Cain against assassinate American citizens that are terrorists

[High_Gravity]

If Anwar would have given himself in to American authorities he would have recieved a trial, however he did not he was hiding in a third word Middle Eastern shit hole, what were we to do?

 

[asaratis]

How do libs justify killing an American citizen while condemning waterboarding of noncitizens.....all of which are terrorists? This is an amazing quandary.

I'm not a lib.. and I justify it for the reasons stated. He committed no crime, he committed an act of war and died as a warrior on his battlefield.. syonara dude.

I'm still wondering what war that is... Can you go find us a declaration of war quick for us?

As posted earlier, no war of ours since WWII has been officially declared.

To repeat a bit of something I posted elsewhere:

A friend recently held out to me that the current "war on terrorism" is incorrectly named a war, and is mistakenly described as a religious conflict. I think him to be correct, with reservations regarding the religion facet and with absence of any notion that our efforts to track down, engage and kill known terrorists should be reduced.

War may not be the proper name for what we are doing. It is the wide variety of connotations of substitute words that make one think of the dictionary meaning of the word.

war n.
1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states or parties.
b. The period of such a conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2. a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

warring intr.v.
1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

The continuous conflict between radical extremists and the forces tasked with thwarting their efforts, hunting and killing them is most certainly war by the above definition. It is not war in the sense of historical battlefield warfare.

What I have long considered war is what the history books describe and depict....deadly battles between uniformed armies of warring nations. Today's conflicts in Afghanistan and elsewhere differ from history book examples of war in that there are no specific nation's uniformed armies on the other side. Their army blends into society to some degree in every governed population on earth...with possible exception of some obscure, ethnically pure, native tribe of hunter-gatherers that lives peacefully in isolation, completely ignorant of the savagery that occurs without end in the "civilized" world. In that sense, I agree it is not a war. However, it makes no difference what one chooses to call it. It is just as much a war as the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, the war on poverty, a local gas war, the war of the Rose's....in this sense; that war is a constant struggle between combatants until one side gives up or becomes extinct.

I choose to call the war on terrorism a war...until further notice.

To define the combatants:

coalition forces: The governments of nations with uniformed troops assigned to coalition command within designated battlegrounds and those that support, plan, assemble, enable or participate in the maintenance of those troops. This would include uniformed troops of those governments whether located inside or outside of designated battlegrounds, support facilities such as training bases, supply bases, recruitment facilities, civilian contractors, security personnel, intelligence groups, law enforcement and concerned citizens in all countries.

enemy forces: Those that support, plan, assemble, enable or participate in the terrorism of others by way of threats to harm, acts to harm or encouragement of acts to harm others by any means, most particularly with explosive devices, chemical dispersants, germicides, attacks on transit systems, power systems, communications systems, food and water supplies, government buildings, public markets, schools, hotels, weddings and the like.

If an American citizen joins the other side, he is one of the enemy forces. He is a legitimate target for killing by any means at our disposal, including being hunted via intelligence and blown to pieces with a guided missile. It makes no difference whatsoever that he WAS an American citizen.

I'm still wondering what war that is... Can you go find us a declaration of war quick for us?

Time of war <> Declaration of War

Do you think the public is in danger from al Queda and it's operatives?

The American Public? Not really... More people die every year from illegal&#8217;s, drinking, driving, smoking, poor eating habits and other dumb shit. If we just go off % of American lives lost do to Al Queda (non military) and compare to other things that kill Americans then Al Queda is one of the least dangerous things to an American citizen in America...

How stupid a statement can you come up with? Let's pick the most dangerous thing and forget about the rest of them! Jesus!

It's a dangerous precedent for an American to join a terrorist network that has vowed to kill Americans.

We need to see charges though.

No, when an American joins the enemy, they become the enemy.

@LORD BROWN TROUT: The man made it public that he was an enemy of the USA. He admitted it and you think we need to PROVE IT IN COURT?!?!?!?!?

While I am glad we took out Al-alwaky I do agree that if he was still a citizen we can't assassinate him as a government.

I'm not going to grief obama over it though.

Oh yes we can.. And we did..

But what if they decide you are a terrorist and just assasinate you, as an american citizen, without giving you a trial? Thats not cool.

