Jump to content
laktrash

terriorist denied due process ???

Recommended Posts

Some of the more "up to speed" on the news members will have help me with this. The USA has taken out a couple of al-qaida terriorist in Yeman and now because one was american born, some are saying they were denied "due process". Of course ACLU is already on it. How bad are things going to get. This is plain crazy. I'm sure most have seen this if not, you will so I'll spare everyone me trying to relay the details because there will be so many.

OH ! Oh! gotta go our fearless leader is live on the tube telling how he probably did it single handed

:D

That was a wasted trip I guess he wants to see how to play it for the election

Edited by laktrash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll play the part of the crazy liberal (libertarian), but I'm not comfortable with it, personally.

I mean, it's not like our government has a history of using things like this to gradually impinge upon our liberties, right? Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-Awlaki had renounced his country and had devoted himself to destroying it. He was responsible for helping plan terrorist acts that killed Americans. What kinda rights do you think he should have? Personally, I extend him none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only US citizens should have our rights. Else, all the chinese could vote for obama and all the eurpoeans could carry guns, right? Our citizens who happen to be hanging out in a terrorist cell in another country where they end up dead in the middle of a military operation.... gave up their rights already, or are possibly just casualties of the war. Either way, I lose no sleep over this. I am not terribly nice though, I am perfectly fine with making the whole middle east a sheet of glass and calling it a day, innocent and guilty alike -- they would do the same for me, if they had the technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the modifier to the US citizen objection is that his actions of moving to Yemen and plotting against the US citizenry is tantamount to renouncing his citizenship making him unprotected by the US Constitution and court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um.

The Constitution of the United States. Who here supports it?

The argument is the Government killed a U.S. citizen without due process (going through the court system) as required by the Constitution and the laws of the land.

However, this fellow had denounced his citizenship long ago. (Need proof of such - to denounce your citizenship, it takes a major and specific act, but he may have done so.)

The argument will then continue: The U.S. Constitution does not use the term citizen, but person. This is why we have due process (hearings and court proceedings) for illegal aliens, and the Shoe Bomber, and that Timothy fellow. The Constitution treats all equally. There is no exclusion in the U.S. Constitution for terrorists. Nor, should there be.

However, there is an answer to this: Terrorism is considered warfare. Considering he was responsible for attacks on U.S. soil and citizens, and was planning additional attacks, the defense of the people warranted the strike.

Do we have all the info? Of course not. But we do know his intent.

Edited by HvyMtl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al-Awlaki had renounced his country and had devoted himself to destroying it. He was responsible for helping plan terrorist acts that killed Americans. What kinda rights do you think he should have? Personally, I extend him none.

This! Say hi to Allah for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um.

The Constitution of the United States. Who here supports it?

The argument is the Government killed a U.S. citizen without due process (going through the court system) as required by the Constitution and the laws of the land.

However, this fellow had denounced his citizenship long ago. (Need proof of such - to denounce your citizenship, it takes a major and specific act, but he may have done so.)

The argument will then continue: The U.S. Constitution does not use the term citizen, but person. This is why we have due process (hearings and court proceedings) for illegal aliens, and the Shoe Bomber, and that Timothy fellow. The Constitution treats all equally. There is no exclusion in the U.S. Constitution for terrorists. Nor, should there be.

However, there is an answer to this: Terrorism is considered warfare. Considering he was responsible for attacks on U.S. soil and citizens, and was planning additional attacks, the defense of the people warranted the strike.

Do we have all the info? Of course not. But we do know his intent.

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Father's intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

The preamble to The U.S. Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Where does that say the Constitution applies to all people outside the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crimson - I am not sure if he legally was a "citizen" or not. To my knowledge one must submit the proper document to the U.S. government and I don't know if he did that. I said he denounced his country, not his citizenship. Again, to me irrelevant. And, I wonder if he would have wanted any of our rights. Apparently not, based on his actions. I truly believe in our constitution as much as you or anyone. However, in this case he was an enemy of my country and the action taken was justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't feel threatened because they killed this thug. I think the Fifth Ammendment is probably doing fine. They killed Dilliger without feeding him for 10 years too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SwJewellTN - I did not state I thought the argument was valid, merely that some have raised that argument.

In addition Rand Paul is now speaking out against it. As well as several GOP members. Isn't this the same GOP that argued not to give rights to those in Gitmo? (I exclude Rand Paul from the Gitmo comment.)

http://www.hulu.com/yahoo/http%3A%2F%2Ftv.yahoo.com/embed/RCufyLkjEU9GeNnrOOwBXw

Edited by HvyMtl
link messed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good link to see:*Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE

The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

[Abbreviated by poster]

5. performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

I believe the deceased person in question has earned expatriation (loss of citizenship) by figuratively chanting not only "Death to America", but by recruiting and indoctrinating folks with the express purpose of destroying this country. There it is, by the book - he isn't a US citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a good link to see:*Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality

I believe the deceased person in question has earned expatriation (loss of citizenship) by figuratively chanting not only "Death to America", but by recruiting and indoctrinating folks with the express purpose of destroying this country. There it is, by the book - he isn't a US citizen.

Actually, from what I've read today, it appears that the SCOTUS's opinion is that the only way to renounce citizenship is in person at a US Embassy.

My whole point is this:

Who told us he had renounced his citizenship? The government.

Who then 'legally' killed him? The government.

If no one else has a problem with this, then I guess I'm in the minority, but the 5A exists specifically to keep this sort of thing from happening - especially a 'hit', not on the battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not an American citizen. He was an active member of a paramilitary organization that declared war on the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, from what I've read today, it appears that the SCOTUS's opinion is that the only way to renounce citizenship is in person at a US Embassy.

My whole point is this:

Who told us he had renounced his citizenship? The government.

Who then 'legally' killed him? The government.

If no one else has a problem with this, then I guess I'm in the minority, but the 5A exists specifically to keep this sort of thing from happening - especially a 'hit', not on the battlefield.

The guy was at war with the US, not only the military, but civilians. I hope they shot him with some of your pig oil ;). I really think you're sweating a technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy was at war with the US, not only the military, but civilians.

So we've been told.

I hope they shot him with some of your pig oil ;).

Hehe

I really think you're sweating a technicality.

Well, as I said before, since our government has a history of always staying 'within the lines' and never abusing any sort of infringements on our liberty, I can see why everyone is OK with this.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is not an American citizen. He was an active member of a paramilitary organization that declared war on the United States.

Exactly.

And his escape would have led to more deaths. We would have killed Hitler if he had been born here. Being born here isn’t a free pass when you are killing people. Cops kill murders without a trial in our streets all the time; the military does that job overseas.

Thankfully our government doesn’t ban the military from killing fleeing forcible felons the way some states do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we've been told.

Hehe

Well, as I said before, since our government has a history of always staying 'within the lines' and never abusing any sort of infringements on our liberty, I can see why everyone is OK with this.

;)

Let's spin this just a little. Suppose we're still in the middle of the Iraq war, and this same guy is a division commander in Saddam"s army. Is it OK to send a missle up his ass then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines