Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki

Well, from accounts I’ve read and seen on tv, it didn’t look like Bonnie and Clyde had much of a chance to draw their weapons. I think the Rangers didn’t want to give them much of a chance. Which was all right by me.

"Memo, shmemo."

Let me wade through your clever rejoinder to get to the meat of your post...

"A creative comparison indeed, however unrealistic."

Unrealistic? This administration was not in office for three months when they issued warnings about veterans as right wing extremists. Do you really think they'd have too much trouble making the leap to labeling us "terrorists"? Once that bridge has been crossed, the precedent has now been set for the executive branch to employ at their whimsy, but if you're comfortable in your naiveté, don't struggle too hard to comprehend what's been done here.

I just posted the statute and highlighted a few phrases. Nathanbedford makes good points. By posting the statute I wanted folks to think about whether US law even applies to this situation.

The first question we must ask ourselves is, “does the US criminal code apply to those engaged in hostilities with our country?”

Imagine US troops engaged in battle in North Africa, Italy, France or Germany in WWII. US troops engage the enemy and an American citizen by birth is killed who happened to be fighting on the side of the enemy. I think no tears are shed over his death. There are no legal problems, at least for me. It is on the battlefield.

But what is the battlefield in terrorism? What is war today, since war hasn’t been declared by the US since WWII?

The US code that I posted is dated. I think it dates to 1963. Congress did not invision Muslim anchor babies being born in the US, getting educated in the US and then waging terroism (war) against the US.

So there is a problem with US law and there is a problem in our nation waging war, if you want to call it that. We did not declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Gernada, Panama, Somolia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemin and numerous other places.

We also have not destroyed our enemy (not to worry about Gernada and Panama). We have not been victorious. In fact, we have spent billions, if not trillions, on nation building and we still face great threats.

The problem we have in American is a Congress not declaring war and a President not asking for war to be declared and winning it quickly and “cheaply”. I need not enumerate both Democrat and Republican Presidents that have failed this regard.

We have had a religious war declared upon us. We refuse to acknowledge this. Al-Aulaqi was part of that religious war, and the US government refused to follow the constitution (declare war) and make manners clear. US law has not been updated to handle these situations, but other laws have been imposed that limit American citizen’s liberties.

So here is the solution:
1.) Delcare war on radical Islam.
2.) Fix our immigration laws to eliminate anchor babies and immigration from hostile countries (all muslim nations).
3.) Kill our enemies, cheaply, without American loses.
4.) No nation building.
5.) Go on with life, with low debt, low taxes and maximum freedom and liberties.

WE aren't terrorists operating oversees, having renounced citizenship and declared war on the US. But other than the facts and law, your analogy makes sense.
Of course, if the administration were going after conservatives, the Constitution would already be non-effective.

"WE aren't terrorists..."

Did you read my link in #62? Didn't think so. I remember the morning in April 2009 when I woke up, turned on the radio only to discover that as a white, Christian, combat veteran with an NRA decal on my car, that I was as essentially on a 'watch list'.

"...operating oversees,..."

Do you mean 'overseas'? If we can clear that up, then I would have to question what you mean by, 'operating'. al-Awlaki was, as far as the evidence we've seen, only 'operating' in the sense that he was fueling religious agit-prop. If you've been paying attention, the left has been accusing those on the right of such since at least '95 when Clinton tried to implicate Limbaugh in the OKC bombing. Certainly there were many who cited him as 'inspiration,' or, 'spiritual adviser,' but can you name one 'operation' in which al-Awlaki actually participated? Kind of hard say he was 'operating' if you can't name an 'operation' he actually executed. Frankly, it would be just as easy to finger the author of the Turner Diaries for his role in OKC.

"...having renounced citizenship and declared war on the US."

When did he renounce his US Citizenship. Funny how you, as a defender of 'the facts and the law,' are curiously ignorant of the actual facts and the law regarding this aspect of the case. Renouncing one's citizenship generally requires a formal proceeding. Awlaki never renounced his, and the Just-Us Department went through legal contortions to justify targeting him. A US Representative introduced a resolution calling for the Stated Department of revoke his citizenship based on treasonous acts...which begs the question, if one is simply accused of treason, is that enough to revoke their citizenship and deny them a trial? If so, why have our legislators even bothered to make treasonous acts a crime if they never intended to try anybody for them?

Look...there's no doubt in my mind al-Awlaki is finally getting the dirt nap he deserves....but there's simply no way you can contend that he received the due process of law to which he was (begrudgingly in his case) entitled. It sets a very bad precedent, and without a major philosophical overhaul, one that will sooner or later, be used against other US citizens. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next week or next year. But if you aren't aware of the left's masterful use on incrementalism, than you haven't really been paying attention.

As were Sammy and Vicki Weaver.

"Second, I would insist that a prima facie showing be made to a judge, analogous to securing a warrant, setting forth the necessity for killing rather than apprehending etc. These things can be sent down and procedures worked out."

I think there's a very simple remedy already on the books. Treason is already a capital crime. If the evidence/intelligence is so compelling, securing a guilty verdict and death sentence in an in absentia trial would have tidied up 99.9% of any objections to how this was handled.

“Do you really think they’d have too much trouble making the leap to labeling us “terrorists”?”

Yes, I do think it would be too much trouble because for them to actually do that and get away with it, we would have to become complacent and compliant enough to just sit and watch them follow through on it. Any label they think they can place is meant for their own consumption, more or less. It’s not for ours so my view is that just because someone says it is so doesn’t make it so.

Now, voter fraud is to me what common sense and logic is to political correctness. If I make it part of my personal revolution to fight voter fraud in way that is legal and non-violent, the opposition may think of and refer to me and others with the same personal agenda in terms that they have defined but myself and others outright reject that because I know what their game is. We refuse to be defined by their terms and ‘conditions’ and we seek to control our destiny by by having control of our side of the language of any possible debate. Better yet, we maintain control of the language of the entire debate. I think it’s something I’ve come to know about by virtue of being a ‘serial listener’ of the EIB and El Rushbo.

Why just the other day, I was having a conversation over beers and Tiger baseball about a green energy-based (change)economy, global warming and Obamacare, etc...I was close enough in proximity to the bartender, a 20-something young lady who I know is German-Mexican. She overheard a good part of my disagreements with those issues but chose not to just get on with the business of doing her job. Instead, she came over to where we were sitting and said to me directly, “Don’t hate, participate!”...and she did it with a smile on her face. Yeah, she’s a doll, just beautiful. But she chose to alienate herself from someone who is usually a very good customer. In fact, she may not have even given it that much thought. Not all of the bartenders at this particular establishment (not a Hooters) roll the way “Erika” does but now I have to remember that in her case, a good customer must be a non-”H8R” as she has had it defined for her. She is among the vast minority of her co-workers and one day her politics will catch up with her and the sooner the better for everyone!

We’re not Islamic extremists who have not renounced our jihad.

Better stated, I should’ve said, “We are not the Islamic extremists who have not renounced their jihads.”.