Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyX; SeekAndFind
The question however is this — WHAT IF, Like Al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman DID help terrorists? Would it be illegal for the US government to target him?

In a word; yes.

Remember that the 4th Amendment guarantees your right to due process. The government must prove that a person has committed a capital before a jury before taking their life.

The War of 1812 is certainly a different case entirely. First the US Navy was not sent out to specifically target US citizens impressed in to the British Navy. Secondly in a navel battle there would be no practical way to single out US citizens from British subjects all dressed in the same uniform.

Cdertainly Abdulrahman was a traitor to his country but he was still entitled to his constitutional rights and Obama and his administration are guilty of failing to uphold the constitution and should be tried for murder.

22 posted on 02/05/2013 10:53:34 PM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Pontiac

I’m sorry if my response is going to be regarded as offensive, but you comment is utter nonsense.

On a battlefield, when a soldier disobeys a command, a superior officer or superior non-commissioned officer may immediately execute the soldieer for disobedience of the order. Likewise under martial law (military) law there are many exigent circumstances in which an officer or non-commissioned officer may or else is obligated to shoot or otherwise execute an armed or even an unarmed civilian without benefit of a military tribunal or a civilian tribunal. There were and likely still are a multitude of exigent circumstances in which the Congress and the president and Commander-in-Chief have the Power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....”

Your argument repeats the same ludicrous argument used by the Liberals, which falsely conflates other offenses with the right of trial in cases of treason. Just becausee a government, any government, is inable to bring a person to trial and meet the burdens required to obtain a conviction for treason does nothing whatsoever to change the power to engage the person in combat and kill them in accordance with the laws of war, the law of nations, and the laws regarding piracy and brigandage. The Liberals use the laws regarding treason as a red herring arguement to distract attention away from the other applicable laws which permit a government to engage citizens engaging in an armed belligerency, whether lawfully or unlawfully.

Your accusations of murder in this instance are totally without merit and exceedingly offensive. If you want to talk about the Obama dea pool, on the other hand, you might find something legitimate for a change.


25 posted on 02/06/2013 12:02:12 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson