Why do so many defend the enemies of America?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Someone who has taken up arms against the United States is an enemy combatant against the United States, whether they wear a uniform or not, whether they are fighting us conventionally or with terrorist tactics. As enemy combatants in an active warzone the U.S. military is free to eliminate them at will - whether they are actively engaged in hostilities or asleep in their beds - and regardless of their citizenship.

Would anyone argue that the U.S. military would have had no right to kill a U.S. citizen who had defected and joined the German Army during WW II, while he lay asleep in barracks?

Why does the lack of uniform make a difference?

Would you seriously limit the tactics available to the U.S. military for neutralizing an enemy combatant who parents happen to be U.S. citizens to only detention and arrest - placing the lives of U.S. servicemembers at risk in doing so?

Would it have been illegal for the U.S. to have killed John Walker Lindh while he was still in the field of combat - whether he be engaged in hostilities at the time, sleeping, or in the outhouse? No. He was an enemy combatant.

If an enemy combatant wishes to avoid the possibility of being killed in the field by the U.S. military - they have the option of surrendering.

 

[Truthmatters]

aiding the enemy is pretty bad stuff But we should not be offing Americans without due process.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yea. I want as many drones as possible to replace people in our military who would otherwise be in danger. But what's the criteria for determining when an American can be killed by a drone strike? That's some scary stuff.

 

[Rozman]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't know. Why do you support Obama?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why do so many defend the enemies of America?

Someone...

Because unlike you none of us love America,
Now isn't there a rock nearby somebody can crawl back under?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Would it have been illegal for the U.S. to have killed John Walker Lindh while he was still in the field of combat - whether he be engaged in hostilities at the time, sleeping, or in the outhouse? No. He was an enemy combatant.

He was on a battlefield...no one questions that. please go back to school or the hospital because your posts make absolutely no sense whatsoever

 

[martybegan]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

I draw the line at being on our soil vs. being on foriegn soil. Even if you take up arms against the US, as long as you are a citizen and you are on our soil, your legal protections apply. Juristiction may go to a military court, but you still get due process.

On foreign soil, and if you are in the company of armed combatants? Bye bye dumbass.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

Not terribly shocking to me. I don't have a problem if an American citizen in a war zone fighting against us is targetted. My problem starts when they are 1) In the United States or 2) in a nation that isn't the war zone.

Otherwise, there should be duprocess. Im not sure how judicial review would be problematic if it's an obvious enemy. Though Im not sure if the caselaw will support judicial review, even if the Constitution demands it.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW I don't see where is inherently wrong to defend someone that may or may not be an enemy of America. Our nation is built on the concept that everyone should be allowed a defense. John Adams defended British Soldiers after the Boston Massacre despite the popular sentiment seeing them as enemies.

 

[Rozman]

If you leave this country and join forces with our enemy you have given up your rights as an American as far as I'm concerned.You are a traitor and you need to be eliminated.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you leave this country and join forces with our enemy you have given up your rights as an American as far as I'm concerned.You are a traitor and you need to be eliminated.

Dont know that I disagree. My issue is do you give the President, whether Democrat or Republican, the power to determine if you are a traitor and the power to eliminate you without due process.

 

[GHook93]

Someone who has taken up arms against the United States is an enemy combatant against the United States, whether they wear a uniform or not, whether they are fighting us conventionally or with terrorist tactics. As enemy combatants in an active warzone the U.S. military is free to eliminate them at will - whether they are actively engaged in hostilities or asleep in their beds - and regardless of their citizenship.

Would anyone argue that the U.S. military would have had no right to kill a U.S. citizen who had defected and joined the German Army during WW II, while he lay asleep in barracks?

Why does the lack of uniform make a difference?

Would you seriously limit the tactics available to the U.S. military for neutralizing an enemy combatant who parents happen to be U.S. citizens to only detention and arrest - placing the lives of U.S. servicemembers at risk in doing so?

Would it have been illegal for the U.S. to have killed John Walker Lindh while he was still in the field of combat - whether he be engaged in hostilities at the time, sleeping, or in the outhouse? No. He was an enemy combatant.

If an enemy combatant wishes to avoid the possibility of being killed in the field by the U.S. military - they have the option of surrendering.