I understand we had proof of al-aldipshitty and all that but still I just dont like the idea....and im still not going to grief obama over it

If you understand that we had proof that he was an active leader and planner of terror, why do you not understand it is our duty to kill him to protect the American public? I don't know what the average kill ratio is for terrorists losses, but I do remember one day wherein a slight few of them killed nearly 3000 innocent American citizens (and others). To stop this madness, the only thing to do is kill off terrorist leaders until there are none left...and along with them, kill as many of their followers as possible.

Thats the only way a war can be decleared through congress. But then again we also have a war on drugs should their be a hit list for street gangs dealing drugs, if caught they will be shot on sight?

who were you going to send over to the middle east to arrest the alquaida dead dude? eric holder?

If he was confronted and resisted kill him but don't assassinate him let the state prove that hje is an enemy combatant not just say someone is an enemy combatant. The next enemy combatant could be you.

Bullsqueeze! The man was openly proud of his accomplishments as a terrorists. There was no need to arrest, charge, try and prove him guilty.

Political correctness will make you and your loved ones DEAD in this UNDECLARED but TOTALLY JUSTIFIED WAR ON TERROR!


Kill ALL terrorists...and all them that supports 'em!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'm not a lib.. and I justify it for the reasons stated. He committed no crime, he committed an act of war and died as a warrior on his battlefield.. syonara dude.

I'm still wondering what war that is... Can you go find us a declaration of war quick for us?

As posted earlier, no war of ours since WWII has been officially declared.

To repeat a bit of something I posted elsewhere:

A friend recently held out to me that the current "war on terrorism" is incorrectly named a war, and is mistakenly described as a religious conflict. I think him to be correct, with reservations regarding the religion facet and with absence of any notion that our efforts to track down, engage and kill known terrorists should be reduced.

War may not be the proper name for what we are doing. It is the wide variety of connotations of substitute words that make one think of the dictionary meaning of the word.

war n.
1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states or parties.
b. The period of such a conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2. a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

warring intr.v.
1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

The continuous conflict between radical extremists and the forces tasked with thwarting their efforts, hunting and killing them is most certainly war by the above definition. It is not war in the sense of historical battlefield warfare.

What I have long considered war is what the history books describe and depict....deadly battles between uniformed armies of warring nations. Today's conflicts in Afghanistan and elsewhere differ from history book examples of war in that there are no specific nation's uniformed armies on the other side. Their army blends into society to some degree in every governed population on earth...with possible exception of some obscure, ethnically pure, native tribe of hunter-gatherers that lives peacefully in isolation, completely ignorant of the savagery that occurs without end in the "civilized" world. In that sense, I agree it is not a war. However, it makes no difference what one chooses to call it. It is just as much a war as the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, the war on poverty, a local gas war, the war of the Rose's....in this sense; that war is a constant struggle between combatants until one side gives up or becomes extinct.

I choose to call the war on terrorism a war...until further notice.

To define the combatants:

coalition forces: The governments of nations with uniformed troops assigned to coalition command within designated battlegrounds and those that support, plan, assemble, enable or participate in the maintenance of those troops. This would include uniformed troops of those governments whether located inside or outside of designated battlegrounds, support facilities such as training bases, supply bases, recruitment facilities, civilian contractors, security personnel, intelligence groups, law enforcement and concerned citizens in all countries.

enemy forces: Those that support, plan, assemble, enable or participate in the terrorism of others by way of threats to harm, acts to harm or encouragement of acts to harm others by any means, most particularly with explosive devices, chemical dispersants, germicides, attacks on transit systems, power systems, communications systems, food and water supplies, government buildings, public markets, schools, hotels, weddings and the like.

If an American citizen joins the other side, he is one of the enemy forces. He is a legitimate target for killing by any means at our disposal, including being hunted via intelligence and blown to pieces with a guided missile. It makes no difference whatsoever that he WAS an American citizen.


How stupid a statement can you come up with? Let's pick the most dangerous thing and forget about the rest of them! Jesus!

@LORD BROWN TROUT: The man made it public that he was an enemy of the USA. He admitted it and you think we need to PROVE IT IN COURT?!?!?!?!?

If you understand that we had proof that he was an active leader and planner of terror, why do you not understand it is our duty to kill him to protect the American public. I don't know what the average kill ratio is for terrorists losses, but I do remember one day wherein a slight few of them killed nearly 3000 innocent American citizens (and others). To stop this madness, the only thing to do is kill off terrorist leaders until there are none left...and along with them, kill as many of their followers as possible.

who were you going to send over to the middle east to arrest the alquaida dead dude? eric holder?

