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.
For crying out loud! The idiot used internet to make threats against America and to recruit. What more evidence do you want?
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.
What court would he be tried in? And how would we capture and get him to the US?
Obama ordered the shoot to kill for the Somalian pirates. I had no problem with that either. Neither do I have a problem with the killing of Osama or any other terrorists that were killed while GWB was president. We are at war folks!
It's quite obvious that you have "no problem" with anything Obama does.
Just remember this..the Dems won't always be in charge but once a precedent is set the other side gets to use it as well.
I am smart enough to bleieve that if I was engaged in jihaad against the United States, it could end up going very badly for me and those close to me. I pretty much would accept that going in.
LOL... I'm a West Point grad. Don't presume to tell me anything about Benedict Arnold I don't already know.
For example that he couldn't have been "executed on the spot" since he was never caught.
His co-conspirator though? Major Andre? His consequences were not as sanguine.
When it can.
Killing enemy combatants is not a violation of any law. Not even the Geneva Convention.
Enemy combatants are only deemed on etch a sketch.
No criteria is needed for a deeming. It is God's will.
Slow down paddy, because you missed the point, which is treason is not the only capital offense which can be used to justify the killing of a person posing an imminent threat.
18 USC § 2332b - Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
(a) Prohibited Acts.—
(1) Offenses.— Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.— Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).
So, if you are hitching your horse to the treason argument you are going to be left holding nothing but a saddle. You are better served by arguing the administrations definition (or lack thereof) regarding what constitutes and imminent threat.
What court would he be tried in? And how would we capture and get him to the US?
We wouldn't. Trial by absentia is a long accepted practice. I'm sorry but his name currently escapes me. Just as an example. Guy kills his girlfriend and flee's to France. France won't deport him over the idea of him getting the death penalty. We tried him in absentia and found him guilty.
For those concerned over secrets not getting out we could grant the trial in military court. We tried the German spies during WWII in a military court. I have some real problems with the way Hoover handled that but if the government had at least tried him in absentia in a military court with legal Representation, I would accept that.
Quote:
Obama ordered the shoot to kill for the Somalian pirates. I had no problem with that either. Neither do I have a problem with the killing of Osama or any other terrorists that were killed while GWB was president. We are at war folks!
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
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...
Stop dragging this country's legal system into the gutter, because you're too lazy and apathetic to stand for a fair trail before we kill a US citizen.
Perhaps we should not have killed anyone while at war. We should have taken them all prisoner and given them a trial first.
In case you missed it these past 11 years, we are at war with Al Qaeda.
Great, thanks. I would accept that sentence as long as it was a real trial. I'm against the death penalty also but I recognize the limitations here.
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.
