# Treason and the Constitution



## bigrebnc1775

When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
Art. 3 Section 3 states

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


----------



## Intense

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



You expect too much from the Trained Seals BigReb.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Intense said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You expect too much from the Trained Seals BigReb.
Click to expand...


We can always hope.


----------



## Dragon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process,



True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?


----------



## kyzr

If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?  The Department of Jihad has all the time in the world to get the paperwork done on US citizens in terror training camps, so why isn't it happening?  Hint:  why isn't the ICC or Holder filing wrongful death charges??


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dragon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated


----------



## bigrebnc1775

kyzr said:


> If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?  The Department of Jihad has all the time in the world to get the paperwork done on US citizens in terror training camps, so why isn't it happening?  Hint:  why isn't the ICC or Holder filing wrongful death charges??



So we just trash the Constitution? Who gave you or anyone else that authority?


----------



## kyzr

bigrebnc1775 said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?  The Department of Jihad has all the time in the world to get the paperwork done on US citizens in terror training camps, so why isn't it happening?  Hint:  why isn't the ICC or Holder filing wrongful death charges??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we just trash the Constitution? Who gave you or anyone else that authority?
Click to expand...


You missed my point.  If the Bush admin did something like this there was a major uproar from many constituencies demanding action/justice, but since this is the BO admin, not a peep from anyone.  I smell a double-standard and its time to get consistent or STFU.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

kyzr said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?  The Department of Jihad has all the time in the world to get the paperwork done on US citizens in terror training camps, so why isn't it happening?  Hint:  why isn't the ICC or Holder filing wrongful death charges??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we just trash the Constitution? Who gave you or anyone else that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed my point.  If the Bush admin did something like this there was a major uproar from many constituencies demanding action/justice, but since this is the BO admin, not a peep from anyone.  I smell a double-standard and its time to get consistent or STFU.
Click to expand...


No I didn't miss your point


> If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?


That was your point wasn't it? We are a nation of laws regardless of what a person may have done.


----------



## Laddie

I am not for drone attacks on person inside or outside the US Borders.  Is your post about the National Defense Authorization Bill----voted today in the Senate?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Laddie said:


> I am not for drone attacks on person inside or outside the US Borders.  Is your post about the National Defense Authorization Bill----voted today in the Senate?



It's about any attempt on a U.S. citizen life without due process and Constitutional restraints being used.


----------



## occupied

Be sure and write the republican candidates and urge them to really push their outrage over killing a terrorist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

occupied said:


> Be sure and write the republican candidates and urge them to really push their outrage over killing a terrorist.



A person is only a terrorist until it starts attacking your group such as the OWS protesters.


----------



## occupied

bigrebnc1775 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure and write the republican candidates and urge them to really push their outrage over killing a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person is only a terrorist until it starts attacking your group such as the OWS protesters.
Click to expand...


A terrorist is a person engaged in plots to kill innocent civilians or assisting them and I just cannot bring myself to think it is a bad thing when they get blown into bits. 

Do you hate Obama so much that you take the side of filth like that just because of who brought him down? Perhaps you would have asked him to give himself up or at least travel to a civilized country with an extradition treaty? Jesus you people pick some crappy things to get upset about.


----------



## Katzndogz

Bush did it correctly.  He had Adam Gadhan tried in absentia for treason, convicted, stripped of his citizenship and then put on the hit list.  

That's the way to do it.  This giving the president the ability to appoint Americans as enemies isn't good enough, not even in the case of Al Awalaki.  There was plenty of evidence to try him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

occupied said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure and write the republican candidates and urge them to really push their outrage over killing a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person is only a terrorist until it starts attacking your group such as the OWS protesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A terrorist is a person engaged in plots to kill innocent civilians or assisting them and I just cannot bring myself to think it is a bad thing when they get blown into bits.
> 
> Do you hate Obama so much that you take the side of filth like that just because of who brought him down? Perhaps you would have asked him to give himself up or at least travel to a civilized country with an extradition treaty? Jesus you people pick some crappy things to get upset about.
Click to expand...


I hate obama because he will not obey the Constitution, you remember that document? The one he swore to protect. We are a country of laws we have a Constitution is it to much to ask that our elected officials follow it? We are at the thrash hold that  will not allow protest even those OWS protest.

oh well then obama is a terrorist because he gave aid to our enemy in Libya.


----------



## rightwinger

I think reb has a point here

republicans should bring Obama up on treason charges for killing a terrorist.


----------



## occupied

rightwinger said:


> I think reb has a point here
> 
> republicans should bring Obama up on treason charges for killing a terrorist.



Yes let's talk about this a lot and provide numerous links to information.


----------



## hortysir

bigrebnc1775 said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?  The Department of Jihad has all the time in the world to get the paperwork done on US citizens in terror training camps, so why isn't it happening?  Hint:  why isn't the ICC or Holder filing wrongful death charges??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we just trash the Constitution? Who gave you or anyone else that authority?
Click to expand...


Clear and present danger


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> I think reb has a point here
> 
> republicans should bring Obama up on treason charges for killing a terrorist.



So we trash the Constitution? Let's start with the first? Let's end all elections lets do it right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hortysir said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone takes up arms against the US they are fair game.  What's wrong with that?  The Department of Jihad has all the time in the world to get the paperwork done on US citizens in terror training camps, so why isn't it happening?  Hint:  why isn't the ICC or Holder filing wrongful death charges??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we just trash the Constitution? Who gave you or anyone else that authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clear and present danger
Click to expand...


People don't realize it because it will never happen to them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

occupied said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think reb has a point here
> 
> republicans should bring Obama up on treason charges for killing a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's talk about this a lot and provide numerous links to information.
Click to expand...


Links won't help save your ass when you've been deemed a terrorist but hell you don't care about the Constitutional process.


