
By being convicted of committing treason
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

An argument could reasonably be made that he is no longer a citizen. It's not clear cut, but it could be made.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=252#256

The District Court recognized that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, 3 as construed in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 268 (1967), "`protect[s] every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship'" and that every citizen has "`a constitutional right to remain a citizen . . . unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.'"

From the 14th Amendment:

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.

[dimethylsea]

All this sidesteps the basic question..

Should U.S. government personnel be involved in the proactive killing of U.S. citizens, even with "provocative circumstances" absent a formal trial?

My personal belief is that given the sheer amount of money the Federal government has access to, combined with the vast institutions that funding gives rise to, that "we the People" will in fact occasionally sanction U.S. citizens and non-citizens, regardless of whether it's formally allowed by law.
Just like there are situations where cops (maybe even otherwise honest cops who wouldn't take a bribe) will "set up" situations where a criminal gets killed.

The question is.. should this sort of thing be formally and explicitely allowed? It's going to happen sometimes.. we all know it.

The question is.. should this be formally allowed?

Drake, 1Bad65.. what do you think? Should this be legal in some way, or illegal? We all know it's going to happen regardless at least occasionally.

[Drake]

All this sidesteps the basic question..

Should U.S. government personnel be involved in the proactive killing of U.S. citizens, even with "provocative circumstances" absent a formal trial?

My personal belief is that given the sheer amount of money the Federal government has access to, combined with the vast institutions that funding gives rise to, that "we the People" will in fact occasionally sanction U.S. citizens and non-citizens, regardless of whether it's formally allowed by law.
Just like there are situations where cops (maybe even otherwise honest cops who wouldn't take a bribe) will "set up" situations where a criminal gets killed.

The question is.. should this sort of thing be formally and explicitely allowed? It's going to happen sometimes.. we all know it.

The question is.. should this be formally allowed?

Drake, 1Bad65.. what do you think? Should this be legal in some way, or illegal? We all know it's going to happen regardless at least occasionally.

In the United States? Absolutely not. If local law enforcement can arrest them and bring them to trial, that is the absolute best route. Some people just don't surrender, though.

Against extremists who move to another country and take up arms against us? Absolutely. Again, it breaks down to interpretation of USC and the Constitution, and WHAT WAS INTENDED, instead of literal translation based on a world view that is now creeping up on 250 years old. I hate it when people ignore context simply to push their agenda in these matters. Common sense would indicate that based on the norms and commonly accepted laws, the action of LEAVING the United States, taking up arms against her, and allying with a faction known for causing thousands of American deaths, not a single founding father would have stopped and thought "Oh, poor oppressed young muslim extremist militant! She shall send a frigate posthaste to bring him back here to stand trial!"

So, one quote the Constitution all they like, but without the ability to interpret and draw from the actual context, they are wasting our time.

[Hardwork108]

what to have some "blinding" revelation from your book of knowledge. no thanks. Another conspiracy theory crackpot. you guys are a dime a dozen. lol

Wait a minute!

Are you calling the late Hollywood producer, Aaron Russo, the producer/director of one the documentaries below a "conspiracy theory crackpot"? LOL

Look. It is fine by me as you can stay in your political/reality comfort zones and discuss relatively unimportant details without seeing the big picture.

Dictatorships thoughout history have thrived on people or "citizens" such as you!

[Dragonzbane76]

Are you calling the late Hollywood producer, Aaron Russo, the producer/director of one the documentaries below a "conspiracy theory crackpot"? LOL

Do you take everything so literally?? I was talking about you.

[Reality_Check]

In the United States? Absolutely not. If local law enforcement can arrest them and bring them to trial, that is the absolute best route. Some people just don't surrender, though.

