Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
This fateful new step in our ever-expanding war against terrorists — intentionally killing an American citizen — is fraught with the danger of executive overreach or mistakes. But the Obama administration has done an admirable job to date of balancing these potential dangers against security imperatives.
The United States did not claim the power to kill Mr. Awlaki because of his political views or because he was a mere member of a Qaeda affiliate against which Congress had authorized the use of force. It claimed the power to kill him, rather, because he was an operational leader of a Qaeda affiliate that had been involved in terrorist plots on American soil and because he was hiding in a country that lacked the capacity to arrest him and bring him to justice.
Nor does the killing of Mr. Awlaki mean, as Glenn Greenwald charged in Salon, that “due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality.” An attack on an enemy soldier during war is not an assassination. During World War II, the United States targeted and killed Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Moreover, the United States knew there were many American citizens in the German Army during World War II, but it did not alter its bombing practices as a result.
And while no court approved the killing of Mr. Awlaki, it is not accurate to say that he was targeted without due process. What due process requires depends on context. In a lawsuit brought last year that sought to prevent the government from targeting Mr. Awlaki, a federal judge ruled that in wartime the Constitution left it to the president and Congress, not the courts, to decide military targeting issues.
...
If this guy is involved with actions against the U.S., charge him with treason. If he does not appear in court to defend himself, and he is out of country where he can't be served with notice, then congress needs to develop a law to deal with this kind of problem.
Why is that ok to do? we frown at other countries for bringing down the hammer on treasonous people who help the US, maybe i just answered my own ? yes yes
I can't believe that I am responding to this nonsense... but here goes (I've edited out the bat****e crazy parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
The terrorist is most likely not, therefore, he IS protected under the first 10 Amendments.
If a terrorist is protected by the Bill of Rights, as you assert, then the killing of any terrorist is unconstitutional by your reasoning. If that is the case then the citizenship of the terrorist is irrelevant.
Quote:
He has, by his acts, rescinded his 14th Amendment status.
A terrorist can renounce their citizenship and a Court can curtail one's rights as a citizen but either way the act of committing a terrorist act doesn't not revoke one's citizenship.
Quote:
Terrorism is a crime,
Ya got one right.
Quote:
The Constitution does not empower the Congress to rewrite the Constitution at will.
Correct again! Give the man a cigar!!
Quote:
Congress's powers are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, which does not allow for bullschit.
Like Article I Section 8 (powers of Congress)
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Quote:
You are factually challenged.
I believe that you meant to say, "farcically" challenged.
If a terrorist is protected by the Bill of Rights, as you assert, then the killing of any terrorist is unconstitutional by your reasoning. If that is the case then the citizenship of the terrorist is irrelevant.
A terrorist is not a terrorist until a due process procedure allows a court with a jury of one's peers to make that determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
A terrorist can renounce their citizenship and a Court can curtail one's rights as a citizen but either way the act of committing a terrorist act doesn't not revoke one's citizenship.
Any U.S. citizen can voluntarily withdraw from 14th Amendment citizenship and revert to 9th Amendment citizenship. Have you never heard of waving one's rights?
This guy gave up that right when he went to war against Americans. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that he did just that. If you do the same, you would be giving up your right to that protection as well.
Dang, Bob, I agree with you 100 %, and I'm going to Rep ya on this too!
A terrorist is not a terrorist until a due process procedure allows a court with a jury of one's peers to make that determination.
A terrorist is a terrorist when anyone decides to call them a terrorist. One isn't tired for being a terrorist, there is no law prohibiting anyone from being a terrorist. If a person is tried they are tried for conducting terrorist acts.
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't killed for being a terrorist (common vernacular) he was killed for being an unlawful enemy combatant. There is a legal distinction.
Quote:
Any U.S. citizen can voluntarily withdraw from 14th Amendment citizenship and revert to 9th Amendment citizenship. Have you never heard of waving one's rights?
Either you renounce your citizenship or you don't, we don't have levels of membership.
Quote:
You sir, are an ignorant farcist!
You are crossing a line that you don't want to cross.
This guy gave up that right when he went to war against Americans. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that he did just that. If you do the same, you would be giving up your right to that protection as well.
You're just repeating Government B.S. He was NEVER implicated in direct terrorist attacks on the US. He did call for attacks on the USA which is 100% protected free speech. You're embarrassing yourself by knowing the facts of the case.
A terrorist is a terrorist when anyone decides to call them a terrorist. One isn't tired for being a terrorist, there is no law prohibiting anyone from being a terrorist. If a person is tried they are tried for conducting terrorist acts.
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't killed for being a terrorist (common vernacular) he was killed for being an unlawful enemy combatant. There is a legal distinction.
Either you renounce your citizenship or you don't, we don't have levels of membership.
You are crossing a line that you don't want to cross.
100% legal quackery. No legal scholar supports your absurd arguments. Essentially, you are claiming the President can do ANYTHING he wants ANYTIME he wants.
You've seriously gone of the deep end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