----------



## occupied

Imagine you are president.
A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
We have him in the crosshairs 
but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.

What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.


----------



## hortysir

occupied said:


> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.



Exactly


Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think reb has a point here
> 
> republicans should bring Obama up on treason charges for killing a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we trash the Constitution? Let's start with the first? Let's end all elections lets do it right.
Click to expand...


I say go for it...

Contact your representative and explain to him why he needs to file charges

Tell us what he says


----------



## midcan5

Draft dodgers George and Dick illegally invaded a sovereign nation and you are crying for a terrorist? Bush and Cheney killed thousands and you cry over a terrorist? You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president.


----------



## Intense

bigrebnc1775 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person is only a terrorist until it starts attacking your group such as the OWS protesters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A terrorist is a person engaged in plots to kill innocent civilians or assisting them and I just cannot bring myself to think it is a bad thing when they get blown into bits.
> 
> Do you hate Obama so much that you take the side of filth like that just because of who brought him down? Perhaps you would have asked him to give himself up or at least travel to a civilized country with an extradition treaty? Jesus you people pick some crappy things to get upset about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate obama because he will not obey the Constitution, you remember that document? The one he swore to protect. We are a country of laws we have a Constitution is it to much to ask that our elected officials follow it? We are at the thrash hold that  will not allow protest even those OWS protest.
> 
> oh well then obama is a terrorist because he gave aid to our enemy in Libya.
Click to expand...


I don't hate Obama. I just see him as clueless and void of Principle. Either We are a Nation of Laws or We are not. In All Powers there needs to be Accountability and due process. Without it, we are our own worst enemy.


----------



## Intense

occupied said:


> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.


Other than on the Battle Field or to prevent Imminent Attack, 
You Apprehend the Perpetrator. Why do you have such a problem with that?


----------



## Sallow

Dragon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?
Click to expand...


This is treason.



> Section 3 - Treason Note
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.



The new conservative hero, Anwar Al-Awlaki, vowed to attack America.

Now he's dead.


----------



## occupied

I think Obama hate has everything to do with this "controversy". Personally I have never had a problem with any terrorist killed anywhere under any circumstances and neither did most conservatives until just recently. The only difference here is the guy that said go. Let it go because you all look like terrible hypocrites in the war on terror. Remember that big patriotic war against Al Qaeda republicans uniformly demanded 10 years ago? It seems to be making progress, quit yer bitching.


----------



## hortysir

midcan5 said:


> Draft dodgers George and Dick illegally invaded a sovereign nation and you are crying for a terrorist? Bush and Cheney killed thousands and you cry over a terrorist? *You people* are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president.



Why is that plural?


----------



## Intense

midcan5 said:


> Draft dodgers George and Dick illegally invaded a sovereign nation and you are crying for a terrorist? Bush and Cheney killed thousands and you cry over a terrorist? You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president.



How about you clean your Riffle Barrel, Reload, and shoot for consistency. Step back, take a breath, and rethink your position. This is not about condemnation. This is about raising a flag of concern, regardless of which Party is in Charge. Either we have Established Rules of Engagement or we are Lawless. All Power needs to be balanced and checked. No President should have the Power to target who, where, and when, without some kind of input from Congressional Committee, and the Court. Arbitrary Decision Making here, with no Justification or Litmus Test, or Consent, is Extra Constitutional. There is no lawful authority to do this. You crack me up, really, bitching about water boarding, and sanctioning Murder, in some cases where the charges are disputable, in some cases, Collateral Damage, not to mention flying in Air Space we were not invited into. It in itself is a Public Relations Nightmare. We are losing Moral High Ground.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated.



True. But thats not treason. 

Ideally the Court would enjoin the president from extra-judicial executions, but that wont happen per _Dellums v. Bush_, where the courts refuse to get in the middle of conflicts between the Legislative and Executive. And Congress has only itself to blame, opening the door with the WPA, an act of supreme political cowardice. 



> oh well then obama is a terrorist because he gave aid to our enemy in Libya.



Nonsense. 

The issue is the Imperial Presidency and its unilateral use of military force since Truman  its become a dangerous and tragic precedent. 



> Clear and present danger



Clear and present danger is a First Amendment doctrine used to determine when the government may preempt free speech, it has nothing to do with authorizing the president to act extra-judicially. See: _Brandenburg v. Ohio_ (1969). 



> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.



The courageous thing to do would be to obey the Constitution and the rule of law.


----------



## occupied

The courageous thing to do would be to obey the Constitution and the rule of law.

=====

That would be the safe thing to do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

occupied said:


> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.



Again you want to trash the constitution? There is no gray area here. Once we start allowing one man to pick who is a terrorist there is no turning back. It's either we follow the Constitution or we don't


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But thats not treason.
> 
> Ideally the Court would enjoin the president from extra-judicial executions, but that wont happen per _Dellums v. Bush_, where the courts refuse to get in the middle of conflicts between the Legislative and Executive. And Congress has only itself to blame, opening the door with the WPA, an act of supreme political cowardice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh well then obama is a terrorist because he gave aid to our enemy in Libya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The issue is the Imperial Presidency and its unilateral use of military force since Truman  its become a dangerous and tragic precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear and present danger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clear and present danger is a First Amendment doctrine used to determine when the government may preempt free speech, it has nothing to do with authorizing the president to act extra-judicially. See: _Brandenburg v. Ohio_ (1969).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courageous thing to do would be to obey the Constitution and the rule of law.
Click to expand...




> Nonsense.
> 
> The issue is the Imperial Presidency and its unilateral use of military force since Truman  its become a dangerous and tragic precedent.