Against extremists who move to another country and take up arms against us? Absolutely. Again, it breaks down to interpretation of USC and the Constitution, and WHAT WAS INTENDED, instead of literal translation based on a world view that is now creeping up on 250 years old. I hate it when people ignore context simply to push their agenda in these matters. Common sense would indicate that based on the norms and commonly accepted laws, the action of LEAVING the United States, taking up arms against her, and allying with a faction known for causing thousands of American deaths, not a single founding father would have stopped and thought "Oh, poor oppressed young muslim extremist militant! She shall send a frigate posthaste to bring him back here to stand trial!"

So, one quote the Constitution all they like, but without the ability to interpret and draw from the actual context, they are wasting our time.

Once again, you miss the point. There is no evidence that Anwar al-Awlaki "took up arms" against the United States. He is accused of being a terrorist...WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING A TERRORIST.

The question is, can the President kill any American citizen merely by accusing them of a crime?

[BoulderDawg]

In truth their is no litmus test for being a "Terrorist".

The teabaggers seem to wide definition:

Terrorist - anybody who disagrees with us.


What I find funny is that the US is suppose to be fighting a war in Iraq. However we are using cutting edge top of the line weapons. They are using 40 year old M16s and crude road bombs........then the US complains and calls them "Terrorist":D

[SanHeChuan]

INA: ACT 349 - LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN

Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4) (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United States Code, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, United States Code, or violating section 2384 of said title by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) 1/ Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after the enactment of this subsection under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

It can be presumed he has willingly given up his citizenship, until proved otherwise. Since it can be presumed to be voluntary he doesn't have to be convicted in the court of law. :p

And let’s face it, neither of us is a lawyer, but if the White House did not have a solid legal stance on this issue, the Republicans would be jumping over themselves to try to impeach Obama. Not because they disagree with the policy but because they are only interested in winning political leverage. :rolleyes:


I am telling you to commit murder, and seeing as you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to do what I say, as you are not under my control, then in reality, you'd be the one guilty of murder.

You would be an Accessory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term))and could be charged too.



The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime[1]:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting any act made criminal under the code. The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:

(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
(2) the commission of an offense by someone; and
(3) the defendant assisted or participated in the commission of the offense (the actus reus).

[Reality_Check]

It can be presumed he has willingly given up his citizenship, until proved otherwise. Since it can be presumed to be voluntary he doesn't have to be convicted in the court of law. :p

And let’s face it, neither of us is a lawyer, but if the White House did not have a solid legal stance on this issue, the Republicans would be jumping over themselves to try to impeach Obama. Not because they disagree with the policy but because they are only interested in winning political leverage. :rolleyes:

No, that can't be assumed.

1. There is no evidence he has engaged in hostilities or entered into the armed forces al Qaeda, let alone another nation. He has expressed approval of violence against the United States, but the Supreme Court has already ruled on that.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=444


As we [395 U.S. 444, 448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control...

...Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. 4 Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=252#261


In establishing loss of citizenship, the Government must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation. Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his "assent," which means an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in [444 U.S. 252, 253] words or is found as a fair inference from his conduct. The expatriating acts specified in 349 (a) cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen. The trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship. Cf. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 . Pp. 258-263.

2. In order for him to lose his citizenship based on treasonous activities, he must first be convicted of treason.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

3. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/04/permission-needed-to-kill-american-terrorists/


Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and ranking member of the House intelligence committee, asked Mr. Blair about the policy of targeting American citizens at a hearing. It was the first time there was public discussion about one of the most sensitive U.S. counterterrorism policies...

..."So there is a framework and a policy for what's hypothetically a radical born cleric … who's living outside of the United States, there's a clear path as to when this person may be engaging in free speech overseas and when he may have moved into recruitment or when he may have moved into actual coordinating and carrying out or coordinating attacks against the United States?"

[SanHeChuan]

Blah Blah Blah...:rolleyes:

They can. They have. They did.

The Law is mutable especially Case Law :rolleyes:, a new case can over turn the last one easy. Case Law is pointless in this conversation. Maybe there is already another case that ruled against the one you quoted. I don’t know I don’t care.

