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.
The OP is really just an opinion piece, and BTW, how do we even know it's such a "chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ", if as the article admits, the Obama administration has refused to disclose it?!
And what are we supposed to do about our enemies anyway, who hide out abroad... stage a Bin Laden style assault every time we find another Al Qaeda leader? I'll start taking these right wing hysterics seriously, when I see drones circling the local mall. Although I can also think of a few RWNJ's that probably wouldn't be missed...
So that's all it takes to execute someone ?
Making threats is words. We now kill people because they use words on the internet that we don't like to hear ?
Once upon a time a person had to be found guilty of actually committing a crime by a jury of his peers.
How about deaths carried out by his command?
Quote:
Al-Awlaki's sermons and recordings have been found on the computers of at least a dozen of terror suspects in the U.S. and Britain. In addition, al-Awlaki admits to having communication with U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, charged in the shooting deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November.
You are one of them arguing that a trial matters and now you ask why does it matter? You don't even know about what you post, yet you continue to use your lack of facts in this argument.
I'm not interested in playing stupid games. One time. I said it doesn't matter what the trial results were. The issue here is granting a trial.
The OP is really just an opinion piece, and BTW, how do we even know it's such a "chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ", if as the article admits, the Obama administration has refused to disclose it?!
And what are we supposed to do about our enemies anyway, who hide out abroad... stage a Bin Laden style assault every time we find another Al Qaeda leader? I'll start taking these right wing hysterics seriously, when I see drones circling the local mall. Although I can also think of a few RWNJ's that probably wouldn't be missed...
Talking to the guy at Ft Hood does not make HIM guilty of shooting people.
Aiding and abetting sure but Hasan pulled the trigger and he's going to trial eventually if they can get him to shave.
See Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
Preamble
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
You have made so many fundamental mistakes in your attempts to argue American constitutional law that it is readily apparent that you are unfamiliar with even the basics.
The U.S. does not hold trials in absentia! See Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884) and Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946 (amended in 1973)
In 1981, just days before his murder trial was to begin, Einhorn skipped bail and fled to Europe. Einhorn traveled in Europe for the next 17 years, along the way marrying a Swedish woman named Annika Flodin. Back in Pennsylvania, as Einhorn had already been arraigned, the state convicted him in absentia in 1993 for the murder of Maddux . Einhorn was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
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.
