Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[High_Gravity]

I can't believe people here want to give this guy a free pass just because he happened to be born here.

It makes him worse IMO.

I agree, and it makes him more dangerous.

 

[G.T.]

Amelia,

What the targeting of the stronghold because the individual was the head of an international terrorist organization at war with the United States or was the targeting because he was an American Citizen? There is a difference.



Now to your question.

United States 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."​

We need two witness that have give testimony that he committed treasonous acts. I bet we have that.


United States Code Title 18 § 2381. Treason

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. "​

So now we've affixed the death penalty for committing treason.




That sounds good to me. WorldWatcher approves of the bombing of a terrorist hideout with a treasonous murder contained within.



>>>>

Thank you for your reasoned post, WW. I can't be mad at you today.


However, I think we should have taken him to court. Put those witnesses on the record. With cross examination by someone representing the defendant. Get a verdict.

We didn't do it right.


And hardly anyone seems to mind. <--- this scares me.

except the whole part where he already confessed

 

[8537]

It's kind of redundant. He's a communications leader in a war, residing with the enemy. gee, what would a rational Military do?

I understand that - and I also completely understand why we did what we did in this case. The military is for fighting foreign enemies. We don't target US citizens with the military

We do if they're sitting with the opposing force.

But that is not what Obama said he would do in this case - he said we would specifically target him.

 

[8537]

It's kind of redundant. He's a communications leader in a war, residing with the enemy. gee, what would a rational Military do?

I understand that - and I also completely understand why we did what we did in this case. The military is for fighting foreign enemies. We don't target US citizens with the military

All enemies, foreign and domestic. Just because this asshole happened to come out of a vagina on American soil doesn't give him a free pass to do what he wants.

You'll have to excuse me, perhaps my memory is faulty. Where did I suggest we give him a free pass to do what he wants?

 

[G.T.]

I understand that - and I also completely understand why we did what we did in this case. The military is for fighting foreign enemies. We don't target US citizens with the military

We do if they're sitting with the opposing force.

But that is not what Obama said he would do in this case - he said we would specifically target him.

And where was his suspected whereabouts, when Obama said this? He had already fled to al quada.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

LOL! Even though you wrote this as a leading question, you're getting slaughtered on this one.
Our policies have been clear since WWII.
Anyone giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a traitor and considered an enemy combatant.

I don't think they included such little details as "Anyone publicly declaring war against the USA and publishing materials to Inspire said war...."

Ron Paul is a dick. He will never win a presidential and now, his days as a Congressman are over too. Good! F*ck him!

 

[Amelia]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

LOL! Even though you wrote this as a leading question, you're getting slaughtered on this one.
Our policies have been clear since WWII.
Anyone giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a traitor and considered an enemy combatant.

I don't think they included such little details as "Anyone publicly declaring war against the USA and publishing materials to Inspire said war...."

Ron Paul is a dick. He will never win a presidential and now, his days as a Congressman are over too. Good! F*ck him!

No. I'm not getting slaughtered. I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says. Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.

 

[G.T.]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

LOL! Even though you wrote this as a leading question, you're getting slaughtered on this one.
Our policies have been clear since WWII.
Anyone giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a traitor and considered an enemy combatant.

I don't think they included such little details as "Anyone publicly declaring war against the USA and publishing materials to Inspire said war...."

Ron Paul is a dick. He will never win a presidential and now, his days as a Congressman are over too. Good! F*ck him!

No. I'm not getting slaughtered. I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says. Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.

Umm, the guy confessed. You better read up on treason again.

 

[manifold]

The rightwing loons must've drawn straws to see who was going to have to embarrass themselves by criticizing Obama for this, and Amelia drew the short straw. In other words, she's just taking one for the team.

 

[High_Gravity]

I understand that - and I also completely understand why we did what we did in this case. The military is for fighting foreign enemies. We don't target US citizens with the military

All enemies, foreign and domestic. Just because this asshole happened to come out of a vagina on American soil doesn't give him a free pass to do what he wants.