If you are so certain of your legal position take it to court. Get the ACLU to pay for it, and make some history.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=395&invol=444


Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his "assent," which means an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in [444 U.S. 252, 253] words or is found as a fair inference from his conduct.

Joining Al-Qaeda is fair inference in my book. Kill'em :p

[Reality_Check]

Blah Blah Blah...:rolleyes:

They can. They have. They did.

The Law is mutable especially Case Law :rolleyes:, a new case can over turn the last one easy. Case Law is pointless in this conversation. Maybe there is already another case that ruled against the one you quoted. I don’t know I don’t care.

If you are so certain of your legal position take it you court. Get the ACLU to pay for it, and make some history.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=395&invol=444



Joining Al-Qaeda is fair inference in my book. Kill'em :p

Ah, but in your quote there it states Congress. We're talking about the President declaring someone is not a citizen. With Congress they have to prove the case. You know...due process.

Until the case I quoted is overturned, it is binding precedent.

Also, what evidence is there that he has joined Al Qaeda? The say so of the President? That's why we have due process so that American citizens can't be assassinated at the behest of the President. Down that path is tyranny.

The Supreme Court has ruled that detainees in Gitmo can challenge their imprisonment in court. So far, in over 30 cases the government was unable to present enough evidence, including classified evidence, to convince a federal court judge that it’s more likely than not that the detainee was a member or substantial supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. So, that's over 30 cases where the President has accused someone of being a terrorist, where they weren't. I guess that means mistakes can be made, intelligence could be bad, etc. Now, the President is taking that track record and declaring that he can not just imprison, but kill American citizens. Which is why we have due process. The President must prove that the individual is in fact a terrorist.


The Government has to demonstrate a person's guilt before it is assumed. You know those pesky Constitutional guarantees.

You are assuming that Anwar al-Awlaki is in league with terrorists. What evidence do you have of that? The say so of the US Government. It should be fairly self-evident that the fact that the Government labels someone a "Terrorist" is not proof that someone is, in fact, a Terrorist. So, the Government can label someone as a terrorist and then kill them. No need for any of that inconvenient "evidence".

[SanHeChuan]

If you are so certain of your legal position take it to court. Get the ACLU to pay for it, and make some history. You'd probably get a book deal out of it and lots of money.

[Reality_Check]

If you are so certain of your legal position take it to court. Get the ACLU to pay for it, and make some history. You'd probably get a book deal out of it and lots of money.

LMAO!!

I'll take this as acknowledgement that I've totally eviscerated your argument. I have both the Constitution and case law backing up my position. You have your somewhat less than sparkling repartee backing yours.

[SanHeChuan]

Ah, but in your quote there it states Congress. We're talking about the President declaring someone is not a citizen. With Congress they have to prove the case. You know...due process.

If he "assents" to not being a citizen anymore, then no trial is needed. That means he is willfully giving up citizenship. It says he can “assent” to willingly give up his own right to citizenship by the impactions (inference) of his actions. No formal verbal declaration is needed. So, no one is striping away his citizenship, he is giving it up by his actions, and that does not have to be proven in court. But it can be challenged in court if he so chooses. You think he will? :D


I'll take this as acknowledgement that I've totally eviscerated your argument.

By giving up his citizenship that makes all your legal arguments moot. :p

I concede that I am not a lawyer, and I have no intention of doing the research to continue this argument with case law. :rolleyes:

I "hear" they are discussing changing the law to address this very issue, so I’ll concede it’s not clear cut yet. It's probably not definitively legal yet, or at least they haven’t officially made the case for it. I'm confident that if pushed, they could produce a strong case for the legality of it all.

Is jumping through legal hoops to kill this guy justified? If he is a part of Al-Qaeda, and I think there is more than enough evidence that he is, then yes.