If he was confronted and resisted kill him but don't assassinate him let the state prove that hje is an enemy combatant not just say someone is an enemy combatant. The next enemy combatant could be you.

Bullsqueeze! The man was openly proud of his accomplishments as a terrorists. There was no need to arrest, charge, try and prove him guilty.

Political correctness will make you and your loved ones DEAD in this UNDECLARED but TOTALLY JUSTIFIED WAR ON TERROR!


Kill ALL terrorists...and all them that supports them!

No, I stated earlier to Ravi that I have no problem with killing terrorists. The admin just needs to name the charges. I also gave O credit for killing bin laden.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not a lib.. and I justify it for the reasons stated. He committed no crime, he committed an act of war and died as a warrior on his battlefield.. syonara dude.

I'm still wondering what war that is... Can you go find us a declaration of war quick for us?

As posted earlier, no war of ours since WWII has been officially declared.

To repeat a bit of something I posted elsewhere:

A friend recently held out to me that the current "war on terrorism" is incorrectly named a war, and is mistakenly described as a religious conflict. I think him to be correct, with reservations regarding the religion facet and with absence of any notion that our efforts to track down, engage and kill known terrorists should be reduced.

War may not be the proper name for what we are doing. It is the wide variety of connotations of substitute words that make one think of the dictionary meaning of the word.

war n.
1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states or parties.
b. The period of such a conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2. a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

warring intr.v.
1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

The continuous conflict between radical extremists and the forces tasked with thwarting their efforts, hunting and killing them is most certainly war by the above definition. It is not war in the sense of historical battlefield warfare.

What I have long considered war is what the history books describe and depict....deadly battles between uniformed armies of warring nations. Today's conflicts in Afghanistan and elsewhere differ from history book examples of war in that there are no specific nation's uniformed armies on the other side. Their army blends into society to some degree in every governed population on earth...with possible exception of some obscure, ethnically pure, native tribe of hunter-gatherers that lives peacefully in isolation, completely ignorant of the savagery that occurs without end in the "civilized" world. In that sense, I agree it is not a war. However, it makes no difference what one chooses to call it. It is just as much a war as the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, the war on poverty, a local gas war, the war of the Rose's....in this sense; that war is a constant struggle between combatants until one side gives up or becomes extinct.

I choose to call the war on terrorism a war...until further notice.

To define the combatants:

coalition forces: The governments of nations with uniformed troops assigned to coalition command within designated battlegrounds and those that support, plan, assemble, enable or participate in the maintenance of those troops. This would include uniformed troops of those governments whether located inside or outside of designated battlegrounds, support facilities such as training bases, supply bases, recruitment facilities, civilian contractors, security personnel, intelligence groups, law enforcement and concerned citizens in all countries.

enemy forces: Those that support, plan, assemble, enable or participate in the terrorism of others by way of threats to harm, acts to harm or encouragement of acts to harm others by any means, most particularly with explosive devices, chemical dispersants, germicides, attacks on transit systems, power systems, communications systems, food and water supplies, government buildings, public markets, schools, hotels, weddings and the like.

If an American citizen joins the other side, he is one of the enemy forces. He is a legitimate target for killing by any means at our disposal, including being hunted via intelligence and blown to pieces with a guided missile. It makes no difference whatsoever that he WAS an American citizen.


How stupid a statement can you come up with? Let's pick the most dangerous thing and forget about the rest of them! Jesus!

@LORD BROWN TROUT: The man made it public that he was an enemy of the USA. He admitted it and you think we need to PROVE IT IN COURT?!?!?!?!?

If you understand that we had proof that he was an active leader and planner of terror, why do you not understand it is our duty to kill him to protect the American public? I don't know what the average kill ratio is for terrorists losses, but I do remember one day wherein a slight few of them killed nearly 3000 innocent American citizens (and others). To stop this madness, the only thing to do is kill off terrorist leaders until there are none left...and along with them, kill as many of their followers as possible.

who were you going to send over to the middle east to arrest the alquaida dead dude? eric holder?

If he was confronted and resisted kill him but don't assassinate him let the state prove that hje is an enemy combatant not just say someone is an enemy combatant. The next enemy combatant could be you.

Bullsqueeze! The man was openly proud of his accomplishments as a terrorists. There was no need to arrest, charge, try and prove him guilty.