It's nonsense when you take a quote and do not post what that quote is made to. Why can't you quote the whole reply you are quoting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Intense said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Draft dodgers George and Dick illegally invaded a sovereign nation and you are crying for a terrorist? Bush and Cheney killed thousands and you cry over a terrorist? You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you clean your Riffle Barrel, Reload, and shoot for consistency. Step back, take a breath, and rethink your position. This is not about condemnation. This is about raising a flag of concern, regardless of which Party is in Charge. Either we have Established Rules of Engagement or we are Lawless. All Power needs to be balanced and checked. No President should have the Power to target who, where, and when, without some kind of input from Congressional Committee, and the Court. Arbitrary Decision Making here, with no Justification or Litmus Test, or Consent, is Extra Constitutional. There is no lawful authority to do this. You crack me up, really, bitching about water boarding, and sanctioning Murder, in some cases where the charges are disputable, in some cases, Collateral Damage, not to mention flying in Air Space we were not invited into. It in itself is a Public Relations Nightmare. We are losing Moral High Ground.
Click to expand...


Bravo


----------



## occupied

Let's say Obama had just let him go, even if this guy never harmed a living soul afterward (doubtful), if it ever leaked out that he had been allowed to get away because Obama hesitated and consulted a lawyer first just how damaging would that be? Lord, the republicans would make a field day of calling him a coward. So on the horns of a moral dilemma this large he chose the way he did and fallout be damned. I feel he chose correctly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 3 - Treason Note
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The new conservative hero, Anwar Al-Awlaki, vowed to attack America.
> 
> Now he's dead.
Click to expand...


Who's to say you won't be next target or a target a years or so down the road? 10 years ago people would call you crazy if you said the president could put a hit list on an American citizen. HELL THE MEDIA WAS UPSET WHEN A FEW MIDDLE EASTERN LEADERS WHERE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PLACED ON AN ASSASSINATION HIT LISTBACK IN THE 90'S


----------



## bigrebnc1775

occupied said:


> Let's say Obama had just let him go, even if this guy never harmed a living soul afterward (doubtful), if it ever leaked out that he had been allowed to get away because Obama hesitated and consulted a lawyer first just how damaging would that be? Lord, the republicans would make a field day of calling him a coward. So on the horns of a moral dilemma this large he chose the way he did and fallout be damned. I feel he chose correctly.



That speculation no one is guilty until they have done something.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hortysir said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> 
> Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated
Click to expand...


That would be up to Congress not the President.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

midcan5 said:


> Draft dodgers George and Dick illegally invaded a sovereign nation and you are crying for a terrorist? Bush and Cheney killed thousands and you cry over a terrorist? You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president.



Bush had Congressional approval before he did anything.



> You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president



oh I see since a president was democratically elected he can do as he pleases? Bush was too but you seem to act differently towards him.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Let's say Obama had just let him go, even if this guy never harmed a living soul afterward (doubtful), if it ever leaked out that he had been allowed to get away because Obama hesitated and consulted a lawyer first just how damaging would that be? Lord, the republicans would make a field day of calling him a coward. So on the horns of a moral dilemma this large he chose the way he did and fallout be damned. I feel he chose correctly.



And thats the problem, politicians ignoring the Constitution and rule of law to pursue that which is politically expedient.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Let's say Obama had just let him go, even if this guy never harmed a living soul afterward (doubtful), if it ever leaked out that he had been allowed to get away because Obama hesitated and consulted a lawyer first just how damaging would that be? Lord, the republicans would make a field day of calling him a coward. So on the horns of a moral dilemma this large he chose the way he did and fallout be damned. I feel he chose correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thats the problem, politicians ignoring the Constitution and rule of law to pursue that which is politically expedient.
Click to expand...


Agree


----------



## Douger

Here's what your masters think.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Douger said:


> Here's what your masters think.



and here is what I say to the sheeple's masters 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg]Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoGtXEVQPxo&feature=g-u]DON&#39;T TREAD ON ME - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## hortysir

bigrebnc1775 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine you are president.
> A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
> We have him in the crosshairs
> but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.
> 
> What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> 
> Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be up to Congress not the President.
Click to expand...


My CIC gave a lawful order to his Generals who then dispatched these lawful orders to the soldiers in charge of the predator drones and/or ST6 (whichever enemy you're referring to),who then took out a military target on the battlefield - which happens to be anyplace in the world our enemies happen to be.

Our military forces have teamed up more closely with, and have started taking action in tandem or instead of, our CIA.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hortysir said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> 
> Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be up to Congress not the President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My CIC gave a lawful order to his Generals who then dispatched these lawful orders to the soldiers in charge of the predator drones and/or ST6 (whichever enemy you're referring to),who then took out a military target on the battlefield - which happens to be anyplace in the world our enemies happen to be.
> 
> Our military forces have teamed up more closely with, and have started taking action in tandem or instead of, our CIA.
Click to expand...


Even when it treason American citizens have rights. and Congress not the president dictates the punishment. that is according to the Constitution.


----------



## hortysir

So the Secret Service can't take out a sniper on the grassy knoll, regardless of which continent the knoll lies?

I see no difference between a sniper 2 minutes away from taking a shot and a terrorist 2 months away from mobilizing his cell to level an apartment building.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hortysir said:


> So the Secret Service can't take out a sniper on the grassy knoll, regardless of which continent the knoll lies?
> 
> I see no difference between a sniper 2 minutes away from taking a shot and a terrorist 2 months away from mobilizing his cell to level an apartment building.



I would say that's different but a president  does not have the authority to supersede the Constitution and place an American citizen on a hit list.


----------



## Toome

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer.  While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government.  Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toome said:


> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer.  While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government.  Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.



He's an American citizen we are a Constitutional republic do we trash the constitution now?


----------



## hortysir

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer.  While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that *Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government.*  Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's an American citizen we are a Constitutional republic do we trash the constitution now?
Click to expand...



Kinda missed the bolded part, huh?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hortysir said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer.  While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that *Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government.*  Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's an American citizen we are a Constitutional republic do we trash the constitution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda missed the bolded part, huh?
Click to expand...


