terriorist denied due process ???

[daddyo]

If awlaki was in the US, would your opinion of the action change?

Still waiting for someone to answer this one.

[TMF]

If awlaki was in the US, would your opinion of the action change?

Yes it absolutely would.

[sigmtnman]

Yes it absolutely would.

I was under the impression that it was ok because of who he was, not were he was. If we have declared war against those people and not any one country. Help me to understand why it is different to do so in a country we are not at war with.

If yemen is harboring terrorist why do we not declare war and take care of it?

[daddyo]

Yes it absolutely would.

So, are you saying that if he had been in any country other than the U.S., it would have been OK to send a drone to take him out?

[TMF]

I was under the impression that it was ok because of who he was, not were he was. If we have declared war against those people and not any one country. Help me to understand why it is different to do so in a country we are not at war with.

If yemen is harboring terrorist why do we not declare war and take care of it?

As I said before, I believe the theory of him being killed because he was a combatant. I think where we're getting tripped up here is him being in two categories at the same time: 1. wanted criminal 2. enemy combatant. So, if he were in the US it is a law enforcement issue. If he were in a country that cooperated with our federal law enforcement then he could be detained. Since he was in a combat zone (Yemen is considered a combat zone) in an active paramilitary group he was a legit target of the armed forces.

Let me throw another scenario your way to help you understand what I'm saying: John Walker Lindh; let's say that he was never captured on the battlefield. Let's say he was able to continue to fight our forces for a few years in Afghanistan. Then he returns to the US on "leave" from the Taliban. He should be arrested for treason if federal law enforcement choose to pursue charges. Otherwise, if he goes back to fight for the Taliban and our military kills him in an airstrike, well he was killed as a combatant, not a wanted criminal.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Still waiting for someone to answer this one.

No my opinion would not change. However, let me say again. I think his Assassination was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Do I think he needed to go yes. The biggest issue I see is there is no documentation that states at what point does an American Citizen who leaves out country to join a radical terrorist organization lose his rights under the Constitution which he has vowed to attack and destroy.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

As I said before, I believe the theory of him being killed because he was a combatant. I think where we're getting tripped up here is him being in two categories at the same time: 1. wanted criminal 2. enemy combatant. So, if he were in the US it is a law enforcement issue. If he were in a country that cooperated with our federal law enforcement then he could be detained. Since he was in a combat zone (Yemen is considered a combat zone) in an active paramilitary group he was a legit target of the armed forces.

Let me throw another scenario your way to help you understand what I'm saying: John Walker Lindh; let's say that he was never captured on the battlefield. Let's say he was able to continue to fight our forces for a few years in Afghanistan. Then he returns to the US on "leave" from the Taliban. He should be arrested for treason if federal law enforcement choose to pursue charges. Otherwise, if he goes back to fight for the Taliban and our military kills him in an airstrike, well he was killed as a combatant, not a wanted criminal.

If he was killed in an airstrike to kill combatants that is one thing. If he was specifically targeted knowing that he was an American it then becomes the same scenario. Airstrikes against enemy forces does not require to positively identify the identities of them on the ground. However, there are missions that target specific personnel, like the American in Yemen.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

I was under the impression that it was ok because of who he was, not were he was. If we have declared war against those people and not any one country. Help me to understand why it is different to do so in a country we are not at war with.

If Yemen is harboring terrorist why do we not declare war and take care of it?

Because by that logic we would have to wage war against Saudi, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, and many other countries. It would be a world war that would not end well and our government knows it.

[sigmtnman]

No my opinion would not change. However, let me say again. I think his Assassination was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Do I think he needed to go yes. The biggest issue I see is there is no documentation that states at what point does an American Citizen who leaves out country to join a radical terrorist organization lose his rights under the Constitution which he has vowed to attack and destroy.

Did they collect the remains for positive identification? How can they be sure it was not a body double or perhaps another person that resembled him?

How can we rest assured that Alqaeda didn't set this all up with a double to rush him off and protect him. Won't be looking for him anymore if he is dead huh? Or will we read about his death again in a couple of years like other AlQaeda members?

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Did they collect the remains for positive identification? How can they be sure it was not a body double or perhaps another person that resembled him?

