terriorist denied due process ???

[sigmtnman]

Judge Napolitano said last night on his show that we have been watching him for

three weeks, and then this happens. I wonder why we didn't try to capture him

and bring him to trial.

I also wonder when we started doing this, instead of trying and convicting this

terrorist/enemy combatant/whatever, like the administration wanted to do with

KSM. He was an American citizen, unless he officially renounced it.

My understanding is that he would have to renounce his citizenship in person at an embassy or in an open court.

[Guest GunTroll]

There are some really good comments in this thread. I'm glad to call some of you neighbors.

[E4 No More]

My understanding is that he would have to renounce his citizenship in person at an embassy or in an open court.

Does that make sense to you, really? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

[sigmtnman]

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

[mikegideon]

Revocation of US Citizenship: Blown up by Hellfire missle.

[sigmtnman]

Revocation of US Citizenship: Blown up by Hellfire missle.

Remember those words when they come for our guns.

Revocation of The Constitution: Blown up by scared citizens.

[mikegideon]

They ain't coming for our guns

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Don't kid yourself, Mike. They've been working

on it for years.

---

- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My understanding is that he would have to renounce his citizenship in person at an embassy or in an open court.

That's the way I understand it.

---

- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sigmtnman]

They ain't coming for our guns

My trust is in the Constitution. There is no reason for me to trust Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and the rest of their ilk.

[mikegideon]

Don't kid yourself, Mike. They've been working

on it for years.

---

- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And they haven't been very successful. You are talking about disarming MILLIONS of Americans. Most will be unwilling to cooperate. A significant percentage will probably fight. I also believe that a significant number of the enforcers (LEO/military) would refuse to carry out the orders. I just don't think it CAN be done.

[mikegideon]

My trust is in the Constitution. There is no reason for me to trust Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and the rest of their ilk.

I don't trust them either. Their power is limited.

[sigmtnman]

They don't shred the constitution in one fell swoop. It will be a death by a thousand cuts.

If the action was justified, there should be appropriate evidence and any support otherwise is an affront to the Constitution and everything our ancestors lived, fought and died for.

Fear drives our country now and it's getting the better of folks. Reminds me of a quote "Keep the skeer on'em". Logic goes out the window when we succumb to fear .

[TMF]

Once again, his citizenship doesn't matter. He wasn't killed because he was wanted by US Law Enforcement (FBI), he was killed because he was a combatant. I know that doesn't sit well with some of you here, but it is what it is. If I go to Afghanistan and start hanging around Al Qaeda bombmakers the CIA or Military will probably kill me and whether or not I'm a US citizen doesn't matter.

I brought up the point of the American fighting on the side of that Taliban who was shot by Afghan forces that were under the advisement of US troops. Based on what I'm reading here everyone should be outraged by that incident but no one has even addressed it.

So here's another scenario, remember Jane Fonda sitting on that AA gun in North Vietnam? Let's say that one of our B-52s had dropped a payload on that position and killed her. Would that be denying her due process? No it wouldn't. That's what happens in war. When you put yourself in a position to be a legitimate target of the US Military you can be killed. The equipment she was sitting on and the NVA Soldiers she was with were all targets. Her citizenship would have nothing to do with her becoming a stain on the Vietnamese landscape.

With Awlaki, he was with a bombmaker being targeted by CIA/US Military at the time of his death. It wouldn't matter if he was a wanted terrorist or a reporter with CNN. Constitutional Rights would have nothing to do with it.

Now, if the debate here is whether or not there should be some sort of legislation that addresses known US Citizens on the battlefield then I could understand dialouge on both sides. However, as of right now, the CIA/US Military/Executive Branch is justified in their actions. I'm all about playing devil's advocate, but his citizenship doesn't apply here in this situation. If we had dropped a hellfire on him while he was sitting in an apartment in Frankfurt then I would agree with everything some of you are saying.

[sigmtnman]

I don't trust them either. Their power is limited.

So was the ability to kill citizens without due process. How is that working out?

[mikegideon]

They don't shred the constitution in one fell swoop. It will be a death by a thousand cuts.

If the action was justified, there should be appropriate evidence and any support otherwise is an affront to the Constitution and everything our ancestors lived, fought and died for.

Fear drives our country now and it's getting the better of folks. Reminds me of a quote "Keep the skeer on'em". Logic goes out the window when we succumb to fear .

