Posted on 10/09/2011 9:48:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Then the 0bummer administration just played a pointless game of finding Constitutional authority in using a secret panel to determine the legality of killing him?
Well, his citizenship has been renounced now.
LOL
Sorry - I thought I was replying to another post on another thread.
Let's consider the case of Benedict Arnold.
After his plot failed, Arnold fled to British lines, was given the rank of Brigadier General and then led a British attack upon Virginia that captured Richmond.
Think of the ridiculous situation that "citizens can only be captured for trial" would result in:
Benedict Arnold is in camp. A local Virginia sniper knows a way to infiltrate close enough to the enemy camp to take a shot and kill Arnold. However, the sniper is told that he is not allowed to shoot at Arnold since Arnold cannot not be legally killed. However, the sniper can try to capture Arnold from within the enemy camp and bring him back for trial.
Arnold then stays in command of an enemy army that is waging war against Virginia.
Enemy combatants in command and control are legitimate targets of opportunity regardless of citizenship, past or present.
I was there too! lol
Sounds good, sounds reasonable.
Why did the 0bummer administration play games finding a way to Constitutionally justify killing him?
Cain lays claim to never have been a politician but he is learning fast to become an accomplished one.
As defined by? Well, we say so. The same people who knew he was a moderate a few years ago.
The proof? That's secret.
Trust us.
If what you say is true, there would be a public declaration of war by the US government. Where is it?
That reminds me; 0bama told La Raza that he wanted to punish his enemies. I wonder if it’s a secret who his enemies are and how he wants to punish them? Only the panel knows!
If al-Alwaliki wanted the protection afforded to him by the Constitution he should have turned himself in. Then he most certainly would been afforded due process.
They’re wrong. American citizens who take up arms against America in “aid and comfort” to our enemies can by act of congress (which exists for the WoT), be treated as enemy combatants.
A grand example of this is found in the trial of the Nazi saboteurs, six of which were eventually hanged.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
Even though only one could have claimed American citizenship, at the bottom of Supreme Court case are cited several examples of Confederate officers who were executed by order of *military tribunals* for espionage during the US Civil War, though the Union most definitely *did not* declare war against the Confederacy, in that war can only be declared by one nation against another nation, and the Union did not want to recognize the Confederacy as a nation.
Sounds good, sounds reasonable. Why did the 0bummer administration play games finding a way to Constitutionally justify killing him? ... TigersEye
Why do dogs love to roll around in road kill and eat other dog's cr@p?
A dog is a dog. Obama is Obama.
Ronald Reagan would have done it, said that the SOB was waging war and then pointed out that nobody was "arrested" at Gettysburg.
Benedict Arnold was never a U.S. citizen. The raid on Richmond took place in the winter of 1780-81, which was seven years before the U.S. constitution was ratified. He was a British subject and later a resident of Canada until the day he died.
I've got no love lost for this al-Awlaki guy, but if he was a U.S. citizen (I'm still not sure he was, in light of the fact that he attended college here in the U.S. on a student visa) then the manner of his demise should be disturbing to any self-proclaimed conservative on this site. I have yet to see anything in any media outlet that indicates exactly what rendered him a legitimate military target in a country that is not involved in a military campaign against the U.S.
Even aside from the lack of any due process in this case, what exactly were the charges against this guy?
IOWs 0bama did violate the Constitution.
My understanding is he publicly renounced his citizenship more than once. While that is not the same as formally renouncing it, it's good enough for me and the vast majority of Americans.
Any American who goes off and joins up with terrorists to plot, plan and encourage attacks on the US effectively makes them an enemy combatant open to US military attack. Sitting around trying to pick out the idiots that had/have US citizenship is to live in a world of theory and fantasy. The war on terror is just that, a war - not a police action.
Bears repeating. Just think, we could have an anchor baby get elected to POTUS someday.
Here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
The authorization for the use of force against those involved in the 9/11 attacks is a declaration of war in all but name. It satisfies the constitutional requirements of a declaration of war.
Thanks. I was just looking for a source because I hadn’t heard that before. But you’re right, according to statute only a formal revocation of citizenship is legally recognized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.