What part of due process not matter what did you miss?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.



This above makes no sense. 

One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial. 

This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki. 

Punishment can only be carried out after conviction. 

One doesnt forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment. 

Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment). 

He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment). 

He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment). 

In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitutions violation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This above makes no sense.
> 
> One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.
> 
> This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.
> 
> Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.
> 
> One doesn&#8217;t forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.
> 
> Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).
> 
> He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).
> 
> He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).
> 
> In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitution&#8217;s violation.
Click to expand...


Ladies and gentlemen there you have it, a well thought out very knowledgeable and  sound and informed post.


----------



## Middleoftheroad

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This above makes no sense.
> 
> One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.
> 
> This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.
> 
> Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.
> 
> One doesnt forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.
> 
> Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).
> 
> He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).
> 
> He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).
> 
> In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitutions violation.
Click to expand...


But, there is one big but.  I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death.  The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive".  If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country.   Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons.  The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this.   Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Middleoftheroad said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.
> 
> Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This above makes no sense.
> 
> One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.
> 
> This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.
> 
> Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.
> 
> One doesnt forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.
> 
> Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).
> 
> He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).
> 
> He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).
> 
> In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitutions violation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, there is one big but.  I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
> He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death.  The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive".  If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country.   Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
> Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons.  The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
> The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this.   Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.
Click to expand...


No we do not assassinate American citizens because some foreign gave an order.



> The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.


Why in Gods name did obama assist al-qaeda in libya?


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



You are entitled to an opinion.

But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.  

Move on, folks, nothing to see here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to an opinion.
> 
> But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
> 
> Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...


Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?


----------



## Middleoftheroad

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to an opinion.
> 
> But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
> 
> Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?
Click to expand...


Once again, a law is considered legal until a court rules against it.  Since no court has done so, it is legal.  But I guess you just want to bypass this part of the law?  Because obviously you don't want to follow the constitution and the legal system of our country for laws you don't like.


----------



## Middleoftheroad

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This above makes no sense.
> 
> One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.
> 
> This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.
> 
> Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.
> 
> One doesnt forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.
> 
> Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).
> 
> He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).
> 
> He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).
> 
> In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitutions violation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, there is one big but.  I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
> He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death.  The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive".  If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country.   Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
> Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons.  The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
> The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this.   Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we do not assassinate American citizens because some foreign gave an order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why in Gods name did obama assist al-qaeda in libya?
Click to expand...


Seriously, relying on conspiracy theories to prove your point?  Seriously?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Middleoftheroad said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Middleoftheroad said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, there is one big but.  I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
> He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death.  The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive".  If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country.   Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
> Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons.  The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
> The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this.   Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we do not assassinate American citizens because some foreign gave an order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why in Gods name did obama assist al-qaeda in libya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, relying on conspiracy theories to prove your point?  Seriously?
Click to expand...




> Seriously, relying on conspiracy theories to prove your point?  Seriously?



It's not a conspiracy theory when obama did give air support to  al-qaeda in Libya, nor is it a conspiracy theory when obama had two American citizens  assassinated. Acting stupid doesn't make you ignorant of the facts, it just makes you look stupid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Middleoftheroad said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to an opinion.
> 
> But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
> 
> Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, a law is considered legal until a court rules against it.  Since no court has done so, it is legal.  But I guess you just want to bypass this part of the law?  Because obviously you don't want to follow the constitution and the legal system of our country for laws you don't like.
Click to expand...


Like hell it is Due process trumps any fucking law this or any god damn congress can come up with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Middleoftheroad said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to an opinion.
> 
> But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.
> 
> Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hell jake I know you want the Constitution gone, Congress approves of what you want, so they created a bill that will do exactly that jake. And what will jake say then? Its the law. Do you have little scearcrowmen dancing around in your head saying if I only have a brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, a law is considered legal until a court rules against it.  Since no court has done so, it is legal.  But I guess you just want to bypass this part of the law?  Because obviously you don't want to follow the constitution and the legal system of our country for laws you don't like.
Click to expand...


I will follow the ruling, but if it goes againt your preconceived and mistaken notion of what is constitutional, will you follow it is the more exact question.


----------



## Toome

I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded.  Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself.  Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional.  This is a purely political argument.

Here's the bottom line:  as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.

Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action.  Again, how simple-minded.

All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities.  Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant.  Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution.  He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him.  Period.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Toome said:


> I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded.  Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself.  Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional.  This is a purely political argument.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.
> 
> Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action.  Again, how simple-minded.
> 
> All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities.  Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant.  Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution.  He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him.  Period.




 it's just as simple as this



> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.




Just as simple as this


> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded.  Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself.  Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional.  This is a purely political argument.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.
> 
> Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action.  Again, how simple-minded.
> 
> All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities.  Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant.  Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution.  He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's just as simple as this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just as simple as this
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When one wages war against the U.S. as a noncombatant through aiding and abetting,  then any such person, such as Osama, can be justly targeted and captured or killed.

Your reading of the Constitution is merely your opinion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the "but he's an American citizen" arguments as simple-minded.  Those arguments are simply based on WHO gave the order rather than the order itself.  Barak Obama gave the order, therefore it's unconstitutional.  This is a purely political argument.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  as long as Al-Awlaki remained on the battlefield, he was a combatant and valid military target.
> 
> Otherwise, what the "he's an American citizen" nuts are saying is that combat troops need to decide whether to kill a combatant or stop to read him his Miranda Rights Warning before taking any further action.  Again, how simple-minded.
> 
> All Al-Awlaki had to do was turn himself in to the authorities.  Instead, he chose to remain on the battlefield as an active combatant.  Let's not make Al-Awlaki some freaky poster boy for the United States Constitution.  He was a goddamned terrorist who was looking for ways to kill Americans anywhere in the world, and the United States military killed him.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's just as simple as this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as simple as this
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When one wages war against the U.S. as a noncombatant through aiding and abetting,  then any such person, such as Osama, can be justly targeted and captured or killed.
> 
> Your reading of the Constitution is merely your opinion.
Click to expand...


