General Categories > Non Gun Stuff

Anyone else as upset with this as I am.

(1/1)

AAllen:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208306/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times

This is completely throwing the Constitution out the window, not just ignoring it.  Targeting an American Citizen (whom I disagree with, and consider a criminal) for killing by the military.  After this administration has fought to allow enemy combatants protections of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments?, now they take away all constitutional protections from US Citizens.

Hardwood83:
The hypocrisy is painful. The Christmas day underwear bomber gets miranda rights, even though he's a foreign enemy combatant, not in uniform and ignores the rules of war by intentionally targeting civilians? He should have been aggressively pumped for info (not tortured) then turned over to a military tribunal for a speedy trial and execution (assuming he is found guilty, of course).   

NE Bull:
I'm sorry but I'll have agree, of sorts, with the decision.  The reason being a relation to the part of the story I disagree with. "American Citizen" I feel that, through his actions, this 'cleric' has in essence, renounced his U.S.  citizenship and therefore shall be hunted down like any other enemy - Remember: against all enemies, either foreign or domestic!

I understand the this is could blur the line on who Big Brother can 'take out' but this case lays solidly on the enemy side.

Just My two cents per my 1st Admendment Right.  8) ;)

AAllen:

--- Quote from: NE Bull on April 07, 2010, 02:30:06 PM ---Remember: against all enemies, either foreign or domestic!
--- End quote ---

I agree this person is firmly on the enemy side, and could easily be found guilty of treason, but we also must remember the Fifth Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

And the US Supreme Court has extended these rights to non US Citizens, if we state they have renounce their citizenship by actions, with Obama being quoted after the ruling as saying ""a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo" and "an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law."  This administration is not creating a legal black hole, it's just plain ignoring any rule of law.

If he was killed on the field of battle, that is justified.  But saying if you find him and it's not convenient to capture him kill him, that?s overstepping the line.  The only thing that is known for certain that this person has done is speak out against the actions of the American Government, his first Amendment rights, he is suspected of more but "believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States" (from linked article) is not enough.

If speaking out against America or what our government has done is enough to get your citizenship revoked maybe we should start with the Clinton?s and Obama?s.

Navigation

[0] Message Index