You'll have to excuse me, perhaps my memory is faulty. Where did I suggest we give him a free pass to do what he wants?

Your saying we shouldn't have targetted him, we can't arrest him so basically you are letting him do what he wants.

 

[High_Gravity]

Are you in favor of America's policy of assassinating its citizens?

LOL! Even though you wrote this as a leading question, you're getting slaughtered on this one.
Our policies have been clear since WWII.
Anyone giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a traitor and considered an enemy combatant.

I don't think they included such little details as "Anyone publicly declaring war against the USA and publishing materials to Inspire said war...."

Ron Paul is a dick. He will never win a presidential and now, his days as a Congressman are over too. Good! F*ck him!

No. I'm not getting slaughtered. I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says. Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.

Have you watched any of Anwars videos Amelia? he wasn't shy about what he stood for.

 

[Amelia]

LOL! Even though you wrote this as a leading question, you're getting slaughtered on this one.
Our policies have been clear since WWII.
Anyone giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a traitor and considered an enemy combatant.

I don't think they included such little details as "Anyone publicly declaring war against the USA and publishing materials to Inspire said war...."

Ron Paul is a dick. He will never win a presidential and now, his days as a Congressman are over too. Good! F*ck him!

No. I'm not getting slaughtered. I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says. Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.

Umm, the guy confessed. You better read up on treason again.

Should have been easy to get a legal judgment against him then.

Too bad our government didn't even try before they targeted him for death.

 

[jillian]

I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.

The hypocrisy on the left is stunning. The old "make love not war" and stick a flower in a rifle barrel was just political B.S. The left wants to kill people and break things just like everyone else as long as they have a radical left wing administration but the freaking cowards don't want to get their feet wet.

just because one prefers to make love not war (something from the 60's, btw... not so much now)... doesn't mean you don't or shouldn't punch school yard bullies in the face.

 

[jillian]

i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.

 

[Caroljo]

No. I'm not getting slaughtered. I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says. Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.

Umm, the guy confessed. You better read up on treason again.

Should have been easy to get a legal judgment against him then.

Too bad our government didn't even try before they targeted him for death.

Then i have a suggestion....next time something like this comes up, i think you should be the one to go arrest the traitor! Don't you GET IT??? Why put him through a trial, which would cost us alot of money we don't have, knowing he's going to get the death penalty anyway? This is one thing i agree with obama on (and there's not much i do agree on!), he actually saved the country some money this time! Lol!

 

[High_Gravity]

i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.

Anwar was a nice guy and we should be ashamed he is dead.

 

[IndependntLogic]

i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.

Anwar was a nice guy and we should be ashamed he is dead.

No. The point is that people who publicly declare war against the United States uh, hmmm. No that can't be it.
It's that if someone plans acts of terrorism against us they are really swell deep inside and uh.... No, that's not it.
Hmmm.

Hey! Look at my new avatar! I just made it!

 

[Valerie]

No. I'm not getting slaughtered. I'm merely getting an eyeful about the number of people on the left and on the right who are fine with ignoring the Constitution when they're certain they have morality on their side.

I know what the constitution says. Obama should have at least gone through the motions in some court - whether military or civilian - or Obama shouldn't have put him on a hit list.

Umm, the guy confessed. You better read up on treason again.

Should have been easy to get a legal judgment against him then.

Too bad our government didn't even try before they targeted him for death.

Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates said, quoting an earlier decision on a similar issue.






Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Anderson said.

In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.

"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.

Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.

The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

 

[jillian]

i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.

Anwar was a nice guy and we should be ashamed he is dead.

she's a blithering idiot.

 

[High_Gravity]

i'm still wondering what the point of the idiot o/p's thread is, though.

Anwar was a nice guy and we should be ashamed he is dead.

No. The point is that people who publicly declare war against the United States uh, hmmm. No that can't be it.
It's that if someone plans acts of terrorism against us they are really swell deep inside and uh.... No, that's not it.
Hmmm.

Hey! Look at my new avatar! I just made it!

I like it!