And you're being stupid has no bearing on the truth, or this discussion.

But a U.S. Citizen does have due process and must have a day in court to answer any accusations against them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You clearly do not understand American history, the legal process, or the Constitution in times of war.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You clearly do not understand American history, the legal process, or the Constitution in times of war.



So we allow the government to raid American citizens home drag them out of their homes and shoot them? On an accusation? Without any due process?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Remind me where this guy was in America when we wacked him.

Remind me where Obama was in America when we wacked him.

Stay focused and on track, bigreb.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> Remind me where this guy was in America when we wacked him.
> 
> Remind me where Obama was in America when we wacked him.
> 
> Stay focused and on track, bigreb.



I don't care where he was if he can be brought back you bring them back. But then again I forget sometimes obama is a thug from the Mob city of Chicago. That's how they do things there


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are describing your bit of North Carolina, my friend.

Stay focused, please.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You are describing your bit of North Carolina, my friend.
> 
> Stay focused, please.



Your failure to stay focus is noted.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated
Click to expand...


But they're not citizens.

_"U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state or* service in foreign armed forces*"_  Al Qaeda?

United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.




Osama Bin Laden was a military target. There's no evidence he made an attempt to surrender. He had almost 10 years to surrender - the fact that the SEALS shot him in the head before he could think "WTF, maybe I should give up?" is his problem. Its their job to eliminate military targets with the lowest risk to civilian life and their own lives possible, and they executed that nearly flawlessly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was a military target. There's no evidence he made an attempt to surrender. He had almost 10 years to surrender - the fact that the SEALS shot him in the head before he could think "WTF, maybe I should give up?" is his problem. Its their job to eliminate military targets with the lowest risk to civilian life and their own lives possible, and they executed that nearly flawlessly.
Click to expand...


Bin Laden was not a U.S. Citizen


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
> Art. 3 Section 3 states
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was a military target. There's no evidence he made an attempt to surrender. He had almost 10 years to surrender - the fact that the SEALS shot him in the head before he could think "WTF, maybe I should give up?" is his problem. Its their job to eliminate military targets with the lowest risk to civilian life and their own lives possible, and they executed that nearly flawlessly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was not a U.S. Citizen
Click to expand...


Right - and thus cannot commit treason against the US.

Can a resident who is not a citizen commit an act of treason? Does merely being a resident of the U.S. imply allegiance?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OohPooPahDoo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Osama Bin Laden was a military target. There's no evidence he made an attempt to surrender. He had almost 10 years to surrender - the fact that the SEALS shot him in the head before he could think "WTF, maybe I should give up?" is his problem. Its their job to eliminate military targets with the lowest risk to civilian life and their own lives possible, and they executed that nearly flawlessly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was not a U.S. Citizen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right - and thus cannot commit treason against the US.
> 
> Can a resident who is not a citizen commit an act of treason? Does merely being a resident of the U.S. imply allegiance?
Click to expand...

But obama has given the order to have a U.S. CITIZEN MUDERED.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was not a U.S. Citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right - and thus cannot commit treason against the US.
> 
> Can a resident who is not a citizen commit an act of treason? Does merely being a resident of the U.S. imply allegiance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But obama has given the order to have a U.S. CITIZEN MUDERED.
Click to expand...


You haven't proved they are citizens.  One step at a time. One step at a time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right - and thus cannot commit treason against the US.
> 
> Can a resident who is not a citizen commit an act of treason? Does merely being a resident of the U.S. imply allegiance?
> 
> 
> 
> But obama has given the order to have a U.S. CITIZEN MUDERED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't proved they are citizens.  One step at a time. One step at a time.
Click to expand...


al-Aulaqi was a U.S. Citizen, now you stumbled like a baby taking it's first steps.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have your opinion, for what it is worth: not much by itself.

Now give us some SCOTUS opinions that support your opinion, please.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> You have your opinion, for what it is worth: not much by itself.
> 
> Now give us some SCOTUS opinions that support your opinion, please.



What the  fuck are you blathering about and to who extreme leftist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am a true Republican while you are the far right wack RINO.  That is why I seem a leftist to you, oh myopic one.

Do you have anything to support your opinion, bigreb?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

JakeStarkey said:


> I am a true Republican while you are the far right wack RINO.  That is why I seem a leftist to you, oh myopic one.
> 
> Do you have anything to support your opinion, bigreb?



You are a horses ass more than you are a republican. You are a far far extreme leftist your words give you away and those who give you thanks.


----------



## hortysir

That would be a "No"


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is the result of bigreb believing that opinion is proof.  In all fairness, bigreb has improved in the last 18 months from semi-literacy to a high school writing ability.  He is incredibly weak in third and fourth level analysis, and his critical thinking skills thus are deficient.


----------



## Intense

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> True enough, but what does that have to do with "treason and the Constitution"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're not citizens.
> 
> _"U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state or* service in foreign armed forces*"_  Al Qaeda?
> 
> United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Due Process?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Intense said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with it. The president has no authority to have an American citizen assassinated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they're not citizens.
> 
> _"U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state or* service in foreign armed forces*"_  Al Qaeda?
> 
> United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due Process?
Click to expand...

Thats right


----------



## peach174

Treason with absolute proof , yes that person can be put to death.

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

peach174 said:


> Treason with absolute proof , yes that person can be put to death.
> 
> United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned.



What trial did the assassinated person face?


----------



## Mr. President

You don't get a trial if you are killed while planning an act of terrorism.  You get........................ killed


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> You don't get a trial if you are killed while planning an act of terrorism.  You get........................ killed



You don't assassinate an American citizen either you have due process and he was deprived of that.


