Why do so many defend the enemies of America?

[ArmyCowboy]

aiding the enemy is pretty bad stuff But we should not be offing Americans without due process.

I agree with this.

However if an Ameircan decides to take up arms against the US and is killed on the battlefield or as collateral dameage....oh well.

 

[RosieS]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

Engaging in warlike acts and/or aiding and abetting the enemy is treason. Military justice applies in war and traitors don't get due process.

You go to war as a jihadist against your land of birth and you get a speedy one way ticket to Allah.

Nothing objectionable about it

Regards from Rosie

Again, the question is how do we define when someone is at war against the nation? What's the stop Obama from declaring someone like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck is at war against the nation with the shows they put on and send a drone to take them out? Who determines who is at war with us? Are they not given due process, even if they are on American soil? If so, why have we tried people for treason in the past if we don't have to and they aren't entitled to due process?

Article 3 of the Constitution gives Congress the check and balance authority. In the case of an enemy accused of treason the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have input as to who can be targeted.

Some military personnel have been tried for treason because the proof wasn,t certain and the evidence not clear cut so that the military court needed to make a determination.

In the case of al-Awlaki he had been deeply involved with two attacks on Americans here in America....one being successful : the Ft. Hood massacre.

Al-Awlaki's You Tube videos showed he had no intention of stopping attacks here in the US.. In fact he was recruiting more jihadists to step up the attacks. That proved he was clearly still an imminent threat and needed to be taken out.

Such must occur with rabid dogs.

If Beck or Limbaugh go on a terrorist rampage killing their fellow Americans and can't be captured without great danger to our law enforcement, then they too must be put down.

Regards from Rosie

 

[bucs90]

aiding the enemy is pretty bad stuff But we should not be offing Americans without due process.

Everyone needs to read "Tennessee vs Garner" the Fleeing Felon case. It basically is for cops who see a felon, who is running away, and allows cops to shoot them in the back. Why? If the facts known can justify that, if allowed to escape, the person would cause imminent threats to innocent lives.

So...an American citizen, who we believe is an imminent threat to human life, who is fleeing to Afghanistan...when we find him, can we then kill him? He isnt surrendering.

Now, "imminent" is tricky. If it were Osama Bin Laden, caught on Main Street, USA, and running away, then YES, a cop could shoot him in the back. Someone that evil can be justified to be a certain threat to human life if allowed to escape.

This is the same logic the drones are for. People that are so bad, and fleeing and hiding from us, that if allowed to remain at-large, would cause absolute danger to human life. Its tricky to guess what a person MIGHT to in the future. But...if Osama Bin Laden was found in, say, Chicago, and cops let him run away and they could have shot him but instead didnt and let him escape, would that be ok?

 

[Mad Scientist]

The DOJ that says the President can kill US citizens overseas is the same DOJ that conducted Fast And Furious.

No one else see's a problem with that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

We only know they turned against the country because the government and the government media told us so.

That is right and everyone of us who do not worship every move those who "govern" make need to be concerned with Obama's unholy decree. Good news for probably 98% of the progressive libs on site is that they do not have to worry for nearly four more years.

Immie

I'd be very concerned with any president that has this much power as obama does.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The DOJ that says the President can kill US citizens overseas is the same DOJ that conducted Fast And Furious.

No one else see's a problem with that?

only a handful of people see the problem.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

aiding the enemy is pretty bad stuff But we should not be offing Americans without due process.

So you would limit the military to arresting the people who are shooting at them instead of killing them?

 

[OKTexas]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

Are you familiar with the term, "slippery slope?"

Yep, that's why I've told my congressmen there needs to be a court similar to ones the use to get secret warrants to oversee the program. But I have no problem with what they've done so far absent that.

 

[OKTexas]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

We only know they turned against the country because the government and the government media told us so.

Your wrong on that, his recruiting propaganda and speeches are on the net for anyone to see. They just arrested 4 of his recruits in CA recently.

 

[Esmeralda]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

I agree. If you choose to join with a group or country that is actively, phyically fighting against the US, you give up your rights as a citizen. Not getting rid of them just puts more Americans at risk. If this whole thing is directed at Al-Awlaki or someone like him, whose activities are creating a direct threat to Americans, then yes, we should have the right to take him out any way possible with the least danger to American military or police.

 

[Esmeralda]

If you leave this country and join forces with our enemy you have given up your rights as an American as far as I'm concerned.You are a traitor and you need to be eliminated.

