Posted on 01/30/2010 7:19:11 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
This is a link to a video blog:
Synopsis: Bill O'Reilly and infobabes justify execution of American citizens without due process. They refer to an executive order as a "statute," completely driving by separation of powers. Next they shift topics and justify CPS harassment over joke pics on Facebook or raising a fat kid.
(Excerpt) Read more at fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com ...
The very act of becoming an anti-American terrorist is sufficient to renounce one’s citizenship.
He’s on the field of battle, fighting America, and it’s open season on his A$$!
More accurately: Can America go after an American overseas who is actively working for Al-Quaeda against this nation, and if they find him, kill him?
YES!!! They can, and they SHOULD!!!
Ah, the true voice of reason.
Damn people, research don’t simply react. The Left do that all the time.
There are plenty of Americans I would take out without due process. WHAT!!!! Due process, their actions against this fine Country and all that it stands for is enough.
"Honestly EL-TEE, didn't even know that was the guy that was sitting next to the target! WE got a two-fer."
I believe passports used to make it very clear that fighting against America with a foreign enemy was considered a renounciation of citizenship.
I also kind of disagree with his calling the guests "infobabes". I don't always agree with them (especially Wiehl!), but they are both attorneys, and speak with more knowledge the the "info-fat-slob".
Shrug, then give the people doing the execution a pardon. Done.
US Constitution - Article III Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Ideally, the execution takes place on the battle field.
On the battle field, you're meat for the grill.
I didn't hear him actually "endorsing" the "termination with prejudice" option. He was for once in his life as a mole, reporting something... if one were to listen carefully and parse the inane statements for him and his lip gloss squad.
The two shiny bimbos, who together have the legal acumen of 1 well-trained Chihuahua, also appeared to be "reporting" rather than endorsing, and trying their cute little level best to be "alarming."
BOR's popularity on this site continues to astound me. If Jesus Christ were on the Republican ticket for Mayor, and Satan on the Democrat ticket, rest assured BOR would pull the lever for the Devil. He has never once endorsed or voted for a Republican for any office. I include Reagan.
Ask him. And while you're at it, look at his "hard-hitting" "fair and balanced" interviews of Hillary, Barack, and the weasel Chuck Shumer.
This was exploratory commentary, not advocacy by The Factor.
War has never been declared.
This is a “war” only because some politicians use the word creatively.
We’re in all kinds of funky territory because of the f’d-up way this “war on terror” is being fought.
If war was declared, and this “American” stood behind enemy lines and fired back at us, he’s a daisy.
As it is, we have to watch BS like this...we have to witness scumbag attorneys defend our sworn enemies in a court system designed for free American citizens.
Now, our communist President gets to order an assassination—not the kind of thing I want the modern Democrat indulging in.
If the government does, then anyone who disagrees could be so labelled and pursued.
Example: I love my country, sworn as a citizen/soldier/holder of office etc. to uphold the US Constitution, and I firmly and with deeply held conviction believe my government is on the brink of wholesale constitutional destruction-so I actively, politically, materially maybe even physically defend said constitution; am I a terrorist or a true patriot? Get the picture? Who gets to determine status is the key. The Brits declared everyone of the signors of the Dec of Ind. a traitor....
Due process for all citizens must be continually guaranteed, no matter what one may do-a trial is the only proper, American, Constitutional venue, no summary execution/ indef detention etc.
If a US citizen is taken on the battlefield of a foreign war by US troops, then all constitutional protections (once citizenship has been established) must be provided/adhered to-otherwise we become just like THEM (until such status is confirmed, interrogate away-bubba doesn't have to say anything, does he?). If a US citizen is killed in combat on that field; just another KIA enemy combatant, I'd think.
The very act of becoming an anti-American terrorist is sufficient to renounce one’s citizenship. He’s on the field of battle, fighting America, and it’s open season on his A$$!
I share the sentiment. However, don't you see where this leads? It's one thing to say we should go after this guy based on X, Y, or Z evidence. However, the case being made here is that the president can unilaterally determine guilt - the president, in this context, is judge, jury, and executioner. And they go on to talk about how it could be used in a broader context. This is a blatant case of taking an emotionally provocative case and leveraging people's justified anger to incite support for unconstitutional policy.
Can America go after an American overseas who is actively working for Al-Quaeda against this nation, and if they find him, kill him? YES!!! They can, and they SHOULD!!!
Sure they should. But the discussion is broader than that. The discussion here is whether the president can sign a death warrant for anyone based on his own personal "finding of fact." I could care less about this traitor. I care about how cases like his are being used to erode our liberties here at home.
I also kind of disagree with his calling the guests "infobabes". I don't always agree with them (especially Wiehl!), but they are both attorneys, and speak with more knowledge the the "info-fat-slob".
Interesting. So one must be an attorney to have a credible legal opinion? Where does that leave the rest of us? Should we be able to engage in the public discourse at all? Or are we beholden to the experts? In my opinion, one of the unfortunate tendencies adversely affecting our republic is the reverence of credential over content. Do you really mean to imply lawyers are on average more credible than anyone else? Do I need a lawyer to tell me what the Bill of Rights says?
Your criticism of the term "infobabes" is noted, and I will seriously consider refraining from using it in the future. However I don't think it unlikely these commentators were chosen as much for their aesthetics as any legitimate qualification.
Ideally, the execution takes place on the battle field.
Which is a totally separate matter. I would have no problem taking this guy out on the battlefield. The problem I have is signing a "death warrant" without due process. To provide a domestic analogy, if a cop kills a criminal in a firefight, he has not violated the criminal's rights. But if he signs a napkin and calls it a death warrant, then goes out and finds the guy and guns him down, that's clearly a circumvention of justice.
I’d shoot him on sight! Same with the goat herder kid from California. They are lower than roaches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.