October 29, 201213 yr Author More than likely, yes. But regardless, he still had a right to a trial and due process. How can you begin to argue against an American citizen having a right to a trial? It doesn't matter whether he loved or hated America. My point is, when we start to bomb at will and begin killing children and civilians, what makes us better than them? No its not. It is a government entity using unconstitutional force upon an american child - in this case, killing that child. The POTUS does not have the constitutional authority to do this. This thing we call due process was installed in our constitution to specifically stop this from happening. It doesn't matter. He is an American citizen - pure and simple. Therefore he is entitled to the same rights you and I share. You're missing that he was a 16 year old American citizen that was murdered with no proof of him being a terrorist. When we start killing kids and innocent civilians, once again, how can we expect them to not do the same? Aren't we better than that? It's my understanding that they bombed a terrorist haunt and the kid was caught up in it. You guys make it sound like the kid was targeted and that is not the case. And even more ironic....if the kid wasn't born in America we wouldn't be having this conversation.
October 29, 201213 yr It's my understanding that they bombed a terrorist haunt and the kid was caught up in it. You guys make it sound like the kid was targeted and that is not the case. And even more ironic....if the kid wasn't born in America we wouldn't be having this conversation. My point exactly, people are acting like he was a student at Henry Clay. He has been living with an around terrorist for the majority of his life. I don't think he is any different than a 16 year old Iranian.
October 29, 201213 yr My point exactly, people are acting like he was a student at Henry Clay. He has been living with an around terrorist for the majority of his life. I don't think he is any different than a 16 year old Iranian. So it's cool to kill 16 year olds as long as they're not American?
October 29, 201213 yr So it's cool to kill 16 year olds as long as they're not American? No it's not cool to kill anyone 16 or 66, American or not. But if he was hanging around with terrorist I don't care how old he is or where he was born, it's how it is in today's world.
October 29, 201213 yr No it's not cool to kill anyone 16 or 66, American or not. But if he was hanging around with terrorist I don't care how old he is or where he was born, it's how it is in today's world. I know what you're saying, I just don't think this is the best route to go down... Both morally and strategically.
October 29, 201213 yr So it's cool to kill 16 year olds as long as they're not American? When you start associating with terrorist cells you right then and there should lose you citizenship, IMO.
October 29, 201213 yr I know what you're saying, I just don't think this is the best route to go down... Both morally and strategically. Hey I understand 100%. I'm not saying it's the best thing to do I'm just saying the fact that he was born in America means little to me. If he was with terrorist then he was taking his life in his own hands. Like I said it's not cool and I'm not happy about it but I can't blame the president for it.
October 30, 201213 yr Not really. I thought it was interesting since it is well known Romney has Ky and seeing the coal issue and how it affects our state I thought it was interesting to see. I agree. Wasn't degrading the thread. I just wonder if it's always in the best interest of the company to make this type statement, knowing how KY votes.
October 30, 201213 yr When you start associating with terrorist cells you right then and there should lose you citizenship, IMO. Via some sort of due process that is public....not secret executive decree....would be fine with me. But the President and his personal 'kill-list' can not be the final word.
October 30, 201213 yr Author I agree. Wasn't degrading the thread. I just wonder if it's always in the best interest of the company to make this type statement, knowing how KY votes. No doubt. I was shocked they put it out there. I guess they have to but I am surprised they didn't lie. :lol:
October 30, 201213 yr Author Via some sort of due process that is public....not secret executive decree....would be fine with me. But the President and his personal 'kill-list' can not be the final word. But this was done in public. Too soon? Sorry, couldn't resist.
October 30, 201213 yr Does it really matter if the HL endorses Obama? I don't see why newspapers must endorse any candidate. To me, it shows a lack of journalistic objectivity.
October 30, 201213 yr Author I don't see why newspapers must endorse any candidate. To me, it shows a lack of journalistic objectivity. They are editorials/opinion pieces. Editorials are in every paper. I would love to know the process of a newspaper endorsing a candidate. I'm sure not everyone at the paper is voting Obama.
October 30, 201213 yr They are editorials/opinion pieces. Editorials are in every paper. I would love to know the process of a newspaper endorsing a candidate. I'm sure not everyone at the paper is voting Obama. Not in this case, LHL has a main page announcement stating their endorsement of Obama....not in the op ed. page. In a "minority opinion" section below the announcement they state that the owner and publisher endorses Romney, but did not want to exert his influence over the staff writers and editor who wish to endorse Obama.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.