WE don't get to vote on every enemy that gets killed. They aren't obligated to share the intelligence.

A lot of that fear is coming out of your radio and TV. Change the channel, or better yet, just turn them off.

[sigmtnman]

Once again, his citizenship doesn't matter. He wasn't killed because he was wanted by US Law Enforcement (FBI), he was killed because he was a combatant. I know that doesn't sit well with some of you here, but it is what it is. If I go to Afghanistan and start hanging around Al Qaeda bombmakers the CIA or Military will probably kill me and whether or not I'm a US citizen doesn't matter.

I brought up the point of the American fighting on the side of that Taliban who was shot by Afghan forces that were under the advisement of US troops. Based on what I'm reading here everyone should be outraged by that incident but no one has even addressed it.

So here's another scenario, remember Jane Fonda sitting on that AA gun in North Vietnam? Let's say that one of our B-52s had dropped a payload on that position and killed her. Would that be denying her due process. No it wouldn't. That's what happens in war. When you put yourself in a position to be a legitimate target of the US Military you can be killed. The equipment she was sitting on and the NVA Soldiers she was with were all targets. Her citizenship would have nothing to do with her becoming a stain on the Vietnamese landscape.

With Awlaki, he was with a bombmaker being targeted by CIA/US Military at the time of his death. It wouldn't matter if he was a wanted terrorist or a reporter with CNN. Constitutional Rights would have nothing to do with it.

Now, if the debate here is whether or not there should be some sort of legislation that addresses known US Citizens on the battlefield then I could understand dialouge on both sides. However, as of right now, the CIA/US Military/Executive Branch is justified in their actions. I'm all about playing devil's advocate, but his citizenship doesn't apply here in this situation. If we had dropped a hellfire on him while he was sitting in an apartment in Frankfurt then I would agree with everything some of you are saying.

Citizenship does matter. If it was justified, there should be no problem satisfying the requirements as specified in the Constitution.

Why is the underwear bomber on trial?

When did we declare war on Yemen?

[mikegideon]

So was the ability to kill citizens without due process. How is that working out?

I don't have enough information to comment. Neither do you. Neither does the politician that whipped this issue into a frenzy, just to get his face on TV.

[sigmtnman]

WE don't get to vote on every enemy that gets killed. They aren't obligated to share the intelligence.

A lot of that fear is coming out of your radio and TV. Change the channel, or better yet, just turn them off.

Nowhere did I imply voting on anything.

I have no fear of terrorism as The Lord has fixed the time of my death.

Folks who are ready to throw out the Constitution for secret evidence, on the other hand, it would appear otherwise.

[mikegideon]

So here's another scenario, remember Jane Fonda sitting on that AA gun in North Vietnam? Let's say that one of our B-52s had dropped a payload on that position and killed her...

Now, you're talkin'!

[E4 No More]

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

Based on a Supreme Court ruling when? Before terrorism? Before the Internet? What would they rule now?

I guess I'm just not paranoid enough to think that this circumstance would be perverted to mean coming after my guns.

[sigmtnman]

Based on a Supreme Court ruling when? Before terrorism? Before the Internet? What would they rule now?

I guess I'm just not paranoid enough to think that this circumstance would be perverted to mean coming after my guns.

Since when is standing for the Constitution paranoia? The Constitution has no provision for renouncing Citizenship.

Not standing up for it means accepting infringements. At that point the document is as good as toilet paper.

There will be plenty of folks who will "feel" it is justified upon the next infringement.

Edited October 5, 2011 by sigmtnman

[mikegideon]

Since when is standing for the Constitution paranoia? The Constitution has no provision for renouncing Citizenship.

Not standing up for it means accepting infringements. At that point the document is as good as toilet paper.

There will be plenty of folks who will "feel" it is justified upon the next infringement.

Why don't we let the Constitutional LAWYERS hammer this out, and we'll just see who is right? This argument really is above our pay grade.

[sigmtnman]

Why don't we let the Constitutional LAWYERS hammer this out, and we'll just see who is right? This argument really is above our pay grade.

As Citizens of the United States it is our duty to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is a very simple document and is very easy to read and understand. This was purposeful.

Obama and Eric Holder are both lawyers. I trust both of them about as far as I can throw them.

[Guest GunTroll]

sigmtnman, your on fire guy!