Posted on 10/02/2011 10:30:33 AM PDT by Bokababe
Do you think Al Awalki was a traitor to America and guilty of treason against the United States? It boggles my mind that Americans wanted this guy to be captured and tried in an American court. I hate Obama with every fiber of my being, but this was the right thing to do.
Napolitano is dead wrong. He gets hung up on this first amendment stuff until all logic escapes him.
He needs to look at his passport, Page 7, Item 13 (c):
Loss of US Citizenship:
“Under certain circumstances, you may lose your US citizenship . . . by serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation”
In case the judge hasn’t been reading the papers, we have been at war for over 10 years with a foreign military power, and we have those guys called soldiers getting shot at by them same foreigners whose command and control element includes the (former) US citizen we just killed.
I cannot wait to see the lawsuit on this one...
Al Queda is not a foreign state.
He was not serving in forces belonging to Yemen or any other foreign state.
Al Queda is not a political subdivision, unless you consider islam a true theocracy and then we are indeed at war with islam, but this is not the declaration.
And in regards to #7, the last line is the pertinent line to this whole discussion: if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Who put OBL and Al Awalki on the "Kill List" ???GWB ?
These was enemy combatants in a War which they declared.
If he was born in the US, isn’t he an American, not Arabian?
What nation does Al Queda belong to?
Probably, but we'll never know because there wasn't even an indictment of Treason against him by a grand jury or anyone else.
It boggles my mind that Americans wanted this guy to be captured and tried in an American court.
It's not about Awlaki. He was, as I said, most likely hateful anti-American scum. It's about the idea that the government -- specifically the President and a room full of his chosen bureaucrats -- can on their own come up with a list of "enemies of the State" that include American citizens and then just assassinate them without ever giving these American citizens their right to defend themselves. These are the tactics of a Soviet Union, a North Korea, a communist China -- not the rule of law that is supposed to protect every US citizen.
The USofA has been drawn into an unconventional, asymmetric war and we must adapt or condemn ourselves to protracted battle with possibility of defeat. I’m cheered every time predator drones atomize jihadi leadership.
The Constitution trumps US code.
What nation does Al Queda belong to? Whose agents are they working as?
If we can't answer those questions then this is indeed an assassination. The only way out of the conundrum would have been through the courts in-absentia.
The problem isn’t with who he killed.
The problem is the process and lack of accountability.
What happens when church leaders and talk radio hosts get labeled enemies of the state?
Oh no impossible, that could never happen! Sarcasm/
I don’t think I really care, but I do have a question —
How do we KNOW that the guy was really a major leader of AQ, who was responsible for American deaths?
Because the government told us? Because the guy bragged about it? Or do we have actual evidence?
The fear is that the government will SAY an American citizen did something really bad, and then feel free to kill them. The judicial system exists to evaluate the evidence the government has, so we know we are really targetting the bad guys.
I don’t think there was any question in this case that we got our man, but if there isn’t a process to evaluate the evidence, we have lost a critical protection against government overreach.
Umm, yeah, it’s true that “Under certain circumstances, you may lose your US citizenship . . . by serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation.” Those certain circumstances are listed in US Code title 8, chapter 12, subchapter III, Part III, § 1481, LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN; VOLUNTARY ACTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTIONS.
The very first sentence of that law, section a, specifies that the acts which lead to loss of citizenship must be done “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” The law then spells out the various acts, which include “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer”
So, no, serving in the armed forces of a foreign state as an officer (even assuming that Awlaki did so) would not be enough to cause loss of citizenship. The law clearly states that the action must be taken “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” Did Awlaki have such an intention? Difficult to prove now, isn’t it?
Was there a trial I was not aware of? Maybe you could post a link to the trial transcript since you're so good at posting links to clear this up?
Typical lib\prog operating procedure.
There is not part of the code that justifies killing the man. Further, there is no portion of the code that you point to that would negate his U.S. citizenship.
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.