----------



## peach174

peach174 said:


> Treason with absolute proof , yes that person can be put to death.
> 
> United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned.




Anwar al-Awlaki has in videos cast his lot with al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  Anwar al-Awlaki was acting as a regional commander for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. 

He was commander of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
When he did that he lost his constitutional rights, and became a trator to his country.
He was an enemy combatent who is at war with us and we had the right to kill him.

Anwar al-Awlaki came to study in the US, he came on a foreign student visa. You see, even though al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, his parents were not American citizens. In fact, after his father completed his studies here, the family returned to Yemen. Anwar would not even be considered a 14th Amendment citizen, which states "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Anwar's parents were never US citizens, nor did they intend to become citizens; neither did his parents have "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,"  which is the standard according to the Supreme court decision in United States vs Wong Kim Ark.

According to the State Department, there are different rules, and, since al-Awlaki came to the US on a scholarship from Yemen, we can assume that he renounced his US citizenship, because Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. Furthermore, his father was the Agriculture Minister in Yemen. Otherwise, why would al-Awlaki have come on a foreign student visa to study in Colorado in 1991?


There was this guy too!
Adam Yahiye Gadahn

An American-born convert to Islam, Adam Yahiye Gadahn (aka, &#8220;Azzam the American&#8221 threatened a terrorist attack on Los Angeles in a 2005 Al Qaeda video. As a full-on member of their &#8220;media committee&#8221;, Gadahn served Al Qaeda as translator, video producer, cultural interpreter and spokesman. His zeal in their propaganda was cartoonish in its intensity, but all too real. After Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri endorsed the videos&#8212;some of which referred to the United States as &#8220;enemy soil&#8221;&#8211;the Justice Department indicted Gadahn, the first American accused of treason since World War Two. It is widely believed that &#8220;Azzam the American&#8221; is now &#8220;Azzam the Dead American&#8221;; following reports that he was killed by a Predator drone in January 2008.


----------



## Mr. President

He was deprived of no such thing.  On multiple occasions he evaded escape continued to support and help plan attacks on American troops.  He and his entourage were legit targets. I say good call Mr. President sending in the armed drones to take the whole lot of them out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> He was deprived of no such thing.  On multiple occasions he evaded escape continued to support and help plan attacks on American troops.  He and his entourage were legit targets. I say good call Mr. President sending in the armed drones to take the whole lot of them out.



When was he tried big ear dumbo?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

peach174 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treason with absolute proof , yes that person can be put to death.
> 
> United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anwar al-Awlaki has in videos cast his lot with al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  Anwar al-Awlaki was acting as a regional commander for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
> 
> He was commander of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
> When he did that he lost his constitutional rights, and became a trator to his country.
> He was an enemy combatent who is at war with us and we had the right to kill him.
> 
> Anwar al-Awlaki came to study in the US, he came on a foreign student visa. You see, even though al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, his parents were not American citizens. In fact, after his father completed his studies here, the family returned to Yemen. Anwar would not even be considered a 14th Amendment citizen, which states "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Anwar's parents were never US citizens, nor did they intend to become citizens; neither did his parents have "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,"  which is the standard according to the Supreme court decision in United States vs Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> According to the State Department, there are different rules, and, since al-Awlaki came to the US on a scholarship from Yemen, we can assume that he renounced his US citizenship, because Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. Furthermore, his father was the Agriculture Minister in Yemen. Otherwise, why would al-Awlaki have come on a foreign student visa to study in Colorado in 1991?
> 
> 
> There was this guy too!
> Adam Yahiye Gadahn
> 
> An American-born convert to Islam, Adam Yahiye Gadahn (aka, &#8220;Azzam the American&#8221 threatened a terrorist attack on Los Angeles in a 2005 Al Qaeda video. As a full-on member of their &#8220;media committee&#8221;, Gadahn served Al Qaeda as translator, video producer, cultural interpreter and spokesman. His zeal in their propaganda was cartoonish in its intensity, but all too real. After Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri endorsed the videos&#8212;some of which referred to the United States as &#8220;enemy soil&#8221;&#8211;the Justice Department indicted Gadahn, the first American accused of treason since World War Two. It is widely believed that &#8220;Azzam the American&#8221; is now &#8220;Azzam the Dead American&#8221;; following reports that he was killed by a Predator drone in January 2008.
Click to expand...


Was he tried?

Article 3
Section 3 - Treason 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3


----------



## Mr. President

He was killed in the act.  There is no trial needed for that.  When you are part of a terrorist organization who is currently at war with the United States there IS NO TRIAL.  You are jacking off to your idea of the constitution and not the constitution itself.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

If a person joins an organization or country that has declared war on the United States, that person becomes an enemy combatant.  Enemy combatants do not have the right to judicial process.  They have the right to die.

This is not a new situation.  It happened in World War II when some Germans returned to Germany at Hitler's urging.  They joined the Wermacht and fought against the United States.  They were treated just like citizens of Germany in the Wermacht.  Some were killed in combat and some were captured by the allies.  If they were captured, they spent the rest of the war in a prison camp as a prisoner of war.

Why are we worried about this?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> He was killed in the act.  There is no trial needed for that.  When you are part of a terrorist organization who is currently at war with the United States there IS NO TRIAL.  You are jacking off to your idea of the constitution and not the constitution itself.



In the act of what? Where is the evidence presented in a court of law?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OldUSAFSniper said:


> If a person joins an organization or country that has declared war on the United States, that person becomes an enemy combatant.  Enemy combatants do not have the right to judicial process.  They have the right to die.
> 
> This is not a new situation.  It happened in World War II when some Germans returned to Germany at Hitler's urging.  They joined the Wermacht and fought against the United States.  They were treated just like citizens of Germany in the Wermacht.  Some were killed in combat and some were captured by the allies.  If they were captured, they spent the rest of the war in a prison camp as a prisoner of war.
> 
> Why are we worried about this?




