Posted on 04/21/2013 5:24:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
He may have gotten by the negligent, incompetent misled DHS, the FBI, ICE, the lax immigration policies, etc, etc, and he may have been awarded citizenship, but that does not change the undeniable and obvious fact that he turned TRAITOR and joined the Islamic enemy in their continuing bloody attacks on America and innocent American citizens (and others). Yes, that is TREASON and the moment he joined in on this treasonous operation he became an enemy combatant!!
Read, study, understand and abide by the constitution!!
"If this be treason, make the most of it!" could take on new meaning for American Patriots.
“Any libertarians (big L or small) who come to this traitorous Islamic jihadist soldiers defense have joined the enemy within as far as Im concerned.”
What is your definition of “come to this ...Islamic jihadist...defense? What is your definition of “defense” in that statement? In other words, what would one have to do in your mind to be guilty of coming to this bomber’s defense? I’m asking for clarification because I do not know what you mean.
I personally don’t care what they call him or where they try him as long as his death is the end result. I have said they need to rip off his legs so he will know how that feels before he is killed.
Standing with the liberals to get him tried in a civilian court. The traitor (per the constitution) deserves to die a traitor’s death dangling at the end of a rope.
Just to be clear Penelopesire (Penny's father?), and not critical or in disagreement with your comment, the charge of Treason does not require war to have validity. The Constitution only specifies “Giving Aid and Comfort to their enemies.”
How many times has the native-born, and probably natural born too, US Citizen who managed the young Obama, Malcolm X’ friend, attorney for the Saudi Royal Family for over forty years as Khalid al-Mansour, co-founder of the Black Panthers when he was known as Don Warden, preached killing all infidels, starting with white women and their babies? Is he not an enemy? He has remained an “Officer of the Court”, as a member of the bar. Is he not “adhearing to our Enemies?” One of his wards was the young Barack. He is the architect of the Wahhabi penetration of our prison system. His former law partner, even though Alwaleed is not a lawyer, is Prince bin-Talal, who keeps title to most of the Mosques in the US, probably to insure that none of them go astray as Zudi Jasser apparently did. (Read about his remarkable career on frontpagemag.com, David Horowitz' site.)
Bill Ayers still preaches revolution but took the clever and roundabout approach of paving the path for Barry so that Barack could then bring in all the comrades living on the fringes. But the Muslim Brotherhood has been acting to overthrow our Constitution for years and replace it with Sharia. Barack is their ally, and perhaps even a solder of Allah. Giving them aid is sufficient, and the aid is flowing as freely as our treasury department is buying our own bonds - to Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Mali, training programs managed by the Muslim Brotherhood all over Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Kenya, Ethiopia, ... We are funding our openly declared enemies all over the world, and inviting them to come here. Our state department has opened the door to Afghan and Pakistani refugees to augment Dearbornistan and other growing Muslim strongholds, virtually all of whose Mosques are, as Erdogan explained, fortresses.
Let me water board the guy. The hole in his throat will make it easier!
That's the second time on this thread that I've seen you use the term, 'fellow travelers' to describe conservatives. I personally find that distasteful, if not offensive, as it's a term we on the right have called liberals and leftists for decades.
Fellow travelors? That’s a term we use for commies.
You believe liberals want him tried as a citizen of this country. You believe conservatives want him officially documented a traitor and tried as a traitor.
I don't see that distinction between these two groups. I don't feel pulled in either direction based on my being a conservative. I think it's a matter of law and I haven't researched that which requires study of both options to see which has precedence so I don't have an opinion. I tend not to have a knee jerk reaction to a situation so I'll do some study before I have an opinion but it won't be based on my being a conservative.
You feel strongly about this and want him hung as a traitor. I want his legs ripped off just before he is hung or however he is executed.
I don’t know where conservatives stand (other than myself) but the liberals definitely want him tried in a political, er, I mean, civilian court where the criminal Obama regime will have more control.
I saw a young woman who had to be dead. Both legs were ripped off where the legs would connect to her body. The strongest arterial blood being pumped is on the left side of the body and the strong pumping femoral artery is inside the left thigh. With both legs ripped off from the body, she would have bled to death in a few minutes. There was a medical person reaching to check the carotid artery pulse in her neck. There could not have been one. I saw one of her legs a good distance from her body and didn't see the other one at all.
I want this bomber's legs ripped off. I will never forget that woman's torso with no legs.
Agreed. But the Constitution itself specifically prescribes that such a traitor's death should come only after the traitor is convicted, and suggests that such a conviction should come in court:
Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.
I think a military court is constitutional and appropriate to try enemy combatants and traitors. I’m not suggesting he shouldn’t receive a fair trial before he’s hanged.
My statement was innocuous and not meant to offend anyone.
If you find a simple English phrase to be offensive when used in *any* context, then I’d submit that perhaps that is your problem, not mine.
NFP
It’s a simple English phrase and used specifically in the context of what I wrote. If that’s offensive to you then I’d submit that the problem is yours, not mine.
NFP
Jim,
Please tell me the name of the libertarian defending these terorists, so that I may disavow them...
And a bacon-wrapped cremation.
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.