terriorist denied due process ???

[E4 No More]

Cognitive dissonance. Hardly any of us trust Obama or his admin with anything else, but we are ok with secret evidence against this citizen?

Have I missed the evidence to support Treason as defined in the Constitution? I'm not talking about "alleged ties" or "said ties".

I consider his numerous posts over the years calling for the killing of Americans reason enough to brand him a terrorist. One can argue how we would know that he was the one who made the posts: however, he had plenty of time to come forward and set the record straight. Still, if you don't want to be killed then don't mingle with terrorists.

[sigmtnman]

I consider his numerous posts over the years calling for the killing of Americans reason enough to brand him a terrorist. One can argue how we would know that he was the one who made the posts: however, he had plenty of time to come forward and set the record straight. Still, if you don't want to be killed then don't mingle with terrorists.

The constitution clearly states that there must be 2 witnesses to an overt act or an admission in open court.

Do you feel that the constitution can be overridden with regards to bearing arms?

[E4 No More]

The constitution clearly states that there must be 2 witnesses to an overt act or an admission in open court.

Do you feel that the constitution can be overridden with regards to bearing arms?

I think the Founding Fathers couldn't even imagine the concept of a terrorist back then and didn't plan for that. I bet it was hard to imagine one person killing hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians with muzzle-loaders and black powder.

[sigmtnman]

I think the Founding Fathers couldn't even imagine the concept of a terrorist back then and didn't plan for that. I bet it was hard to imagine one person killing hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians with muzzle-loaders and black powder.

And this is why we will eventually lose the right to bear arms. Is that not the same argument used by the anti-gunners regarding our weapons of today?

Edited October 4, 2011 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

For example:

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

Giffords represents a pragmatic, interest-balancing form of politics that’s out of fashion. But, in that spirit, we should be able to find a way to accommodate the strong desire in many parts of the country for easy access to firearms with sane regulation of the kinds of weapons that make it easiest for crazy people to create mass slaughter. Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible.

Doesn’t it seem like the least we can do?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html

[E4 No More]

And this is why we will eventually lose the right to bear arms. Is that not the same argument used by the anit-gunners regarding our weapons of today?

Did our rights erode because women were given the right to vote? What about other changes over the years...did they erode from those as well? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that you do not have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Did that erode our rights to free speech? Personally, I think judges seizing the power to throw you in jail under the guise of Contempt of Court charges for exercising your rights to free speech as a huge assault on our freedoms, but where's the public outrage over that?

Sorry, but he became a military target when he expoused killing innocent Americans, assisted the underwear bomber, and associated with known terrorists. The rights of one individual do not outweigh the rights of thousands of people to live.

Edited October 4, 2011 by SWJewellTN

[sigmtnman]

Did our rights erode because women were given the right to vote? What about other changes over the years...did they erode from those as well? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that you do not have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Did that erode our rights to free speech? Personally, I think judges seizing the power to throw you in jail for exercising your rights to free speech as a huge assault on our freedoms, but where's the public outrage over that?

Sorry, but he became a military target when he expoused killing innocent Americans, assisted the underwear bomber, and associated with known terrorists. The rights of one individual do not outweigh the rights of thousands of people to live.

So you feel your use of the same argument is more valid? I'm just trying to understand your point and the examples above really don't seem to apply.

Are saying that regulation of our modern firearms is legitimate and does not exemplify and erosion of our rights? Like it would be ok to do away with hi-cap mags since the founders used muskets?

Edited October 4, 2011 by sigmtnman

[Guest db99wj]

I've tried to keep up with this thread, but have forgotten some of the stuff that has been said. But we took him out with a drone. Those that are against this, would it change things for you if we were on the ground, going after him and shot and killed him?

As others have said, he is a terrorist, a combatant, an enemy to the United States, that has called for/planned death to all Americans. Or should I say WAS, which is a good thing. He was a threat, we eliminated that threat.

[sigmtnman]

How it happened is neither here nor there. It is the fact that Treason and how to deal with it is spelled out specifically in the Constitution. The same document that we revere and hold up as proof to our right to bear arms and protect ourselves.

There appears to be the belief that it is ok to pick and choose which portions are applicable.

[sigmtnman]

To be sparkling clear. I would provide a new rope, a tall tree and the horse from which to slap out from under his ass.

Once the conditions of Treason are proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, per the Constitution.

I don't trust those SOBs in Washington and frankly I am flabbergasted that so many people blindly do, especially when the consequences are so grave with regard to scope creep.

[Guest db99wj]

How it happened is neither here nor there. It is the fact that Treason and how to deal with it is spelled out specifically in the Constitution. The same document that we revere and hold up as proof to our right to bear arms and protect ourselves.

There appears to be the belief that it is ok to pick and choose which portions are applicable.

I understand what you are saying, that is very black and white, but the situation is not that clean. This guy would probably never be back on US soil, unless he is here to cause harm. If they would have sent ground forces to go get him, he would have done everything to kill our guys as well. This action limited other causalities, our guys and possibly civilians. He denounced the U.S., in my opinion he denounced the rights granted to him under the Constitution when he did that, and became an enemy. Right or wrong, that's the way I feel about him.

