No due process

First, source? Second, I've already shown why it is acceptable and necessary in THIS instance. The red herring is in "killing any American he wants". That is obvious.

So I take it by your non response you have no problem with inncoent soldiers dying trying to ensure this "citizen" of his rights.

 

Amen and AMEN. When I have been in foreign countries I have always been very happy that I had an American passport in my pocket. It gave me some protection. It may still give me some protection from the foreign government, but does it and my citizenship protect me from my own government?

The solo around the world sailor, Tristan Jones, said in one of his books something like this:

Perhaps we will now have to expand that quote to include our security agencies and forces. I hope not. However I find this deed deeply worrying.

Yes he was a bad man. Yes he was an enemy. But also yes he was a natural born American citizen. Does this not worry others? I would think so.

 

Our rights are also not guaranteed. Just ask the unborn.

He was an enemy of the United States leading an enemy army, he was not a resident citizen committing a crime. He can be called whatever you want to call him.

 

This is a tough one for me and one that I would need more information. However, I tend to agree with the side who wants due process.

First, those who disagree with the Patriot Act, I agree. Horrible and should be repealed.

Yet, if a man is actively engaging in trying to overthrow the American Government then there is precedence to kill him. It would be like killing a man who is using a gun to kill police officers and the police officers kill him.

On the other hand, should we give a pre-meditated order to kill the man? That is where the issue lies. If we target an installation that is hostile to us and he happens to be there when we destroy it, that is one thing. But to target an American, that is entirely different. If we target him for capture and he uses force against our men, they are justified to kill him as a police officer would be justified against any normal criminal. Yet, to target him to kill him without standing trial, is a violation of our constitution. Assassination without a trial violates our laws in general.

Yet, I tend to think a government targeting private citizens of the United States for assassination is wrong and scares me. I think this could be an impeachable offense under law.

 

Never answered...a convoy of armed militants who's purpose is killing and harming US soldiers and the US has an American in the midst. What is the military supposed to do?

Followup question, do you have problems when a police officer uses deadly force on a fellow US citizen brandishing a weapon ensuring he does not receive due process? This answer should reflect the first.

Third, source that the President "ordered" his execution?

 

I have no sympathy for people who go to that part of the world for ANY reason. You all should be protesting the undeclared war, not the fall out from it.

 

I'm sure they were out just walking the dogs

An admitted enemy convoy during a time of war who has stated their purposes is not an "immediate threat"? The military was justified based on the rules of engagement...and no crime was committed by Obama or the military.

I found this interesting from your source (which is not evidence Obama did what you accuse him of)

 

Another interesting quote from your (biased) article...

Leading the enemy of the US is not a crime?!? To who, muslims? Let's see how your due process goes by stating on an open forum that you plan on leading a military action against the US. I would be interested to hear what the CIA and FBI has to say to you.

 

I sure did get a laugh when I heard the team zero syncophants tell us the Patriot Act was a goner. Even one poster on this very thread accused me of being ignorant when I told him he was being lied to.

Obama must be laughing at how easy this is.