How can we rest assured that Alqaeda didn't set this all up with a double to rush him off and protect him. Won't be looking for him anymore if he is dead huh? Or will we read about his death again in a couple of years like other AlQaeda members?

What if he was an alien? What if you are a supporter of his? Dude You are a moron. You can what if anything to death. You are not making logical arguments at all. What are you trying to say. He wasn't a bad person? He isn't Dead? Possibly both? Deal with the fact that you don't know and you aren't meant to. Sorry you are not that important to be in that fight. If you that important enough you would have joined the military or ran for government office and tried to make a difference instead of being an internet tough guy.

[sigmtnman]

What if he was an alien? What if you are a supporter of his? Dude You are a moron. You can what if anything to death. You are not making logical arguments at all. What are you trying to say. He wasn't a bad person? He isn't Dead? Possibly both? Deal with the fact that you don't know and you aren't meant to. Sorry you are not that important to be in that fight. If you that important enough you would have joined the military or ran for government office and tried to make a difference instead of being an internet tough guy.

alrighty then.

I reckon I should just hope that the folks compiling the list have better control of their emotions.

Edited October 6, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Dude You are a moron."

That was intelligent.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You can "what if" all day long and get nowhere, too. If this kind of action is

justified, I'm worried about where it will lead us. What kind of "terrorist" will be next?

That Napolitano named "potential terrorists" to be returning veterans, right winged

extremists and I think certain people with bumper stickers on their cars. I guess

some don't get where this kind of action can lead with leadership bent on destroying

our country.

If you really want to let your liberty slip away incrementally, don't come bitching

after it's gone. We'll have other things to worry about, then.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If it is a decision between whether or not one is an American citizen, always

err on the side of the Constitution. Not on a whim by some low level executive

making a recommendation, without first consulting someone with the legal

experience.

I think someone made a calculated decision to take him out for purely political

reasons. Some think it is good for his poll numbers. I hope this backfires on him.

[daddyo]

What if he was an alien? What if you are a supporter of his? Dude You are a moron. You can what if anything to death. You are not making logical arguments at all. What are you trying to say. He wasn't a bad person? He isn't Dead? Possibly both? Deal with the fact that you don't know and you aren't meant to. Sorry you are not that important to be in that fight. If you that important enough you would have joined the military or ran for government office and tried to make a difference instead of being an internet tough guy.

Personal insults are completely uncalled for. That tells me that you have lost the argument.

[TMF]

I was under the impression that it was ok because of who he was, not were he was. If we have declared war against those people and not any one country. Help me to understand why it is different to do so in a country we are not at war with.

If yemen is harboring terrorist why do we not declare war and take care of it?

By that logic should we have let Osama Bin Laden live because we didn't declare war on Pakistan?? Now we're getting into the realm of geopolitics and why we do or don't do certain things to certain countries because it is not in our interest... just a lot easier to kill a few people than declare war on a whole country.

[TMF]

So, are you saying that if he had been in any country other than the U.S., it would have been OK to send a drone to take him out?

Yes. If the circumstances were the same, as in the organization was using that country as a base of operations to lauch attacks against the US. Just like we kill people in Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. The only reason we aren't launching drone strikes on Al Qaeda in countries like Germany is because of the politics involved. It would greatly strain our relationship with Germany if we started dropping bombs on their soil. Luckily the Germans are pretty cooperative with us in regards to going after terrorists in their own country. Now Yemen and Pakistan, well we don't care what they think so we're going to do what we do.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Did they collect the remains for positive identification? How can they be sure it was not a body double or perhaps another person that resembled him?

How can we rest assured that Alqaeda didn't set this all up with a double to rush him off and protect him. Won't be looking for him anymore if he is dead huh? Or will we read about his death again in a couple of years like other AlQaeda members?

Ok then what exactly do you disagree with in my statements that you feel a need to continue to sharpshoot without bringing a legitimate argument to the table. And don't what if we have a scenario it's what happened. All the other questions about ID'ing him the could have I don't know I'm not cleared to know that neither are you. So lets instead focus on what ever topic you would like to discuss. Because it sounds to me that we agree on a lot, but for some reason you want to argue.