One more time

Article 3
Section 3 - Treason 


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

*The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason*, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Congress not the president set the punishment. So do we just throw the Constitution away for certain individuals? Who's to say you won't be next? Since you are reitred military you are already flagged.


----------



## California Girl

occupied said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure and write the republican candidates and urge them to really push their outrage over killing a terrorist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person is only a terrorist until it starts attacking your group such as the OWS protesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A terrorist is a person engaged in plots to kill innocent civilians or assisting them and I just cannot bring myself to think it is a bad thing when they get blown into bits.
> 
> Do you hate Obama so much that you take the side of filth like that just because of who brought him down? Perhaps you would have asked him to give himself up or at least travel to a civilized country with an extradition treaty? Jesus you people pick some crappy things to get upset about.
Click to expand...


How about we just indict real traitors - like Boxer and Pelosi for the very real treason they committed... I mean treason as defined in the Constitution.


----------



## Mr. President

Haha he was with 4 other known terrorists when he was killed.  Leaving a terrorist hide out with weapons inside.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> Haha he was with 4 other known terrorists when he was killed.  Leaving a terrorist hide out with weapons inside.



Was he tried in a court of law?


----------



## Mr. President

If Joe points a gun at sally for absolutely no reason other than he decided he wants to kill her and the cop shoots joe no trial is needed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> If Joe points a gun at sally for absolutely no reason other than he decided he wants to kill her and the cop shoots joe no trial is needed.



Did he point a gun at anyone was he in the act?


----------



## Mr. President

Yes on multiple occasions hence the drone that was looking for him.  When he was shot he was carrying weapons and on his way to commit another terrorist attack.  We shouldn't have to put soldiers in front of bullets to arrest a man that a drone can kill and is already on the terrorist watchlist of multiple countries.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> Yes on multiple occasions hence the drone that was looking for him.  When he was shot he was carrying weapons and on his way to commit another terrorist attack.  We shouldn't have to put soldiers in front of bullets to arrest a man that a drone can kill and is already on the terrorist watchlist of multiple countries.



Who said so? The one who had him assassinated? Was their a trial? Who was the judge? Any jury? Witness?


----------



## Mr. President

People like you get soldiers killed.  Your interpretation of the Constitution weakens America.  He was legally killed end of story.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> People like you get soldiers killed.  Your interpretation of the Constitution weakens America.  He was legally killed end of story.



People like me? People like you are the reason we are losing our rights and freedoms. I am a firm Constitutionalist there is no gray area when it comes to due porocess and in the act of. If he wasn't in the direct act or on the battlefield he was striped of his due process end of story.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> People like you get soldiers killed. Your interpretation of the Constitution weakens America. He was legally killed end of story.



Sending soldiers needlessly to war gets them killed. 

His interpretation of the Constitution conforms with current case law and the original intent: maximum government restriction; America is weakened when we violate these tenets. 

He was killed, it was anything but legal, and its nowhere near the end of the story.


----------



## Mr. President

Haha you two are spineless.  The Constitution supports the killing of terrorist and enemy combatants.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> Haha you two are spineless.  The Constitution supports the killing of terrorist and enemy combatants.



People like you are the reason our rights are being taken away. No where does it give authority to assassinate American citizens. So tell me did obama move the battlefield into Yemen? Did he declare another unauthorized war?


----------



## Mr. President

The only exception to the rule is where the individual poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option that could reasonably address the threat.

Oooooooh the Constitution says WHAT????????????????????


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> The only exception to the rule is where the individual poses a grave threat of such imminence that judicial process is infeasible and lethal force is the only option that could reasonably address the threat.
> 
> Oooooooh the Constitution says WHAT????????????????????



That wasn't proven in a court of law you are on the losing end of this argument. And don't say because the government said so. The government said Iraq had WMD's.


----------



## Mr. President

The constitution gives the executive branch the authority to kill any individual who poses a grave threat of such imminence that *judicial process is infeasible* and lethal force is the only option that could reasonably address the threat


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> The constitution gives the executive branch the authority to kill any individual who poses a grave threat of such imminence that *judicial process is infeasible* and lethal force is the only option that could reasonably address the threat



No it doesn't I suggest you read Article 3 Section 3


----------



## Moonglow

eh, whatcha gonna do


----------



## Mr. President

Article 4 Section 4


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> Article 4 Section 4


Really? Article 4 Section 4 say's that?

Article 4
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

When did that happen?


However  

Article 3
Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You really don't know the Constitution do you?


----------



## Mr. President

You are implying he was killed under the banner of treason and not terrorism.  Terrorism covers him under the invading force category thus giving the Executive branch said authority in A4 S4.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> You are implying he was killed under the banner of treason and not terrorism.  Terrorism covers him under the invading force category thus giving the Executive branch said authority in A4 S4.



What invasion the Mexicans? when hasn't the Legislature been able to coven? Thats what Art 4 sec. 4 is addressing. Here's a suggestion go back and do some research, you are lacking in knowledge


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was deprived of no such thing.  On multiple occasions he evaded escape continued to support and help plan attacks on American troops.  He and his entourage were legit targets. I say good call Mr. President sending in the armed drones to take the whole lot of them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was he tried big ear dumbo?
Click to expand...


If we captured him, sure.   As it is, he was a war casulty.  He put himself in that postion.  Are we supposed to try a corpse?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was deprived of no such thing.  On multiple occasions he evaded escape continued to support and help plan attacks on American troops.  He and his entourage were legit targets. I say good call Mr. President sending in the armed drones to take the whole lot of them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was he tried big ear dumbo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we captured him, sure.   As it is, he was a war casulty.  He put himself in that postion.  Are we supposed to try a corpse?
Click to expand...


obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was he tried big ear dumbo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we captured him, sure.   As it is, he was a war casulty.  He put himself in that postion.  Are we supposed to try a corpse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.
Click to expand...