Political correctness will make you and your loved ones DEAD in this UNDECLARED but TOTALLY JUSTIFIED WAR ON TERROR!


Kill ALL terrorists...and all them that supports them!

We have L.A. gang members who are terrorist and we have a war on durgs should we assissinate those gang members on sight?

 

[Avorysuds]

I'll just use this because you did a massive post.

Asaratis: "How stupid a statement can you come up with? Let's pick the most dangerous thing and forget about the rest of them! Jesus!"

Quote myself: "The American Public? Not really... More people die every year from illegal&#8217;s, drinking, driving, smoking, poor eating habits and other dumb shit. If we just go off % of American lives lost do to Al Qaida (non military) and compare to other things that kill Americans then Al Qaida is one of the least dangerous things to an American citizen in America..."

I gave a list, a small list but the idea was in all Al-Q is one of the least dangerous things in our society and I never once claimed we shouldn't deal with it terrorism accordingly. You seem to live under the ideology that if we don&#8217;t rush into an open ended war without any definitions mixed with a right to disregard the constitution along the way that I or others that don&#8217;t agree with you somehow become Al Qaida sympathizers.

I asked for a list of American citizens killed by Al - Qaida a year as to compare it to other things that kill Americans as a response to how dangerous these terrorists are&#8230; You butted in and still offer no number but seem to want a never ending costly undeclared &#8220;war&#8221; that in fact has costed more American lives than were lost in 911... You are the problem.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I remember when the FBI had a small army up in Ruby Ridge a few years ago. American citizens were killed and they never drew a weapon. Also happened in Waco.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Amazing how the TEA Party is the standing up for civil liberties and individual rights.

 

[WillowTree]

I wonder if he will flip flop on this too now that Ron Paul takes heat for upholding the constitution rather than going after political points...

May 25 2011, 9:00 AM ET

Herman Cain: Spying on Americans Is Okay, But Not Assassinating Them - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

resident Obama has said that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens if he's declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Al Awlaki is one guy who is on the official government list where he can be taken out. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it a good policy because it allows us to take out Americans who may have joined Al Qaeda? Or is it a bad policy-

Well first of all, this is the first that I have heard - you're saying it's okay to take out American citizens if he suspects they are terrorist related. Is that what you said?!

Yes, that's what I said.

I've got to be honest with you. I have not heard that. I had not heard that's something that he said. I don't believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That's why we have our court system, and that's why we have our laws. Even if the person is suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, if they are a citizen of this country, they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process. Osama bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States of America. So I would not have changed the decision the president made in that regard. But if you're a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No. He has the power to make sure you're locked up, but you have to go through due process.

American citizen or not, once you are on the battlefield and fighting against america you are an enemy combatant. You do not have a constitutionally protected right to kill American soldiers as a United States citizen. And American soldiers DO have the right to protect themselves and protect one another from dick smacks like this man was.

bet you money i could declare a Jihad on the Us military, go kill a few and i would see a trial....Being an American comes with certain rights.

Either you live by the rule of law or you dont.

we don't have a rule of law in Yemen..asswipe.

 

[asaratis]

I'll just use this because you did a massive post.

Asaratis: "How stupid a statement can you come up with? Let's pick the most dangerous thing and forget about the rest of them! Jesus!"

Quote myself: "The American Public? Not really... More people die every year from illegal’s, drinking, driving, smoking, poor eating habits and other dumb shit. If we just go off % of American lives lost do to Al Qaida (non military) and compare to other things that kill Americans then Al Qaida is one of the least dangerous things to an American citizen in America..."

I gave a list, a small list but the idea was in all Al-Q is one of the least dangerous things in our society and I never once claimed we shouldn't deal with it terrorism accordingly. You seem to live under the ideology that if we don’t rush into an open ended war without any definitions mixed with a right to disregard the constitution along the way that I or others that don’t agree with you somehow become Al Qaida sympathizers.

I asked for a list of American citizens killed by Al - Qaida a year as to compare it to other things that kill Americans as a response to how dangerous these terrorists are… You butted in and still offer no number but seem to want a never ending costly undeclared “war” that in fact has costed more American lives than were lost in 911... You are the problem.

In an Open Forum, there is no "butting in".

At the present time, terrorists kill fewer people than those things you listed. Leave them alone and they will devise methods to kill hundreds of thousands of people with one event.