[Reality_Check]

If he "assents" to not being a citizen anymore, then no trial is needed. That means he is willfully giving up citizenship. It says he can “assent” to willingly give up his own right to citizenship by the impactions (inference) of his actions. No formal verbal declaration is needed. So, no one is striping away his citizenship, he is giving it up by his actions, and that does not have to be proven in court. But it can be challenged in court if he so chooses. You think he will? :D



By giving up his citizenship that makes all your legal arguments moot. :p

I concede that I am not a lawyer, and I have no intention of doing the research to continue this argument with case law. :rolleyes:

I "hear" they are discussing changing the law to address this very issue, so I’ll concede it’s not clear cut yet. It's probably not definitively legal yet, or at least they haven’t officially made the case for it. I'm confident that if pushed, they could produce a strong case for the legality of it all.

Is jumping through legal hoops to kill this guy justified? If he is a part of Al-Qaeda, and I think there is more than enough evidence that he is, then yes.

He has to give up his citizenship. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to strip it from him. And based on the list you provided earlier, he has done none of the things that could be considered "assent".

Unless he is under arms and in the act of fighting against US forces, then killing him (for example in his home or car) would be a gross violation of Constitutional protections. He has not been shown to have taken up arms. He is only accused of speaking approvingly of recent attacks against the US. Which is protected speech under the First Amendment.

If he is guilty of doing something wrong, let him be brought to trial. Putting a hit out on someone (a la the Mafia) is not an example of the rule of law. If we keep throwing away the very values that make America America, what have our troops lost their lives over? We have laws and a Constitution for a reason. Throwing them away for the sake of expediency or fear or some false sense of bravado, is wrong. Period.

Indefinite imprisonment without trial
Torture
Murder of American citizens by their own government

These are an anathema to American values. However (aside from the hit list which President Obama is working on), these are things we are doing right now. And it is criminal.

What evidence is there that he is a member of al Qaeda? From what I've seen, there have only been allegations. Allegations made by the very people trying to kill him without due process. Nothing has been proven.

Maher Arar was accused of being a member of al Qaeda. He was sent off to Syria (by the US) to be tortured. He was completely cleared by the Canadian Government, who also determined he had been tortured. What was done in our name was wrong. It also shows quite clearly that mistakes can be made.

Now you want to vest the power to execute American citizens to the President with no oversight? That is too much power for anyone to wield.

[SanHeChuan]

He has to give up his citizenship. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to strip it from him.


Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his "assent," which means an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in [444 U.S. 252, 253] words or is found as a fair inference from his conduct.


And based on the list you provided earlier, he has done none of the things that could be considered "assent".


The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

At the very least you can read his own words and conclude that he has given Al-Qaeda "comfort". :p

Do you think Anwar al-Awlaki still want's to be an American? You think when in Yemen and his Al-Qaeda buddies mistake him for a Yemeni he says, "no no I'm an American!" ;)

[Hardwork108]

Do you take everything so literally?? I was talking about you.
Then you are contradicting yourself (as always)......

[1bad65]

You gotta love the hypocracy here.

The liberals are outraged the US is trying to kill a suspected terrorist, but killing unborn children is a-ok in their book.

[1bad65]

At the very least you can read his own words and conclude that he has given Al-Qaeda "comfort". :p

Do you think Anwar al-Awlaki still want's to be an American? You think when in Yemen and his Al-Qaeda buddies mistake him for a Yemeni he says, "no no I'm an American!" ;)

You're using common sense here. Which means the liberals will never understand your point.

[BoulderDawg]

You gotta love the hypocracy here.

The liberals are outraged the US is trying to kill a suspected terrorist, but killing unborn children is a-ok in their book.

You gotta love the hypocracy here.

The teabaggers are outraged the US is trying to kill unborn fetuses, but killing adults who can't afford health care is a-ok in their book..............

Stupid analogy.........that can be used for a hundred different things and in any situation.

[Hardwork108]

You gotta love the hypocracy here.