[sigmtnman]

I understand what you are saying, that is very black and white, but the situation is not that clean. This guy would probably never be back on US soil, unless he is here to cause harm. If they would have sent ground forces to go get him, he would have done everything to kill our guys as well. This action limited other causalities, our guys and possibly civilians. He denounced the U.S., in my opinion he denounced the rights granted to him under the Constitution when he did that, and became an enemy. Right or wrong, that's the way I feel about him.

This is not about him. It is about the Constitution. Emotions are making it about him and it will backfire.

[sigmtnman]

The same emotions will be used to do away with our rights and the precedent will have been set to do whatever is necessary for the protection from terrorists. Heck, only terrorists would need a gun anyway huh?

Make no mistake. Without meeting the requirements of the Constitution with regards to Treason, this is an impeachable offense. If they have the necessary satisfaction, why is it not presented? Without satisfying the requirements it is a worse offense than Watergate and Monicagate combined.

[E4 No More]

So you feel your use of the same argument is more valid? I'm just trying to understand your point and the examples above really don't seem to apply.

Are saying that regulation of our modern firearms is legitimate and does not exemplify and erosion of our rights? Like it would be ok to do away with hi-cap mags since the founders used muskets?

No, not at all. You owning a howitzer means nothing to me as long as you aren't trying to kill me or others with it.

I'm saying that people like to cite what the Founding Fathers have to say about a situation like this when the Founding Fathers couldn't comprehend a situation like this. I'm sure that if they were around today they'd be saying that we need to deal with this quickly and decisively. I would wager that they would have been more aggressive than Oblama.

We have fought many wars in this country and although I don't have statistics to prove it I'd be willing to go out on a limb and state that they weren't checking citizenship status on the battlefield. I'd would also assume that there's been plenty of Americans citizens killed on the German side of the line during WWII for instance.

[E4 No More]

To be sparkling clear. I would provide a new rope, a tall tree and the horse from which to slap out from under his ass.

Once the conditions of Treason are proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, per the Constitution.

I don't trust those SOBs in Washington and frankly I am flabbergasted that so many people blindly do, especially when the consequences are so grave with regard to scope creep.

And how many people would have to die before that happens? What about their rights?

[daddyo]

Wow, some folks' willingness to completely trash the Constitution is shocking.

[Guest nmil]

I'll be the first to high-five the drone operator and applaud this terrorist's death. That said, we're Americans. Part of what makes us Americans is that we have rights. And we extend those rights to everyone, friends and enemies. Removing people's rights because they're "terrorists" or "extremists" is a VERY slippery slope. Everyone has a right to a trial. Think Nuremberg.

Edited October 4, 2011 by nmil

[Guest db99wj]

Due to his status, is there anything in law, that is provable and that he falls under, that removes all the protections that we have under the Constitution? I think Obama is an idiot, but I doubt that they went after this guy without doing it within the law. Obama has too much at stake to do something like this.

[sigmtnman]

And how many people would have to die before that happens? What about their rights?

There were around 50,000 Americans that died fighting in the American Revolution.

I believe the Constitution is worth as many lives as it takes to uphold what they fought for.

[sigmtnman]

Due to his status, is there anything in law, that is provable and that he falls under, that removes all the protections that we have under the Constitution? I think Obama is an idiot, but I doubt that they went after this guy without doing it within the law. Obama has too much at stake to do something like this.

The media has everyone so emotional over it, that not enough people are questioning it. Those of us who do are being labeled as terrorist sympathizers or something.

How many folks died defending our Constitution and the American way of life? Why are we so quick to toss that out the window?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[DaveTN]

The media has everyone so emotional over it, that not enough people are questioning it. Those of us who do are being labeled as terrorist sympathizers or something.

How many folks died defending our Constitution and the American way of life? Why are we so quick to toss that out the window?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't see anyone here labeling you a terrorist sympathizer.

I just think you are wrong. I don’t think the president did this without checking with not only the AG, but his own legal counsel. I’m sure there is plenty written into the law that we don’t have access to.

The argument about extending the Constitution to a terrorist combatant operating in another county is certainly an argument; it won’t go anywhere (IMO) but it’s certainly a cause someone can take up if they see fit. Sounds like a good case for the ACLU.

[sigmtnman]

I don't see anyone here labeling you a terrorist sympathizer.

I just think you are wrong. I don’t think the president did this without checking with not only the AG, but his own legal counsel. I’m sure there is plenty written into the law that we don’t have access to.

The argument about extending the Constitution to a terrorist combatant operating in another county is certainly an argument; it won’t go anywhere (IMO) but it’s certainly a cause someone can take up if they see fit. Sounds like a good case for the ACLU.

He was a US citizen. Without satisfaction of the requirements per the Constitution this was an impeachable offense. What is written into law does not circumvent the Constitution. If it did, we would not have guns right now. What we think or feel does not matter. Proof beyond a shadow of the doubt is what does.

[mav]

I don't see anyone here labeling you a terrorist sympathizer.

No, just anti-government radicals who are susceptible to being indoctrinated by some right-wing militia or terrorist group, especially if they are younger.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

[sigmtnman]

...

I just think you are wrong. I don’t think the president did this without checking with not only the AG, but his own legal counsel. I’m sure there is plenty written into the law that we don’t have access to...

Also, would this be the same folks who ran Gunwalker and fast and furious?

Can you assure me that this is not just a testing of the waters?