Alwaki was a muzzi first and always.He just happened to have US citizenship.I dont trust any of them.
Seriously, if you are going to the ACLU to back up your position, you should re-examine your premises.
On the battlefield, bullets and bombs are all the due process that terrorists are entitled to — even if they are American citizens.
Al-Awlaki publicly renounced his US citizenship and was plotting terror attacks against America in the mountains of Yemen. Sending in police to arrest and mirandize him would have been stupid and dangerous. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Killing him was the absolute correct thing to do and the goofy Ron Paul/libertarian types arguing otherwise are living in a world of theory and fantasy.
There is no way I’d trust the defense of this nation to anyone who didn’t understand the necessity of taking Al-Awlaki out.
"Aggressive overreach" is certainly an apt metaphor for the Ubama administration.
The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are not a suicide pact. When an American citizen takes up arms against his own country or encourages violence against the same then the privilege ends.
======================
Cain, May 5, 2011, Regarding the killing of al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki
"He should be charged. And since he's an American citizen, he should be tried in our courts," Cain said of al-Awlaki. When asked if he considered it legal for President Obama to order al-Awlaki killed, Cain said, "In his case, no, because he's an American citizen. If he's an American citizen, which is the big difference, then he should be charged, and he should be arrested and brought to justice."
======================
Cain, October, 2011, Regarding the killing of al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki
"Asked why he had backed off his opposition to the U.S. military's targeting Anwar Awlaki, the al Qaeda terrorist and American citizen who was killed Friday by a drone strike in Yemen, Cain denied that he had ever opposed taking out Awlaki. “I never said that [President Obama] should not have ordered [the killing]. I don’t recall saying that. I think you’ve got some misinformation," Cain said. "Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there trying to make me sound as if I am indecisive."
Mr. Alwaki was functioning as an officer, commander, and propagandist for Al Queda, an organization in a state of war with the United States. By doing so he becomes a legitimate military target.
Had he been captured, he could have been tried, convicted, and executed by the civil court system. However, while at large he is a functioning enemy of the United States and was treated as such.
You either uphold and defend the entire Constitution or you don’t. I hate terrorists as much as the next guy, but suggesting that it is okay to kill Americans without due process is a violation of the Constitution, and unless this guy was actually in the physical act of waging war against the U.S. when he was killed, It’s my opinion that his rights as an American to due process were violated. Are you okay with that? Be careful, because it might be you you who is on someone’s secret government hit list the next go round.
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.
Up until the Warren court ended the practice this traitor’s citizenship would have been revoked - because of his stated aims - then we’d have killed him. Either way, he needed to be turned into a grease spot.
Well you know, if this guy had walked into a American office somewhere and said, “I want to surrender” then maybe all this trial stuff would be all right. But if he was hanging out with a bunch of terrorist murderers who are killing civilians and our soldiers, then that sorry rascal just got what he had coming to him and I am not going to lose one minute’s sleep worrying about him. He laid down with terrorists and he woke up with BOMBS!!! What is wrong with that??? Good riddance!!!
My goodness, in Texas people used to get “Wanted:Dead or Alive!!!” thingies put up about them. Plus, like we say, “Your Honor, he needed killin’”
So There!!!
Somebody please explain what the difference is between this and the Civil War? Somebody takes up arms against the US shouldn’t expect full civil rights. I don’t recall death warrants being issued for individual confederate soldiers st Antietam.
Taking up arms against the USA automatically revokes citizenship.
Hence, he wasn’t a citizen when targeted and killed.
That presumes the activities performed by Al Queda are crimes and not acts of war. Did we owe Yamamoto a trial? The killing of the fink was a continuation of an act of war, and not a consequence of a criminal activity over which we have jurisdiction. That is unless you buy the Democrat argument of criminality and wish to try them where?
We need an amendment, or favorable Supreme Court interpration disallowing citizenship for the children born in the US to foreign national parents.