The liberals are outraged the US is trying to kill a suspected terrorist, but killing unborn children is a-ok in their book.

We can't have that, no,no,no!

We need the unborn to be born and to grow up into healthy young adults, so that we can send them to die in invented wars against the "terrorists" so that the Banking cartels and other multinational corporations (who are the ones who actually choose the presidents, wether they are "Democrats" or "Republicans"), can make billions of dollars and increase their sphere of influence.

So let them be born I say, lest we run out of cannon fodder.........

[SanHeChuan]

You're using common sense here. Which means the liberals will never understand your point.

You forget I am liberal. :p

I agree with his general sentiments about adhering to values. I'm just playing devil’s advocate. And, I have no problems with them killing Anwar al-Awlaki. I think it's reasonable to assume he has willfully given up his citizenship, or is otherwise deserving of a bullet if cuffs can't reach. And, I'm not much for slippery slope arguments in either direction.

[Reality_Check]

At the very least you can read his own words and conclude that he has given Al-Qaeda "comfort". :p

Do you think Anwar al-Awlaki still want's to be an American? You think when in Yemen and his Al-Qaeda buddies mistake him for a Yemeni he says, "no no I'm an American!" ;)

Sigh...

In order for him to lose his citizenship based on treasonous activities, he must first be convicted of treason.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Just because the President (or even you) say he has committed treason, doesn't make it so.

"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."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's black letter law.

[Reality_Check]

I agree with his general sentiments about adhering to values. I'm just playing devil’s advocate. And, I have no problems with them killing Anwar al-Awlaki. I think it's reasonable to assume he has willfully given up his citizenship, or is otherwise deserving of a bullet if cuffs can't reach. And, I'm not much for slippery slope arguments in either direction.

And that's the problem, you assume. Which is why we have due process, to take away those nasty assumptions. Things like this need to be proven not assumed.

[Reality_Check]

You're using common sense here. Which means the liberals will never understand your point.

Clearly the Constitution and case law are completely lacking in common sense. :rolleyes:

[dimethylsea]

You gotta love the hypocracy here.

The liberals are outraged the US is trying to kill a suspected terrorist, but killing unborn children is a-ok in their book.

You gotta love the irony of a "pro-lifer" also being "pro-war" (i.e. pro death).


Funny to bring up pro-life when we just had a guy kill a physician because he didn't want women to have the rights the Court ... oh wait. Sorry I thought I was you for a second.. playing the "but you did it too" card.


Pro-life terrorist murderers are so detestable aren't they?

[1bad65]

Clearly the Constitution and case law are completely lacking in common sense. :rolleyes:

If case law says this is illegal, when can we expect Obama (who ordered it) to be impeached?

[1bad65]

Funny to bring up pro-life when we just had a guy kill a physician because he didn't want women to have the rights the Court ... oh wait. Sorry I thought I was you for a second.. playing the "but you did it too" card.


Nowhere did I condone that.

Once you are born, you are responsible for your own actions. But if a baby is aborted, he/she never had the chance to make any decisions.

[BoulderDawg]

Nowhere did I condone that.

Once you are born, you are responsible for your own actions. But if a baby is aborted, he/she never had the chance to make any decisions.

So why are you trying to hijack a thread about some American terrorist and turn it into an abortion thread?

[Hardwork108]

If case law says this is illegal, when can we expect Obama (who ordered it) to be impeached?
The same time as George W Bush and Bill Clinton get prosecuted for their crimes while in office...meaning probably never!

[Hardwork108]

Nowhere did I condone that.

Once you are born, you are responsible for your own actions. But if a baby is aborted, he/she never had the chance to make any decisions.

Meaning, once you are born you can be coerced and or manipulated by "your" government to die in foreign lands to push forward a political agenda that will benefit socio-economically, the corporate and financial elite of your country, who by the way, run your government from the shadows.

Now, that sounds better!:)

[Dragonzbane76]

Then you are contradicting yourself (as always)......

