From the US Code,18 USC § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
From Art. 3, section 3 of the US Constitution:
"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 dead "American" terrorists most certainly have levied war against the US and adhered to our enemies, and are according to the US Code "guilty of treason and shall suffer death".
They probably couldn't meet the two-witness standard put forth in the Constitution, but IMHO, that doesn't change the fact that they were actively engaged in treasonous activity, and it doesn't require that they be brought to trial. They are enemy combatants.
It really sticks in my craw to hear these maggots described as "Americans", because as far as I'm concerned that's an honor they forfeited when they signed up for Al Qaeda. They should have been brought to justice, whether that's a military trial or a smoking hole in the desert. Kill them all. Death to traitors.
I know its a bit off subject, but wouldn't supplying arms to Al Queda, and then refusing to offer aid to a American Diplomat to cover the operation make a certain Kenyan Presidente incapable of holding the office?
Only Obama could make or not make the call to help the Diplomat, and it is pretty certain that the operation was to supply arms to Al Queda.
From Art. 3, section 3 of the US Constitution:
"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."
Is this why Hillery fall down and go boom, and so many Generals are being sacked? Is this why the big gun push, to raise a smoke screen?
If you can kill an American without Due Process, what about prosecuting them WITH Due Process!
Interesting; by citing this you are rejecting the notion that a normal legislative act cannot alter the constitution.* You see, Treason is explicitly defined in the constitution, the US Code is just [normal] legislation enacted by the congress.
You see the two definitions are quite similar, but not identical:
| US Code | Constitution |
|---|---|
| Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason[...] | Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. |
Also it must be asked if "United States" is the same thing in both definitions; moreover, is citizenship in one of the several states in the union, or having a federally issued ID, or perhaps social-security the same thing as owing allegiance. If it is the two have radically different meanings: the Constitution not prohibiting the violent overthrow of the federal government (which, according to the Declaration of Independence must be a right, for it is by the authority of the people that this government was founded), but the US Code rejecting such motions as 'treason'.
* -- In MARBURY v. MADISON, the supreme court said:
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.