Treason and the Constitution

[Moonglow]

eh, whatcha gonna do

 

[Mr. President]

Article 4 Section 4

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Article 4 Section 4

Really? Article 4 Section 4 say's that?

Article 4
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

When did that happen?


However

Article 3
Section 3 - Treason Note

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You really don't know the Constitution do you?

 

[Mr. President]

You are implying he was killed under the banner of treason and not terrorism. Terrorism covers him under the invading force category thus giving the Executive branch said authority in A4 S4.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are implying he was killed under the banner of treason and not terrorism. Terrorism covers him under the invading force category thus giving the Executive branch said authority in A4 S4.

What invasion the Mexicans? when hasn't the Legislature been able to coven? Thats what Art 4 sec. 4 is addressing. Here's a suggestion go back and do some research, you are lacking in knowledge

 

[konradv]

He was deprived of no such thing. On multiple occasions he evaded escape continued to support and help plan attacks on American troops. He and his entourage were legit targets. I say good call Mr. President sending in the armed drones to take the whole lot of them out.

When was he tried big ear dumbo?

If we captured him, sure. As it is, he was a war casulty. He put himself in that postion. Are we supposed to try a corpse?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He was deprived of no such thing. On multiple occasions he evaded escape continued to support and help plan attacks on American troops. He and his entourage were legit targets. I say good call Mr. President sending in the armed drones to take the whole lot of them out.

When was he tried big ear dumbo?

If we captured him, sure. As it is, he was a war casulty. He put himself in that postion. Are we supposed to try a corpse?

obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.

 

[konradv]

When was he tried big ear dumbo?

If we captured him, sure. As it is, he was a war casulty. He put himself in that postion. Are we supposed to try a corpse?

obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.

You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this? God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If we captured him, sure. As it is, he was a war casulty. He put himself in that postion. Are we supposed to try a corpse?

obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.

You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this? God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!

To protect rights hell yes I would,

 

[konradv]

obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.

You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this? God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!

To protect rights hell yes I would,

You're nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this? God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!

To protect rights hell yes I would,

You're nuts.

People like you are the reason we are losing rights.

 

[konradv]

To protect rights hell yes I would,

You're nuts.

People like you are the reason we are losing rights.

What rights? I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors. The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence. The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles". I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist. I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think. Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.

 

[Mr. President]

He was killed because he was a terrorist not because he was a traitor. Hence killing him was legal. The invading force he aligned with was Al Qaeda not Mexico you ignorant little man. Al Qaeda has not only attacked US soil but has promoted plans to do so again and has repeatedly engaged the US on multiple fronts including Yemen where the man in question was killed. Might I remind you he was wanted by the Yemen government who said he was to be captured dead or alive for terrorist activities in Yemen. They even sent a military unit with tanks after one of his hideouts and his followers held of the military while he escaped. So does capturing him still sound like a viable option??????? No it doesn't and you can not pretend that it does. But I am happy to know that you value the rights of a terrorist over the life of the soldiers who defend you from him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He was killed because he was a terrorist not because he was a traitor. Hence killing him was legal. The invading force he aligned with was Al Qaeda not Mexico you ignorant little man. Al Qaeda has not only attacked US soil but has promoted plans to do so again and has repeatedly engaged the US on multiple fronts including Yemen where the man in question was killed. Might I remind you he was wanted by the Yemen government who said he was to be captured dead or alive for terrorist activities in Yemen. They even sent a military unit with tanks after one of his hideouts and his followers held of the military while he escaped. So does capturing him still sound like a viable option??????? No it doesn't and you can not pretend that it does. But I am happy to know that you value the rights of a terrorist over the life of the soldiers who defend you from him.

Who said he was a terrorist? the one who had him murder? Without any trial?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're nuts.

People like you are the reason we are losing rights.

What rights? I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors. The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence. The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles". I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist. I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think. Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.

Due process for one.

 

[Mr. President]

He said death to america and that he planned to kill americans. He said he was a terrorist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He said death to america and that he planned to kill americans. He said he was a terrorist.

Rev. Wright also said god damn America you remember him don't you? The pastor who obama sat and listen too for 20 years and also befriended.

 

[konradv]

People like you are the reason we are losing rights.

What rights? I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors. The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence. The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles". I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist. I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think. Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.

Due process for one.

If he surrenders, sure. But if he's on the battlefield, how is "due process" anything but an ideal that doesn't meet the reality of the situation?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What rights? I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors. The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence. The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles". I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist. I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think. Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.

Due process for one.

If he surrenders, sure. But if he's on the battlefield, how is "due process" anything but an ideal that doesn't meet the reality of the situation?

The battlefield? when did we declare war on Yemen?

 

[hortysir]

You do realize that Yemen is an AlQuada center of operations, right?