I contradict everything in life. there has to be a balance so i'll stand on the opposite side of the ring. :cool:
And no i didn't even watch your crackpot vids of whom ever said director was. don't care. what i do care about is being the thorn in your side. you've earned that much from me. :p

[Drake]

This thread has died a horrifying death. You don't "win" a discussion by simply repeating yourself until the other person throws up their hands and quit. They made their point, and it has only been rebutted with the same exact thing that the poster questioned in the first place. Nobody "eviscerated" anyone here. You simply kept saying the same thing until they got sick of it.

He posted the law, and you are making a fool out of yourself by suggesting we bring someone to court who already left the country and is currently living in a terrorist training camp. Use some friggin' common sense for once. They attacked a training camp used for training terrorists. They aren't fixing late model cars or collecting aluminum cans there. It's a terrorist training camp. Can you even feasibly suggest we can bring this guy in if he's on foreign soil, under attack by Yemeni forces, and part of a group notorious for fighting to the death? Holy hell... do you think, even for a second, that this is what the Constitution was meant to protect? No WONDER people are done discussing this with you.

[Hardwork108]

I contradict everything in life. there has to be a balance so i'll stand on the opposite side of the ring. :cool:
And no i didn't even watch your crackpot vids of whom ever said director was. don't care. what i do care about is being the thorn in your side. you've earned that much from me. :p

Do you realize that you just admitted to being a stupid person who does not have a life?

This is not fair! LOL

So far I have been the one making you look the stupid azz that you are and now you are changing the rules by just admitting stupidity and your desperation for my attention! LOL

[SanHeChuan]

And that's the problem, you assume.


Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.



Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his "assent," which means an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in [444 U.S. 252, 253] words or is found as a fair inference from his conduct.

I understand what you are saying. His citizenship cannot be taken away from him without due process, but the loop hole here is that we CAN assume he has voluntarily given up his citizenship without the due process of law. If he wants to dispute this, he, like you, can take it up in court.

For police officers in the U.S. (http://www.answers.com/topic/deadly-force)


For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

Since it is not possible to arrest the suspect. We are not allowed to go into Yemen ourselves, and they are unable to arrest him, no other action will succeed. As someone or has had contact with multiple terrorists prior to them committing acts of terrorism against the U.S. and has verbally supported terrorism, it would not be unseasonable to believe that he is at least encouraging them to cause injury and death to other people. Which at the very least would make him an accessory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29)to murder / terrorism against the U.S. His actions of encouraging terrorism could reasonable be assumed to result in future loss of life.

[Dragonzbane76]

Do you realize that you just admitted to being a stupid person who does not have a life?

This is not fair! LOL

So far I have been the one making you look the stupid azz that you are and now you are changing the rules by just admitting stupidity and your desperation for my attention! LOL

Life is not fair and i don't play by your rules mr. carpetbagger. lol
I care nothing for looking like anything to people, just being a pain to you will suffice. I'm secure in my world how bout you? i'm sure if we took a poll around here about intellegent conversation and fantasy land you would be on top of the chart. So who was it again that cared what everyone thought here? hum.... oh yeah you, because you have to win the internet i forgot for a sec. ;)

[SanHeChuan]

I beat the internet once. The end guy is hard. ;)

[Dragonzbane76]

so i've heard. :p:p

[Hardwork108]

Life is not fair and i don't play by your rules mr. carpetbagger. lol
I care nothing for looking like anything to people, just being a pain to you will suffice. I'm secure in my world how bout you? i'm sure if we took a poll around here about intellegent conversation and fantasy land you would be on top of the chart. So who was it again that cared what everyone thought here? hum.... oh yeah you, because you have to win the internet i forgot for a sec. ;)

You really should be thinking about getting a life......LOL

[Dragonzbane76]

i do. It just doesn't seem like it to you. But then again i care nothing for what you think. :)