Dont know that I disagree. My issue is do you give the President, whether Democrat or Republican, the power to determine if you are a traitor and the power to eliminate you without due process.

If you have left the country and joined forces with the enemy, there is no reason for our soldiers to put themselves at risk to capture someone and then given them 'due process.' They should be treated like any other enemy and be killed in battle like any other enemy.

 

[Obamanation]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

 

[Esmeralda]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

Torturing prisoners of war is against the Geneva Convention. It is that simple. Has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. Your president chose to break the Geneva Convention. That was the problem.

 

[there4eyeM]

Joining a foreign military without specific permission from the government is one of the very few ways one can lose US citizenship. Loosely speaking, a 'jihadist' organization is by definition an enemy of the US, though perhaps not a classic military organization and not representing a country. However, the case could be argued that such a person has indeed lost citizen's rights by going beyond the pale.

Arbitrarily deciding someone is an enemy and a threat, however, is much different and difficult to justify.

 

[there4eyeM]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

Torturing prisoners of war is against the Geneva Convention. It is that simple. Has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. Your president chose to break the Geneva Convention. That was the problem.

You have no 'thanks' button, so "Thanks!"

 

[Obamanation]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

Torturing prisoners of war is against the Geneva Convention. It is that simple. Has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. Your president chose to break the Geneva Convention. That was the problem.

So you are going to attempt to justify the hypocracy? lol

 

[S.J.]

Bad idea. Somebody mentioned "slippery slope". This president is preoccupied with killing Americans. His record of lying about his intentions is well-known. How long will it be before the term "terrorist" applies to common criminals within our borders? From there, where will it go? Eventually, it won't be drone strikes, it'll be federal agents with Uzi's and shotguns having the right to kill at their discrimination anyone "suspected" of being a terrorist. Obama has a habit of being ambiguous with his definitions. Let's stick with the Constitution.

 

[Obamanation]

I don't really have a problem with the policy at all. Where my concern lies is the hypocracy. Why is it OK (according to the left) to KILL people with drones, but pour a little water on their face while interrogating them and you are a bad person...

It's just more of the same from the left. Obama can do whatever he likes and they support it while ALL conservatives are evil.

Torturing prisoners of war is against the Geneva Convention. It is that simple. Has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. Your president chose to break the Geneva Convention. That was the problem.

...and also non uniformed combatants do NOT qualify for fair treatment of prisoners under the geneva convention...

So, not only have you attempted to qualify the hypocracy, you have done it with false facts. I think the term for that is 'rationalizing'.

Typical left - seldom rational, but ALWAYS rationalizing!

 

[Billo_Really]

Joining a foreign military without specific permission from the government is one of the very few ways one can lose US citizenship. Loosely speaking, a 'jihadist' organization is by definition an enemy of the US, though perhaps not a classic military organization and not representing a country. However, the case could be argued that such a person has indeed lost citizen's rights by going beyond the pale.

What about the "jihadists" we fund and provide material support to? Are they our enemies, as they fight our proxy wars? Al Qaeda was our "enemy" in Afghanistan, but now our "ally" in Syria. No American citizen should have to lose anything, without due process of law. That's one of the founding principles this country was based on. I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional right, to fight this bullshit war on terror.

Does anyone stop to realize that our illegal and immoral foreign policy is creating terrorists? When you make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations and bomb those country's back to the stone age, you radicalize normal, law-abiding citizens of that country, who decide to take up arms against the US.

Arbitrarily deciding someone is an enemy and a threat, however, is much different and difficult to justify.

Unfortunately, they don't have to justify it. Anyone can be legally plucked off the street and indefinately detained for the rest of their lives, without charges. All that is required, is that the President or Sec of Defense, designate them an "un-privaleged enemy combatant" and your history!

You can thank the Patriot Act, Military Commission's Act and the NDAA, for making the Bill of Rights, null and void.

 

[Saigon]

I'm not sure why drones are relevent to this discussion.

Doubltess at some stage during WWII a British soldier fought with the Germans and visa versa - in doing so they would have been subject to the same artillery fire an bombings the enemy soldiers were. If any of us choose to go to Aghanistan and hang out with the Taliban, we are putting ourselves in a combat zone and should be prepared to take responsibility for that.

I don't think this debate can be applied to anywhere but a combat zone, though, hence it can't occur within the US.