[sigmtnman]

By that logic should we have let Osama Bin Laden live because we didn't declare war on Pakistan?? Now we're getting into the realm of geopolitics and why we do or don't do certain things to certain countries because it is not in our interest... just a lot easier to kill a few people than declare war on a whole country.

The difference would be that Osama Bin Laden was not a US Citizen. He is not afforded Due Process under the 5th amendment.

The idea of killing kill a US Citizen who is in another country, that we are not at war with is the problem.

Let's say he was bad and they had information. Why not do a rendition? I can't even find where the remains were positively identified. How can we be assured this was not a political stunt to boost ratings? The number of folks who are supporting the actions of a president they distrust and dislike, lends itself to this.

[sigmtnman]

Ok then what exactly do you disagree with in my statements that you feel a need to continue to sharpshoot without bringing a legitimate argument to the table. And don't what if we have a scenario it's what happened. All the other questions about ID'ing him the could have I don't know I'm not cleared to know that neither are you. So lets instead focus on what ever topic you would like to discuss. Because it sounds to me that we agree on a lot, but for some reason you want to argue.

The issue I have is supporting decisions that are all made in secrecy regarding issues of Constitionality. This is a threat to freedom and there is no reason to forgo freedom for safety.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Ok but on what level? All level's or those dealing with Americans?

[sigmtnman]

Ok but on what level? All level's or those dealing with Americans?

If I understand you question, US Citizens. The Constitution only applies to Citizens of the United States of America.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

The I revert to my former statement that their actions were not Legal under the constitution. And, if they want to possess the ability to change the constitution and create a clause where someone leaves the country and joins a terrorist organization (and they can prove that to a panel of elected officials) then that is something that would have to be written up and the elected officials who run this country and they should turn to the American people Whom they represent and ask us they should vote on it since the represent us and are nothing more then a vessel to represent their constituents.

[TMF]

Let's say he was bad and they had information. Why not do a rendition? I can't even find where the remains were positively identified. How can we be assured this was not a political stunt to boost ratings? The number of folks who are supporting the actions of a president they distrust and dislike, lends itself to this.

Well considering this administration tends to reveal state secrets to the public as if there is no reason to classify them at all, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next few weeks or month we are given the run down on it. As far as it being a political stunt; maybe, who knows? I don't have the answer for that, but I know that no matter who would be sitting in the Oval Office at the time of the attack is inconsequential to me. I understand that the President has very little to do in matters of turning information into intelligence and determining what to do with said intelligence.

For me it's not about blindly supporting actions of the President because I like the outcome. I really don't care who is in office unless they're screwing things up, which he is. Obama could show up on my doorstep tomorrow with a couple of gold bars and a line of Swedish bikini models to service me at my whim, but I would still think he's doing a crappy job as President. I just wouldn't say that in front of him 'cause I really like hot Swedish chicks.

[enfield]

"The controversy surrounding the attack centers on the idea that the U.S. owes its citizens -- wherever they happen to be -- the constitutional protections afforded to all U.S. citizens, to include rights of due process as well as the ability to have "a day in court." The problem, of course, is that such thinking is simply wrong.

For starters, American citizens have never been accorded such "rights" when they have taken up arms against their own country. The Supreme Court has reinforced this fact several times. Notably, in World War II it ruled that the U.S. citizenship of captured German spy/saboteurs was irrelevant when the citizen associates himself with the enemy power and operates as an enemy belligerent.

In essence, the Court used a walks-like-a-duck-and-quacks-like-a-duck analysis to conclude that U.S. citizens who operate as enemy combatants in wartime are, in fact, enemy combatants, and that the classification preempts any citizenship status.

More recently, the Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) added support to this conclusion, stating, "A citizen, no less than an alien, can be part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners and engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." In other words, independent of any "rights" Al-Awlaki and Khan may have claimed as U.S. citizens, when each joined a belligerent foreign military force -- al-Qa'ida -- and entered the battlefield as an enemy combatant against the U.S., they gave the U.S. the "right" to shoot back.

And we did. "

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: "The Patriot Post (Subscribe - PatriotPost.US )"