Posted on 02/07/2013 4:53:51 PM PST by smoothsailing
Americans are supposed to disarm, voluntarily
new Yorkers are having their weapons confiscated
the fedgov has bought 1.6 billion rounds in 10 months
and now drones can kill anyone, without proof or legal argument... on the merest whim of the current _resident
........
Did we give trials to Americans who joined up with the Nazis in WWII, who were physically located in Germany or occupied areas of Europe? I’m not “getting” this seemingly newfound concern for those who join our enemies. These are treasonous and traitorous saboteurs, caught in the act, overseas plotting terrorist attacks against our nation. No, my stance on killing our enemies doesn’t change because its a different administration pulling the trigger.
Bombing Al Qaeda cells in Yemen doesn’t equate to tyranny at home. No one is bombing American citizens who haven’t already turned their back on the rest of us, joining up with our enemies. Just consider it a revocation of citizenship.
to one world govt types... do you think they believe there is a difference between Riyadh and Toledo?
>> But they most certainly should have charged him with treason and attempted to get him in the normal way, on the battlefield.
Agreed, but Obama’s followers might have made that an impossibility — easier to ask for forgiveness than permission no doubt the hypocrite thought.
I'd shoot him and any other Al Qaeda planner without batting an eye, legal or not. He could be Arnold Schwarzeneggar's lovechild, and wrapping himself in the Red, White, and Blue, but if he was an Al Qaeda planner, I'd pull the trigger first and shed crocodile tears later.
Go the "Al Awlaki Killed" threads from last year(?) and see how many were grieving.
People on here are acting like this government has never run a hit on anyone in the past. That's crazy.
If it seems "incompatible with" the Constitution, why are you agreeing with the corruptocrats in Obama's Totalitarian Regime, judge lady? You're worthless.
So now we're down to "ends justify means," expecting government to just kill fellow citizens without any due process just because they (supposedly) threaten you, thus putting you on the level of Lenin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Congratulations. Just how much of a threat was Al Awlaki to you, personally, ginning up idiot terrorists in Yemen? Really. Please list the threats he posed that were so imminent you feel it necessary to blow off the Fifth Amendment because you couldn't wait for a judge to issue a warrant.
Go the "Al Awlaki Killed" threads from last year(?) and see how many were grieving.
As I said, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not he should have been killed, but whether we should empower the administrative branch of government to kill a citizen without the due process of law pursuant to the Constitution for the United States.
You know, that document that supposedly protects you that you'd now like to water down to nothing. I guess you don't care about that.
People on here are acting like this government has never run a hit on anyone in the past.
An American citizen is not just "anyone."
That's crazy.
No, you are, as you have amply shown. You are setting up provisions just as dangerously self-destructive as was the PATRIOT Act. We didn't need warrantless wiretaps to protect this country. We needed citizens to gather evidence, round up those Muzzie thugs, bring them to a court, and get them deported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
...
(a) IN GENERAL. — That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
If an American citizen is fighting alongside our enemies in a war authorized by Congress, and they are killed in the course of that war, what is at issue? Are they not traitors, enemy collaborators, and illegal combatants in a war against the United States? If so, why is their "citizenship" worthy of protection?
Are many of you just being inconsistent with your ideology because it's the Obama Administration pulling the trigger instead of the Bush Administration?
There is no issue in killing an American traitor fighting with the enemy in a declared war. That is not equivalent to a government issuing an order for a targeted killing of an American citizen not engaged in active battle in a foreign country.
You do understand the distinction? I made that distinction when I posted. Please be more careful.
Are many of you just being inconsistent with your ideology because it's the Obama Administration pulling the trigger instead of the Bush Administration?
Not a bit. Are you being inconsistent with regard to the distinction vis a vis the Constitution? Absolutely.
This is a Congresionally-authorized war, and an easy argument can be made that an Al Qaeda camp in the deserts of Yemen is a battlefront on the War on Terror (and any American contained within an Al Qaeda camp is an assumed collaborator and illegal combatant), just as a similar target in Afghanistan would be, whether actively shooting at American troops at the time of the said drone strike.
I am careful; I disagree with your distinction. My point is that everyone here was "rah, rah, rah" and "let's roll" in 2002, and I know it's difficult to support Executive power 10 years later when Obama wields it...
Note the exclusive use of the past tense. By the statute upon which your argument relies, the only acts authorized are those directed at those who caused 9-11. Note also that the act uses the term "international terrorism." Should Al Awlaki have returned to the US to commit such an act, it would then have been domestic terrorism, as he is a US citizen.
There is no getting around the need for a check on Presidential power to simply execute an American citizen simply because he perceives a threat. Such does not constitute due process. Under the Constitution, the President can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. There is no evidence that Al Awlaki or his son constituted such a threat. Indeed, there is evidence that they were not combatants at all. Hence, they should have been arrested and tried for treason. The President has no legitimate power of execution, especially for the son.
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.