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.
Mr. al-Aulaqi is free to turn himself into the nearest American consulate or embassy so that he can avail himself of all of his constitutional rights and privileges. Something that I think he would want to pursue with some since of urgency.
Now I asked you a pointed and specific question regarding Mr. Gadahn, a response would be greatly appreciated.
No, more like the Commander in Chief in a time of war, not unlike the actions taken by Lincoln, or Roosevelt acting in the same capacity.
Absolutely. Come in hands up under a flag of truce and surrender to American authorities. No one will kill him then. As long as he stays out, he is an enemy combatant on the field of battle. The job of American soldiers is to kill enemy combatants.
...yet you would be screaming to high heaven if GWB did this.
As I mentioned, George W. Bush made the same exact finding in 2002. Feel free to do a search for a post of mine anywhere on the internet (I have been using the same screen name on every forum I have ever participated on) in an attempt to find a post opposing this policy. In point of fact, you are likely to find several of my posts approving of this policy then, as I do now.
Just FYI, while I am a Democrat, in 2000 I was fairly ambivalent about the election of President Bush. It would not be until, the utterly insane decision to invade Iraq that ambivalence turned to out and out disgust.
Just wonder if you ever criticized the Bush Adminstration for any illegalties or unConstitutional actions in previous posts?
Because what you are doing here is excusing this on the grounds that you percieve a good outcome coming from allowing the President to assasinate US citizens abroad.
I'm sure the Bush Adminstration thought their illegal actions would produce good outcomes.
Is that a valid argument?
I've criticized Bush and his band of clowns endlessly and for many things, as they deserve it. But I never criticized Bush for killing Al Queda types and their Taliban enablers; if anything I criticized Bush and Rummy for not killing enough of them, for letting Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora, and for essentially abandoning the efforts in Afghanistan to go into Iraq.
So, kudo's for Obama for pursuing the right war and killing the right set of bad guys, including the terrorist who's subject of this thread.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Where is the battlefield with Al Quaida? Or rather where isn't the battlefield. These people are in an open state of war and are "fair targets." A German general in WWII didn't become off limits because he was on leave in the Bavarian Alps skiing. War is not crime and punishment. There is no judicial oversight of a battle. Only after combatants are in the custody of the opposing force is he/she entitle to not being killed on sight.
So lets assume that the CIA and President deem YOU a terrorist. Do you think you should have a right to a fair trial and judged by your peers?
Our constitution does not stipulate that the right to a fair trial is only valid if we are not at war. We already have case law and the Constitution already addresses traitor acts and the applicable punishment. Fair trial included.
So lets assume that the CIA and President deem YOU a terrorist. Do you think you should have a right to a fair trial and judged by your peers?
I'd trot down to the closest authority an turn myself in. Then I have the right to a trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Our constitution does not stipulate that the right to a fair trial is only valid if we are not at war. We already have case law and the Constitution already addresses traitor acts and the applicable punishment. Fair trial included.
This is a guy on the field of battle with the enemy. Any crime is secondary to his participation in a war against the United States. You don't have to convict enemy combatants of a crime before you shoot them. The fact that he is (actually was) an American citizen is irrelevant to the point. We don't have to convict OBL of a crime if we find out where he is. We can just kill him.
As I mentioned, George W. Bush made the same exact finding in 2002. Feel free to do a search for a post of mine anywhere on the internet (I have been using the same screen name on every forum I have ever participated on) in an attempt to find a post opposing this policy. In point of fact, you are likely to find several of my posts approving of this policy then, as I do now.
Just FYI, while I am a Democrat, in 2000 I was fairly ambivalent about the election of President Bush. It would not be until, the utterly insane decision to invade Iraq that ambivalence turned to out and out disgust.
then kudos to you and I retract my accusation!
we seem to be (nearly) on the same page.
I still see some irony in this action when it is juxtaposed with the KSM civilian trial position of the BHO admin.
I still see some irony in this action when it is juxtaposed with the KSM civilian trial position of the BHO admin.
From a broader perspective, I can understand your sense of irony, however the law is not broad and unspecific.
Take warfare in its most raw form, at one moment you are in a furious firefight with the enemy, small arms fire, artillery and armor support. You are surrounded by wounded and killed comrades when suddenly the enemy raises a white flag and from that point on, they are afforded very generous rights and privileges of a POW. You must provide your prisoners with your best medical care, they must be given adequate food and shelter, they must be treated with all humane consideration, and are not to be punished for killing your best friend. Now that is irony.
The same juxtaposition is fairly same for suspected terrorist. As long as they are in the "field" they are open to being killed or captured, but once captured they are afforded certain rights.
From a broader perspective, I can understand your sense of irony, however the law is not broad and unspecific.
Take warfare in its most raw form, at one moment you are in a furious firefight with the enemy, small arms fire, artillery and armor support. You are surrounded by wounded and killed comrades when suddenly the enemy raises a white flag and from that point on, they are afforded very generous rights and privileges of a POW. You must provide your prisoners with your best medical care, they must be given adequate food and shelter, they must be treated with all humane consideration, and are not to be punished for killing your best friend. Now that is irony.
The same juxtaposition is fairly same with suspected terrorist. As long as they are in the "field" they are open to being killed or captured, but once captured they are afforded certain rights.
Right on target. I'll add that the enemy soldier who killed your best friend during combat has broken no law and cannot be imprisoned for his actions. He may be detained as a prisoner of war for the duration of hostilities. The terms of his detention are covered by the Geneva Accords. If you wish to prosecute this person for a crime, you must provide that person with all due process rights -- lawyers, hearings, impartial justice, etc.
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.
