ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4344
Sep 30 11 1:04 PM
Interact
Sep 30 11 1:14 PM
Rusty Iron Ring wrote:APKeaton wrote:Also, by the logic in this thread if an enemy soldier on the battlefield, of say WWI for example, happened to have US citizenship, the US would be unable to target him and only arrest him and send him to trial...right.Way to tear down that straw man.This wasn't a soldier on a battlefield. This was the assasination of an asshole who preached violence.
APKeaton wrote:Also, by the logic in this thread if an enemy soldier on the battlefield, of say WWI for example, happened to have US citizenship, the US would be unable to target him and only arrest him and send him to trial...right.
Posts: 4635
Sep 30 11 1:16 PM
Posts: 1306
Sep 30 11 1:22 PM
Wobblie wrote:But he wasn't in any fucking army and yes that does make a difference! And what evidence do you have that he was commanding anyone? Obama says so and that's good enough for you?
Sep 30 11 1:25 PM
Judicial Playa wrote:APK --- LMFAO!!! Dude, I'm KING-TROLL, but as correctly pointed out by RIR, that was some crazy ass straw man even by most troll standards!!! Good discussion, gents.What troubles me more is the fact that this chap was never even instrumental in any crime, let alone accused of or charged with any criminal wrongdoing. From what I understand, this fella was spreading vile stuff that called for the mass killing. Well, if ramblings of a madman were enough to warrant extrajudicial assassinations, then oh boy, they need to take a gander at the plethora of goodies you'd find on Stormfront, YouTube, 4Chan, etc. This is nothing more than political grandstanding. I wonder how much influence this Anwar dude even had, if any at all. Surely our CTV weatherman Anwar Knight has way more mass appeal than this cleric would've ever had. JP
Posts: 2410
Sep 30 11 1:28 PM
APKeaton wrote: The fact he is not in an officially recognized army merely means that he is not protected by law designed to protect officially recognized armies. He was the leader of a militant organization that explicitely proclaimed it was involved in military action against the USA. He was a fair military target. If he wanted a trial, he should have surrendered. The guy was the recipient of, not only what he deserved, but a proper and legal action by the US mlitary.
Sep 30 11 1:33 PM
ExBuzzer wrote:APKeaton wrote: The fact he is not in an officially recognized army merely means that he is not protected by law designed to protect officially recognized armies. He was the leader of a militant organization that explicitely proclaimed it was involved in military action against the USA. He was a fair military target. If he wanted a trial, he should have surrendered. The guy was the recipient of, not only what he deserved, but a proper and legal action by the US mlitary.But dontcha know it's a slippery slope to the target-killing of all politiclal dissenters, within and outside the U.S.? Like at the next G20 summit or something, or maybe the GOP will take out the gay pride parade or NAACP.
Sep 30 11 1:36 PM
Sep 30 11 1:41 PM
APKeaton wrote:The fact he is not in an officially recognized army merely means that he is not protected by law designed to protect officially recognized armies. He was [according to my own allegations] the leader of a militant organization that explicitely [allegedly] proclaimed it was involved in military action against the USA. He was a fair military target [only if actively engaged in hostilities with US forces acting under legal authority]. If he wanted a trial, he should have surrendered [and placed himself in the hands of a president who's actions indicated he had no interest in putting him on trial and indeed would kill him without one]. The guy was the recipient of, not only what he [allegedly] deserved, but an [allegedly] proper and legal action by the US mlitary [for which I have provided no authority whatsoever].
Sep 30 11 1:43 PM
APKeaton wrote:Here's another question. If the US had gone through the superfluous process of stripping him of his US citizenship first, would you all be okay with this?
Sep 30 11 1:49 PM
Judicial Playa wrote:APKeaton wrote:Here's another question. If the US had gone through the superfluous process of stripping him of his US citizenship first, would you all be okay with this?I think this is a very good question. ...Mind you, the US did in fact strip the birthright citizenship of a US national under similar pretenses. See US born Yaser Esam Hamdi born to Saudi parents.
Sep 30 11 2:02 PM
Wobblie wrote:Judicial Playa wrote:APKeaton wrote:Here's another question. If the US had gone through the superfluous process of stripping him of his US citizenship first, would you all be okay with this?I think this is a very good question. ...Mind you, the US did in fact strip the birthright citizenship of a US national under similar pretenses. See US born Yaser Esam Hamdi born to Saudi parents. Hamdi was not stripped of his citizenship. He "voluntarily" renounced it. There is no law that allows for stripping birthright citizens of their US citizenship. APK is just blowing more smoke.
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Sep 30 11 2:17 PM
APKeaton wrote:You can be stripped of US citizenship for many reasons.http://www.law.cornell.ed...08_00001481----000-.html
Sep 30 11 2:24 PM
Wobblie wrote:APKeaton wrote:You can be stripped of US citizenship for many reasons.http://www.law.cornell.ed...08_00001481----000-.htmlAll of which require "the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." There is no legal way for the government to strip citizenship from natural-born Americans without their intent to relinquish it.
Sep 30 11 2:33 PM
Sep 30 11 3:40 PM
Wobblie wrote:Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.
Sep 30 11 4:02 PM
Posts: 1938
Sep 30 11 7:07 PM
APKeaton wrote: Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.Either way it's a "red herring" (now that we are using poly-sci terms about arguments to settle things around here). President Obama has taken an oath to protect the USA from external and internal threats. Al Queda is both. Obama has a duty as president of America to hunt down Al Queda and execute them. Obviously they have to do that within certain boundaries, but a targetted strike on a major commander with no collateral damage certainly fits within those boundaries.
Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.
Endless days of low ceilings and nasty crosswinds makes Chicken Little something something.
Posts: 1819
Oct 1 11 7:29 AM
ChickenLittle wrote:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Oct 1 11 7:48 AM
ChickenLittle wrote:APKeaton wrote: Wobblie wrote: Bullshit. There's no presumption that committing any of those acts shows intent. Sub (b) of that section details the extent of any presumption under that section and it doesn't include intent to relinquish nationality.In any case, this is a stupid sidetrack, since it in no way applies to Mr. Awlaki's case.Either way it's a "red herring" (now that we are using poly-sci terms about arguments to settle things around here). President Obama has taken an oath to protect the USA from external and internal threats. Al Queda is both. Obama has a duty as president of America to hunt down Al Queda and execute them. Obviously they have to do that within certain boundaries, but a targetted strike on a major commander with no collateral damage certainly fits within those boundaries. Ummm...no."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Share This