No due process

Yep.

We are at war with terrorists everywhere and anywhere. If a citizen lives with, works, and plots with foreign terrorists and gets himself dead along with others... no problem.

In wartime, you kill your enemies. Period.

This is one of the few things Obama has done right.:applause:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Excusing the violation of our Bill of Rights because we are at war is very unwise and could result in tyrrany. First, we are at war, at war against those who caused 9/11. This man, that we assassinated, has never been seen as causing 9/11 thus did not fall within the declarations after 9/11 and or the declaration against Iraq. Thus, his assassination did not fall within the declaration of war (well, the authorization for use of force).

Rather, our President has started a war without authorization and now has authorized a private citizen's death with no due process. Both require congressional approval or judicial trial.

The Bill of Rights was not designed to be optional, but a mandate against government. Conservatives have traditionally argued against legislating from the Bench, but modern "Neo-Conservatives" often argue for "Legislating from the Oval Office."

Become a real conservative. Not a semi-liberal who believes our Constitution is a "living and breathing" document that changes depending on the situation. If due process is guaranteed, it is guaranteed to all citizens no matter their crime or threat. We obey the law, not despite our greatness as a country, but because of our greatness as a country.

 

Since he has power to order the killing of terrorists and I by his own administration am a possible terrorist because I am conservative and a vet.......

Now that he has started how far might he decide to go? One more? Two more? ???

And all of the talk of Police handing out justice to bad guys - in some cases maybe, but police are becoming arrogant in their dealings with the public. MANY killing by cop have been raising serious questions of abuse of power the last few years.

The criteria now is "If the officer feels his life is threatened he may use deadly force." Don't know about you but there are drivers that make me feel my life is threatened but I have no right to pull a pistol and blow them away.

 

Therein lies the slippery slope. We, as Christians, are supporting policies that will one day be used to put Christians to death for what they believe.

You've got this right, imho, Roger.

peace to youraying:

 

I understand what you say, Roger----Executive power was the downfall of the Deutchland

By executive order came directives against Jews

Then the executive orders esculated from there

And we can't say----"It can never happen here!!----not here in God bless the USA!!!"

 

Some of us have watched this day approach and have warned of its coming, only to be greeted with boos and hisses from “patriots” who have come to regard the US Constitution as a device that coddles criminals and terrorists and gets in the way of the President who needs to act to keep us safe.

< snip >

What do Americans think will be their fate now that the “war on terror” has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law.

Continue . . .

I have a question. Is there any hard evidence at all that this guy was actually involved in any terrorist plots or actions? I mean besides the government and corporate media's say so?

 

Since most posters here declare that we are at war with terrorists

what about the following

1. The Rules of Engagement found in the Geneva Convention's Code of Conduct handbook(or whatever that thing is called)--------since our brilliant Prez is such an international "tow the line" sort of guy and seemingly would not hesitate to bow down to evil kings and all----I just thought----well, maybe this Prez will follow the Convention code more closely than his own constitution

 

In reading over the arguments and concerns over this issue I still see no problem with what happened. The guy was no longer living as a citizen of the US within our borders or is there any reason to believe he would ever again do so. He was a terrorist engaged in a war against the US and he was taken out. The due process law deals with people within our borders not people who have abandoned our nation and decided to destroy it at all costs. This was a military issue not a civil one.
I think the real reason here for the debate is not because this guys rights were violated which I say they were not, but because of who is President. If president Bush was in office most, if not all who are arguing against this, would be either praising him or just keeping silent.
So at this point I have not seen a single rational legal argument why this was illegal.

 

It is due to who is president. I'm no Obama supporter whatsoever.

If Bush were president and had done this? Well, the liberal media would be calling for his impeachment 24/7.

 

I really think that has a lot to do with it. I too do not support this President, but I fail to see what he did as being against the law since this has nothing to do with civil law.

 

No it is not that cut and dry. However because you live outside the country you do forfeit some of the protections as a citizen. You have decided to live in another country so you are now not protected by our laws in the same way you would be if living here.
Also if you decide to go to war against this nation there is no need for a any civil proceedings to bring charges and find you guilty of any crime to kill you on site. Our freedoms and liberties do not extend to people who leave the nation to wage war against us.
I am willing to re-evaluate my stance if I hear of a rational reason, but to date I have not heard any. This man was an enemy of the nation. We are at war and he has now suffered the consequences of his actions. The only rights he had he gave up when he went to war against us. The President did the right thing.

 

Considering that freeatlast had previously advocated executing curfew violaters by snipers on rooftops...

Is anyone surprised by where he lands on this issue?

 

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.