You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this?  God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we captured him, sure.   As it is, he was a war casulty.  He put himself in that postion.  Are we supposed to try a corpse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this?  God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!
Click to expand...


To protect rights hell yes I would,


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> obama intention was not to capture him he could have but he didn't. If they knew his location they could have sent in troops and captured him to face trial but nope obama sent in a drone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this?  God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To protect rights hell yes I would,
Click to expand...


You're nuts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would put soldiers' lives on the line over this?  God, the back flips you have to do because of your ODS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To protect rights hell yes I would,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're nuts.
Click to expand...

People like you are the reason we are losing rights.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To protect rights hell yes I would,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People like you are the reason we are losing rights.
Click to expand...


What rights?  I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors.  The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence.  The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles".  I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist.  I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think.  Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.


----------



## Mr. President

He was killed because he was a terrorist not because he was a traitor.  Hence killing him was legal.  The invading force he aligned with was Al Qaeda not Mexico you ignorant little man.  Al Qaeda has not only attacked US soil but has promoted plans to do so again and has repeatedly engaged the US on multiple fronts including Yemen where the man in question was killed.  Might I remind you he was wanted by the Yemen government who said he was to be captured dead or alive for terrorist activities in Yemen.  They even sent a military unit with tanks after one of his hideouts and his followers held of the military while he escaped.  So does capturing him still sound like a viable option???????  No it doesn't and you can not pretend that it does.  But I am happy to know that you value the rights of a terrorist over the life of the soldiers who defend you from him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> He was killed because he was a terrorist not because he was a traitor.  Hence killing him was legal.  The invading force he aligned with was Al Qaeda not Mexico you ignorant little man.  Al Qaeda has not only attacked US soil but has promoted plans to do so again and has repeatedly engaged the US on multiple fronts including Yemen where the man in question was killed.  Might I remind you he was wanted by the Yemen government who said he was to be captured dead or alive for terrorist activities in Yemen.  They even sent a military unit with tanks after one of his hideouts and his followers held of the military while he escaped.  So does capturing him still sound like a viable option???????  No it doesn't and you can not pretend that it does.  But I am happy to know that you value the rights of a terrorist over the life of the soldiers who defend you from him.



Who said he was a terrorist? the one who had him murder? Without any trial?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are the reason we are losing rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What rights?  I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors.  The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence.  The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles".  I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist.  I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think.  Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.
Click to expand...


Due process for one.


----------



## Mr. President

He said death to america and that he planned to kill americans.  He said he was a terrorist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> He said death to america and that he planned to kill americans.  He said he was a terrorist.



Rev. Wright also said god damn America you remember him don't you? The pastor who obama sat and listen too for 20 years and also befriended.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are the reason we are losing rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rights?  I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors.  The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence.  The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles".  I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist.  I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think.  Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due process for one.
Click to expand...


If he surrenders, sure.  But if he's on the battlefield, how is "due process" anything but an ideal that doesn't meet the reality of the situation?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> What rights?  I believe in the "right to life" for our soldiers, NOT traitors.  The fact that you would actually consider that course, just shows you value "principles" over intelligence.  The country can't afford people with those kinds of "principles".  I wouldn't give $.02 for someone that makes all decisions based on a checklist.  I find too many people who stand on "principle", are only doing so in order not to have to think.  Any commander that would make that kind of decision, deserves a mutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due process for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he surrenders, sure.  But if he's on the battlefield, how is "due process" anything but an ideal that doesn't meet the reality of the situation?
Click to expand...


The battlefield? when did we declare war on Yemen?


----------



## hortysir

You do realize that Yemen is an AlQuada center of operations, right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hortysir said:


> You do realize that Yemen is an AlQuada center of operations, right?



The question was when did we declare war on Yemen?


----------



## Mr. President

No but we did declare war on terror and Alquada.  The Yemen government also had a standing kill order for him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> No but we did declare war on terror and Alquada.  The Yemen government also had a standing kill order for him.



So we go uninvited waging war into other sovereign nations? You are so far off course you need to live in another country that does assassinate it's citizens without discretion.


----------



## Mr. President

We weren't uninvited.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> We weren't uninvited.



I don't think we were invited to conduct operations in Yemen.


----------



## Mr. President

Yes we were.  Yemen has been our ally for decades and has also been an ally in the war on terror.  That is why Al Qaeda supporters have been trying to overthrow the government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> Yes we were.  Yemen has been our ally for decades and has also been an ally in the war on terror.  That is why Al Qaeda supporters have been trying to overthrow the government.



Really if they were our allies why don't they remove Al Qaeda themselves? 
And this bullshit using  Al Qaeda as the vehicle to wage war and take American citizens rights away ended the day obama gave aid to Al Qaeda forces in Libya.


----------



## Mr. President

They are trying.  Hence the tank division they sent after him


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> They are trying.  Hence the tank division they sent after him



Maybe you didn't catch the part of obama giving aid to Al Qaeda


----------



## Mr. President

I didn't vote for him


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> I didn't vote for him



I don't give a fuck who you voted for.


----------



## Mr. President

But you want me to condone actions that I never agreed with done by a President I never voted for?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> But you want me to condone actions that I never agreed with done by a President I never voted for?



I don't give a fuck if you voted for him or did not vote for him who you voted for is irrelevant. The fact that you are arguing the Constitutional process for him is enough for me to argue against you.


----------



## Mr. President

Yes in one area of agreement.  You veered the topic to a different one which entitles you to none of the freedoms of a support-assumed stance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Mr. President said:


> Yes in one area of agreement.  You veered the topic to a different one which entitles you to none of the freedoms of a support-assumed stance.



one more time I never assumed anything nor do I care who you voted for.  As I said it is irrelevant.


----------