Arguing that the recently assassinated American Citizen/Enemy Combatant should have been properly brought to justice by capture, trial and execution is pure insanity.

Any suggestion that we reduce the effort toward ferreting out and killing known terrorists is equally insane...like saying, "cancer is going to get us anyway, why waste all this money trying to wipe it out?"

Kill ALL terrorists and those that support them!

 

[Avorysuds]

I'll just use this because you did a massive post.

Asaratis: "How stupid a statement can you come up with? Let's pick the most dangerous thing and forget about the rest of them! Jesus!"

Quote myself: "The American Public? Not really... More people die every year from illegal’s, drinking, driving, smoking, poor eating habits and other dumb shit. If we just go off % of American lives lost do to Al Qaida (non military) and compare to other things that kill Americans then Al Qaida is one of the least dangerous things to an American citizen in America..."

I gave a list, a small list but the idea was in all Al-Q is one of the least dangerous things in our society and I never once claimed we shouldn't deal with it terrorism accordingly. You seem to live under the ideology that if we don’t rush into an open ended war without any definitions mixed with a right to disregard the constitution along the way that I or others that don’t agree with you somehow become Al Qaida sympathizers.

I asked for a list of American citizens killed by Al - Qaida a year as to compare it to other things that kill Americans as a response to how dangerous these terrorists are… You butted in and still offer no number but seem to want a never ending costly undeclared “war” that in fact has costed more American lives than were lost in 911... You are the problem.

In an Open Forum, there is no "butting in".

At the present time, terrorists kill fewer people than those things you listed. Leave them alone and they will devise methods to kill hundreds of thousands of people with one event.

Arguing that the recently assassinated American Citizen/Enemy Combatant should have been properly brought to justice by capture, trial and execution is pure insanity.

Any suggestion that we reduce the effort toward ferreting out and killing known terrorists is equally insane...like saying, "cancer is going to get us anyway, why waste all this money trying to wipe it out?"

Kill ALL terrorists and those that support them!

Interesting, a few people on here have already called me out as a Al-Qaida sympathizer… I wonder if that could mean I could be targeted and assassinated, under your new definition of the 5th amendment, yes I could be.

I didn’t say you couldn’t butt in btw, just that you seemed to come in half way in a discussion and still did not provide what I was asking for from the guy I was talking to. Also I have already stated that you can and should deal with terrorism, but ignoring the constitution is not the way to go about it, nor is endless undefined wars that have never been declared.

The way you want things is pretty fuckin scary, I really hope your insane position on this issue losses and you don’t get to degrade the constitution further.

 

[The Rabbi]

If he was confronted and resisted kill him but don't assissmate him let a person prove they are not what the government says they are. The next enemy combatant could be you.

I'm not sure whether we assissimated him or not. I do know we killed an enemy combatant. And good for them.

So wait, you admit you don't know what actually happened then you tell he was a combatant... Sooooo, do you have the scoop of "what happened" or not? Was he shooting at Americans or not?

He was an enemy combatant. He declared himself such. He committed acts of war against the U.S. Why is this difficult to understand?

 

[Avorysuds]

Amazing how the TEA Party is the standing up for civil liberties and individual rights.

It is interesting. It's very sad to see people try and go around our rights to defend Government breaking laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

Amazing how the TEA Party is the standing up for civil liberties and individual rights.

It is interesting. It's very sad to see people try and go around our rights to defend Government breaking laws.

What laws did they break, exactly?

 

[Intense]

If Cain gets to be president the military will have to card every terrorist to make sure they aren't American before blowing them away. And if they are American, the military will have to say, sorry dude! and call the police to make an arrest.

Nah, just Air Drop his Attorney on Site, with an Ipod and a diaper.

 

[asaratis]

I wonder if he will flip flop on this too now that Ron Paul takes heat for upholding the constitution rather than going after political points...

May 25 2011, 9:00 AM ET

Herman Cain: Spying on Americans Is Okay, But Not Assassinating Them - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

resident Obama has said that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens if he's declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Al Awlaki is one guy who is on the official government list where he can be taken out. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it a good policy because it allows us to take out Americans who may have joined Al Qaeda? Or is it a bad policy-

Well first of all, this is the first that I have heard - you're saying it's okay to take out American citizens if he suspects they are terrorist related. Is that what you said?!

Yes, that's what I said.

