Where did I say anything contrary?
Where did I say anything contrary?
V.M I usually agree with you on your postings. As a fellow Libertarian I am surprised at the position you have taken on this. I respectfully disagree with you and am so thankful we can still do that. I am also well pleased that our board seems to have returned to friendly discussions (@ least from what I have seen).
Surprised that I disagree with the actions authorized by SJR23 of the 107th Congress, or surprised that I disagree with SJR23 of the 107th Congress?
:headscratch: I'm confused by the apparent surprise of others that I would disagree with either of those. Should I, as a Libertarian, be in agreement with a perpetual war with a non-traditional form of enemy?
My postings have been in answering the question of whether or not al-Aulaqi's killing was in compliance with current American law.
It may be that I don't understand your position. Are you saying it is ok for us to kill US citizens?
Quoting the Bill of Rights
I don't give a rip about current law if it violates the Bill of Right.
As I read S.J.RES.23 it authorized the President to go after those responsible for 9-11-2001. At that time the now deceased spoke out against the attacks and was even labeled as a moderate Muslim by many media outlets.
As I said this man was a traitor and probably deserved the death penalty. As a citizen he deserved due process if at all possible.
The Bill of Rights protects people we don't like. I HATE WBC! I cant imagine what I would do if I was confronted with them @ a friend or family members funeral. I am glad that the Bill of Rights articulates that we have freedom of speech we don't like. I am glad that we don't grab a rope and string people up without a trial. I am glad for all those who protect our freedoms every day.
Quoting the Bill of Rights
I don't give a rip about current law if it violates the Bill of Right.
As I read S.J.RES.23 it authorized the President to go after those responsible for 9-11-2001. At that time the now deceased spoke out against the attacks and was even labeled as a moderate Muslim by many media outlets.
As I said this man was a traitor and probably deserved the death penalty. As a citizen he deserved due process if at all possible.
The Bill of Rights protects people we don't like. I HATE WBC! I cant imagine what I would do if I was confronted with them @ a friend or family members funeral. I am glad that the Bill of Rights articulates that we have freedom of speech we don't like. I am glad that we don't grab a rope and string people up without a trial. I am glad for all those who protect our freedoms every day.
The courts have taken the position that acts of war against the United States, regardless of citizenship, make one an enemy combatant.
SJR23 broadly authorized military action (see bold).
"[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
In my first post, I specifically stated that I disagree with it.
If Yemen was so cooperative in providing intel as to his location, why were they not cooperative in apprehension?
Perhaps we should ask what choices our government gave them. "Let's strike with precision munitions and deny his due process, or if he escapes again we'll consider your government has having aided an alleged terrorist and bomb the hell out of you."
I admit my posts may have been hard to follow since I was focused on answering the question of whether or not the action was legal.
Bastiat had this issue pegged... the Law perverted. And it goes on and on and on. Where it stops, nobody knows. Enjoy the slopes...
Going by some of the comments I have seen here, we have to do away with police snipers. The snipers kill dangerous suspects without a trial, charges being filed, etc. They just pose a threat to someone's life so it is unconstitutional to kill them unless they kill someone else first.
The only problem I have...and it's not much of a problem...with the whole mess is that Awlaki was never indicted in the U.S. legal system. FWIW the Yemeni .gov did indict him.
Seems to me hey could have at least crossed the Ts and dotted the Is by getting an indictment out there before they killed him. It's not like he just showed up on the battlefield as an enemy combatant, we've been tracking him for years.
Other than that, until they start lobbing hellfires at trucks and Mosques in the continental U.S., I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Seems to me hey could have at least crossed the Ts and dotted the Is by getting an indictment out there before they killed him. It's not like he just showed up on the battlefield as an enemy combatant, we've been tracking him for years.
Other than that, until they start lobbing hellfires at trucks and Mosques in the continental U.S., I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I'm trying to figure out what the dilemma is. If the man renounced his U.S citizenship, then why should he be considered a citizen and afforded the rights given to U.S. citizens? Should he not have the liberty to decide whether or not he is a citizen? It seems to me that as a human being, he had the inherent right to choose whether or not he was a citizen. Should our nation force citizenship down the throats of those who don't want it? Seems to me he would have wanted to go this way. He picked a side and faced the consequences. He wasn't a stupid person and I believe that he fully understood the risk he assumed with his actions and was prepared to pay the price.
Because many people are assuming that only the federal government has the right to decide who can renounce their citizenship. After all, the government has more rights than a citizen does.
Similar threads
- Poll
