No due process

I can understand that because I hold very strictly to the same standards the Lord does.

 

Have you not been watching the trial of the young woman in Italy? There laws are not the same as ours. When she left here she surrendered some of her American rights to accept what they say. You are no different. You are under the rule of the nation where you live, not where you come from.

 

There is two possibilities here. One you miss read my post and you are mistaken or you are a liar. I never said that we should execute curfew violators. In another thread I said I supported the shooting, (killing) of rioters who refused to stop their rioting. I said to make a curfew and warn them not to return after curfew and if they violated the order they should be shot. The term I used I think was mowed down or something similar to that which I still support.

 

I think that you just showed that I neither misread your post, am mistaken, nor am a liar. :laugh:

 

I never said they did.

 

What a red herring! Sure when a person is in another country and that country believes they have committed a crime they can be arrested. That is a totally different case. Here we have an American who was not suspected of committing a crime in Yemen. If he had been he could have been arrested by the police there and his Constitutional rights would not have been violated.

But for the US to execute him without due process is a violation of our Constitution. Now I suspect you consider yourself a "law and order" man. But your stance is one that is supporting the violation of the foundation of our laws.

 

Again Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant. He clearly was engaged in terrorism against the United States. He got all the due process he was entitled to.

 

That doesn't matter. He was an American citizen and should have been protected under the Constitution. You may not like it. I may not like it. But it does not matter if we like it or not. The Constitution either protects ALL American citizens or in reality it protects none.

 

It doesn't protect treason and those forfeiting their citizenship publicly.

 

He got the portion that allows the President to govern the military as commander and chief. There was no violation. You keep crying the constitution but I did not see you crying that about the illegal searches at the airports when that thread was running. What about the due process there?

 

More red herrings. Stay on the topic please.

No where does the Constitution say that the commander in chief can violate the Constitutions rights of an American.

Again, either the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans or it protects the rights of no American.

 

Then to end all of this silly bickering we need to pass a constititional amendment stating that if an American citizen take up arms against the USA they forfeit all their citizen's rights.

Or we could just obey Article III, Section 3:

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.


(from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3)


Call a court proceeding, give him a chance to show up, which he likely won't, take the testimony of witnesses (or just show his videos that testify against him), and pull the trigger.

 

Ladies----ladies----ladies!!!

This is page #20 and is about to close

As Larry the Cable Guy would say to that

"Getter Done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!":thumbs: