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.

 

For the sake of being contradictory: Is the United States safer now that we have assassinated a citizen? What are we left to gain with a massive military presence in the Middle East?

 

Sure but it doesn't really change any thing, in regards to the fact that their ideal's still are the same.

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????

 

Well, let's start with the fact that he is Commander in Chief. He sets the vision for what the military should be doing and it seems to be having pretty good success. He focused attention and resources on the type of covert activity that is bringing great results. Do you think he should get behind the computer station and drive a drone in order to get some credit?

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.

Agreed!

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

 

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

 

obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

 

taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

 

entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

 

accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

 

formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

 

formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions)

(Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

 

conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

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.

 

I may be way off here, but I believe Habib's point is that when did we become a country that executed our own citizens? As horrible and inhumane and disgusting as his actions may be, shouldn't he have been afforded the same rights, if possible, as other mass murderers in our country? Shouldn't a capture and trial have been the objective to accomplish the American form of justice? :idunno:

 

We've kinda always done that, we just didn't have 7 different cable news outlet's reporting it.

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.

 

But it's okay for people like Timothy McVeigh to have a trial? Or other mass-murders?

 

The only difference between this guy and them is that he became a Muslim. So basically you're saying when you become a Muslim you stop being an American citizen?

 

Where was McVeigh apprehended and by whom?

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.

 

This is a reasonable question. Very reasonable.

 

Awlaki was an American citizen. Had he been killed in normal field operations acting as an enemy combatant directly against US military forces he would have been more than fair game. But that is not the case. He was specifically targeted for assassination. Not capture, not trial. He was given a death sentence without a trial, without a conviction - nothing in a US court. He was just labeled a terrorist and targeted.

 

Had the US revoked Awlaki's citizenship this may have been legal. Had the US held a trial and convicted Awlaki of terrorism and sentenced him to death this may have been legal.

 

But all they did was put a label on him and killed him with no formal due process what so ever - an American Citizen.

 

I am not saying Awlaki did not get what he deserves but the method and lack of process should make every US citizen shutter. This is a dangerous precedent.

 

Additional by MSM:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/

 

Yea right we should all be jealous, he has 40 virgins now. I know I'm ticked.....

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.

 

Can we put the Weather Underground members onto this list?

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.

 

I don't disagree.

 

I think the problem is that it potentially could open the door for those in power to stretch that authority beyond what we would view as acceptable. I'm not saying our current government would do or that I think they would, but does it set a precedent that someone in the future could point back to to justify a similar action against a less clear "enemy"?

 

Is there any gray area that could be exploited and abused later to justify an unacceptable action by the government?

 

That's sort of my thought process.

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.

 

I don't disagree.

 

I think the problem is that it potentially could open the door for those in power to stretch that authority beyond what we would view as acceptable. I'm not saying our current government would do or that I think they would, but does it set a precedent that someone in the future could point back to to justify a similar action against a less clear "enemy"?

 

Is there any gray area that could be exploited and abused later to justify an unacceptable action by the government?

 

That's sort of my thought process.

 

Sure and not killing him could deminish their authority and paint a bigger target of we're too French to do some thing about any thing. And yes I'm being about as offensive as I possibly can with this post because I think the whole topic is just dumb.

^You're confusing me. Why are you quoting PP92 in every single post?

^You're confusing me. Why are you quoting PP92 in every single post?

 

Ha I noticed that too, I swear it wasn't me, but apparently my computer at work has a thing for him. Watch your back PP92, my computer is Jones'n for you......

yeah and Obama is the one hunting them down and flying the planes and directing the drones. Our military, intelligence, and special ops deserve the credit. They do the dirty work and all Obama does is say yeah or nay, sometimes I doubt he knows all that does go on. But I am sure he will take all of the credit for it.

 

Good kill (if such a thing) of a guy who wanted to do nothing but harm America.

Even from you this is surprising.

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.

:thumb: :thumb:

My first thought I'm in the killing twice crowd, but the more I thin about it I'm not positive where I fall. I'm definitely going to have to think about this one longer.