I've got to be honest with you. I have not heard that. I had not heard that's something that he said. I don't believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That's why we have our court system, and that's why we have our laws. Even if the person is suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, if they are a citizen of this country, they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process. Osama bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States of America. So I would not have changed the decision the president made in that regard. But if you're a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No. He has the power to make sure you're locked up, but you have to go through due process.

American citizen or not, once you are on the battlefield and fighting against america you are an enemy combatant. You do not have a constitutionally protected right to kill American soldiers as a United States citizen. And American soldiers DO have the right to protect themselves and protect one another from dick smacks like this man was.

bet you money i could declare a Jihad on the Us military, go kill a few and i would see a trial....Being an American comes with certain rights.

Either you live by the rule of law or you dont.

If you did what the recently blown-to-pieces terrorist leader did, we would be justified in flying a drone attack on you, too.

If you blow up a Federal building on US soil, you will be caught, tried and executed like the man that did that once.

If you go nuts and shoot up a military base, you will get a trial and hopefully be executed. If you kill a judge, court reporter, two cops and hide in an apartment until captured, you will get a trial and a sentence. I would execute you right after the trial, but the asshole that did that got life in prison.

All this bullshit from the bleeding heart liberals trying to say that the man's rights as a citizen were short circuited simply do not understand...when you prove yourself to be an enemy combatant in a war, you don't have any more rights than any one of the scumbags in the army you joined,

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm not sure whether we assissimated him or not. I do know we killed an enemy combatant. And good for them.

So wait, you admit you don't know what actually happened then you tell he was a combatant... Sooooo, do you have the scoop of "what happened" or not? Was he shooting at Americans or not?

He was an enemy combatant. He declared himself such. He committed acts of war against the U.S. Why is this difficult to understand?

So put him on trial, why do you not agree with the Fifth Amendment on this? What was his "act of war" against the US anyways? Was he in the process of killing US citizens the NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW ABOUT?

The “War on Terror” is not actually a war, so there is no battle ground supported by our constitution…

 

[BlindBoo]

I remember when the FBI had a small army up in Ruby Ridge a few years ago. American citizens were killed and they never drew a weapon. Also happened in Waco.

How many ATF agents were killed and how could they be killed if no one in Mt. Carmel never drew a weapon?

Koresh set the fires that killed the children.

Yes the ATF and the Feds handled it extremely poorly but they didn't start the fires that killed.

 

[Avorysuds]

American citizen or not, once you are on the battlefield and fighting against america you are an enemy combatant. You do not have a constitutionally protected right to kill American soldiers as a United States citizen. And American soldiers DO have the right to protect themselves and protect one another from dick smacks like this man was.

bet you money i could declare a Jihad on the Us military, go kill a few and i would see a trial....Being an American comes with certain rights.

Either you live by the rule of law or you dont.

If you did what the recently blown-to-pieces terrorist leader did, we would be justified in flying a drone attack on you, too.

If you blow up a Federal building on US soil, you will be caught, tried and executed like the man that did that once.

If you go nuts and shoot up a military base, you will get a trial and hopefully be executed. If you kill a judge, court reporter, two cops and hide in an apartment until captured, you will get a trial and a sentence. I would execute you right after the trial, but the asshole that did that got life in prison.

All this bullshit from the bleeding heart liberals trying to say that the man's rights as a citizen were short circuited simply do not understand...when you prove yourself to be an enemy combatant in a war, you don't have any more rights than any one of the scumbags in the army you joined,

And there you have it, everyone is open to being killed by our Government now... If you don't agree with that then you're a "liberal" lolz...

 

[Intense]

bet you money i could declare a Jihad on the Us military, go kill a few and i would see a trial....Being an American comes with certain rights.

Either you live by the rule of law or you dont.

we don't have a rule of law in Yemen..asswipe.

i am rather sure they could capture him and send him back.

You want to play loose and fast with the rights of americans? Do it with your own life.


Man should have faced a jury and then shot in the head.

So you are against Obama now? Interesting.

 

[Avorysuds]

we don't have a rule of law in Yemen..asswipe.

i am rather sure they could capture him and send him back.

You want to play loose and fast with the rights of americans? Do it with your own life.


Man should have faced a jury and then shot in the head.

So you are against Obama now? Interesting.

I'm a little shocked he took this position myself but it's refreshing to see. And no, I don’t think that makes him "against Obama."