Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.
We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.
You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.
MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's
By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.
Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death?
I don't know, Rozman. We have some sensitive people who aren't sure an American can be an enemy when he coordinates amenities for 9/11 hijackers (3 of them) which results in the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and his phone cell calls implicate him in every terrorist attack and wannabe terrorist attackon American soil that's happened in the past few years. I think the last straw may have been the Fort Hood incident when the shooter contacted him several times before actually committing the treason and murders against 12 fellow Americans.When they join a terrorist organization and take up arms against and plot to kill Americans...
Why is this even a question?
Some are confused about whether to try this moron in court first or just take him out. Why give these terrorists a soapbox when they've already taken out thousands of Americans and want a bigger, bloodier tally yet plus the bonus of cry towelling the people of this nation which could get really divisive and nastier than it already is.
How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.
In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.
Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.
Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.
The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.
Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...![]()
According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!
Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!
No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.
How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.
In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.
Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.
Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.
The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.
There is a difference between responding to violent action with violence and specifically marking a specific citizen for death without formally filing charges against him.
According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!
Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!
No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.
Prove it.
Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.
According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!
Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!
No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.
Prove it.
Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.
What precedence?
Cite?
As far as I know, every president who has tried to assume special powers during wartime has been rebuked afterwards.
All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process.The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...
No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.
All of which is irrelevant as a justification of suspension of due process.The man was an unlawful enemy combatant who orchestrated other unlawful enemy combatants to take up arms against his country in the name of Jihad. The US operation which resulted in his death was one he was aware of for years after several formal legal proceedings which left him with ample opportunity for his due process. HE chose to remain an outlaw and continued to threaten innocent US civilians. The circumstances surrounding his death were entirely lawful...
No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.
I dont know about the poster to whom youre responding, but I have cited both Constitutional case law and Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requiring due process for those accused of being enemy combatants and/or accused of treason.
Consequently: its incumbent upon you to cite case law justifying suspension of due process per the criteria youve noted.
He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's
By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.
Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.
Yeah, precedent matters indeed..
In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.
Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death?
How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.
In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.
Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.
Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.
The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.
Some of you people are mighty stupid.
Some of you people are mighty stupid.
Some of you people are mighty stupid.
The list of "stupid" Americans might be quite long and interesting before all is said and done about this topic.
I am impressed by and proud of the people who are coming forth in defense of the Constitution.
I am vastly surprised to find myself on the same side as Rachel Maddow and on a different side from Dick Cheney.
He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.
By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.
Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.
Yeah, precedent matters indeed..
In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.
Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death?
How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.
In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.
Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.
Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.
The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.
Three years ago you would have said this was unconstitutional and we would agree but now you think it's the right thing to do. Why the change......oh never mind I know why the CHANGE. It's something you might believe in if it ever hapopened.
Again with all the hypotheticals which in fact did not happen.
Yeah, precedent matters indeed..
In answering the question Xcel asked..Where in the Constitution does it say...I merely responded with some historical facts.
How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.
In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.
Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.
Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.
The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.
Three years ago you would have said this was unconstitutional and we would agree but now you think it's the right thing to do. Why the change......oh never mind I know why the CHANGE. It's something you might believe in if it ever hapopened.
![]()
Don't pretend to know what I hypothetically thought 3 yrs ago, mister mini militiaman.
La la la la la la laaaand............![]()