Oh please you partisan piece of garbage. I wonder what you said when BUSH wante to try the 20th hijackers in non-public military tribunals. You hack like you probably protested loudly. What about closing gitmo when Bush was prez? You probably screamed loud.

Your a political hack and clueless liar at best!

My stance hasn't changed. I applaud Obama for drone striking and killing a terrorist. Fuck the guy, I don't give a rat's ass if he was an US citizen. I applaud Obama from breaking another promise (which the media and the Democrats seem to forgive him for) and not closing Gitmo. Good decision and good call! Capture enemy combatants and detain them, this is war and we need to treat it as such.

However, the only reason you agree with this is it's your boy that is doing it. When Bush did it you cried foul and called for Bush's head. You would have done the same if Romney was doing it!

 

[Freemason9]

I am going to shock some people here on the left and the right...

I do not have a problem with offing some American who goes to another country and who actively participates in any action that can be defined as an attack on this country.

I am not talking about making a speech or even saying Allah is great and death to America.
You join Al Qaeda you are actively engaged in hostile actions against this country.

Now we are supposed to honor their rights as American citizens while they are plotting to attack this country.

I don't have any problem taking these people out in any way possible.

Are you familiar with the term, "slippery slope?"

 

[Rozman]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

 

[Billo_Really]

Someone who has taken up arms against the United States is an enemy combatant against the United States, whether they wear a uniform or not, whether they are fighting us conventionally or with terrorist tactics. As enemy combatants in an active warzone the U.S. military is free to eliminate them at will - whether they are actively engaged in hostilities or asleep in their beds - and regardless of their citizenship.

Would anyone argue that the U.S. military would have had no right to kill a U.S. citizen who had defected and joined the German Army during WW II, while he lay asleep in barracks?

Why does the lack of uniform make a difference?

Would you seriously limit the tactics available to the U.S. military for neutralizing an enemy combatant who parents happen to be U.S. citizens to only detention and arrest - placing the lives of U.S. servicemembers at risk in doing so?

Would it have been illegal for the U.S. to have killed John Walker Lindh while he was still in the field of combat - whether he be engaged in hostilities at the time, sleeping, or in the outhouse? No. He was an enemy combatant.

If an enemy combatant wishes to avoid the possibility of being killed in the field by the U.S. military - they have the option of surrendering.

You are just as much an enemy to this country as John Walker Lindh, if not more. At least Lindh had a reason for being an enemy. Do you have a reason for rejecting American values and showing complete contempt and disdain for the principles that created this country?

First and formost, we are a country based on the rule of law. When you advocate lawlessness, you are making un-American comments, that are putting us in danger. You are deliberately creating the enemies, you claim you have a right to kill.

The Founding Fathers would've charged you with sedition.

 

[RosieS]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

Engaging in warlike acts and/or aiding and abetting the enemy is treason. Military justice applies in war and traitors don't get due process.

You go to war as a jihadist against your land of birth and you get a speedy one way ticket to Allah.

Nothing objectionable about it

Regards from Rosie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

We only know they turned against the country because the government and the government media told us so.

 

[Avatar4321]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

Engaging in warlike acts and/or aiding and abetting the enemy is treason. Military justice applies in war and traitors don't get due process.

You go to war as a jihadist against your land of birth and you get a speedy one way ticket to Allah.

Nothing objectionable about it

Regards from Rosie

Again, the question is how do we define when someone is at war against the nation? What's the stop Obama from declaring someone like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck is at war against the nation with the shows they put on and send a drone to take them out? Who determines who is at war with us? Are they not given due process, even if they are on American soil? If so, why have we tried people for treason in the past if we don't have to and they aren't entitled to due process?

 

[Immanuel]

I understand why people are against this.
I just can't get all broken up about someone turning against this country and then getting whacked.
The deciding factor that does it for me is joining a foreign organization of some kind who's main purpose is to attack this country and it's people.For me if you do that you give up your rights.

I'm sure legal minds would think I was so wrong on this.
But this is how I feel.

We only know they turned against the country because the government and the government media told us so.

That is right and everyone of us who do not worship every move those who "govern" make need to be concerned with Obama's unholy decree. Good news for probably 98% of the progressive libs on site is that they do not have to worry for nearly four more years.

Immie