Replies

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.