Citizen or not, like BF said, once you cross that line and draw arms against the US you lose your rights.

 

You do? Bill Ayers and his gang did not.

If this is 'OK' I never want to here any more complaints about the Patriot Act or Gitmo.

 

That's easy.

 

However, what if it's not OK? What if you're against this but "OK" with the wiretapping of citizens all in the name of terrorism? How can one justify that line of rationale?

What? Wikipedia said it?

 

Come on. That's now our required evidence?

"As recent reports highlight, the U.S. government views al-Awlaki as a proven threat, and will take him dead or alive," Dent said in a written statement, referring to Obama's approval of the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. "Being a citizen of the United States of America is more than a right; it's a responsibility."

"By his own actions, al-Awlaki has voluntarily surrendered his citizenship, and we should take the necessary steps to acknowledge that," he said. "Further should al-Awlaki be captured, his rights should be limited to those of an alien held abroad in military detention."

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/21/congressman-wants-radical-clerics-citizenship-revoked/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZSlIWLIX

 

Make you feel better? :lol:

I'm rolling with RTS in this thread. Word up.

 

Cheers.

 

*raises beer*

:thumb: Cheers back at ya!

If this is 'OK' I never want to hear any more complaints about the Patriot Act or Gitmo.

 

 

You won't from me. I am a 'by any means necessary' kind of guy. Find the bad guys and eliminate them is what I say. Especially if the they are operating as a terrorist and are still legally a US citizen.

You won't from me. I am a 'by any means necessary' kind of guy. Find the bad guys and eliminate them is what I say. Especially if the they are operating as a terrorist and are still legally a US citizen.

I would have been fine if they would have lopped off his head and held it high for the world to see. Just how I feel, I make no apologies.

You do? Bill Ayers and his gang did not.

 

 

Guess they had better lawyers than Awlaki did by finding a way to stay off the US Assassination list. Maybe Awlaki should have recruited Ayers, huh?

I would have been fine if they would have lopped off his head and held it high for the world to see. Just how I feel, I make no apologies.

 

I feel the exact same way.

What are the rules for citizens who commit treason? Can they beat taken out immediately? I would consider this guy as treasonous.

What are the rules for citizens who commit treason? Can they beat taken out immediately? I would consider this guy as treasonous.

Fighting against your own nation in a war or assisting enemy combatants is treason. Had he been captured and convicted he would have gotten a jail sentence and a heavy fine or the death penalty. I'm betting on the death penalty in his case.

Fighting against your own nation in a war or assisting enemy combatants is treason. Had he been captured and convicted he would have gotten a jail sentence and a heavy fine or the death penalty. I'm betting on the death penalty in his case.

 

That was my thinking as well. I guess my question is can a treasonous citizen be killed without following the legal precedents? Does it matter where the person is located?

I agree it is a dangerous precedent. It also leads me to another question. Can we declare war on an idea? We call it the War on Terror. So basically anyone who is viewed as a terrorist is an enemy combatant? So, what defines whether a person is a terrorist, and thus an enemy combatant? How do you prosecute a war against terror? How far does it go? Is it just Islamic terrorists or anyone who is a terrorist?

 

Important, pertinent questions. While I don't think anyone has the answers, they certainly need to be considered and discussed.

 

This guy may indeed be 100% guilty. That's not the issue.

 

We are now lowering our standards of proof and rights in the name of terrorism.

 

That cannot be a good thing.

 

This was my point. This guy may be all kinds of evil, but if we allow the government to flout the constitution and legal processes simply because they said the guy was our enemy, well, that's not very far away from tyranny.

The points being debated here are valid, but not in reference to this case. When you have someone who has very publicly declared himself at war with the US, then there is nothing subjective about whether he is an enemy or should be a target.

Say what you want to about the Obama Administration(and I know some of you will...) but you cannot say that he was asleep at the wheel when it comes to the War on Terror.

 

It's funny you say this. Just last week my dad and I were having a conversation regarding this very thing. We both agreed the one area we agree with and think Obama has done a good job in is with the War on Terror.

 

So other than not bringing every troop home and allowing them to finish their jobs what role do you think President Obama has played in this or the death of Bin Laden????

^What are you asking?

 

He's pretty much continued President Bush's policies with regards to the war and I feel that's the right call. Not sure what you're trying to get at.