Which American citizen will Obama kill next? [Reader Post]

Loading

Barack Obama ordered the assassination of two American citizens. No one is arguing that they weren’t bad, but this is a terrible precedent.

An American President now can order the assassination of American citizens.

An American President can now suspend any American’s constitutional rights at will.

Think about that.

Why did we give Timothy McVeigh a trial?

Why don’t we just kill Case Anthony? We all know she’s guilty.

Why do we even bother having trials?

Over at Huffington Post there is division on this issue. They quote Jane Harman:

“It’s tricky that he was a U.S. citizen, but he clearly stated his intention to kill Americans and the Justice Department thoroughly vetted the legal issues and this strike was within the law,”

The Justice Department vetted this? Holder vetted this?

That borders on insanity. This is the same Holder “Justice Department” who put an end to the Black Panther intimidation case. The is the same Holder “Justice Department” which intentionally sent weapons into Mexico. This is the same Justice Department that sues states for attempting to protect their borders. This is the same “Justice Department” that wants a civil trial for Khalid Sheik Muhammamed.

HuffPo is allowing no comments that question Obama’s decision to assassinate an American citizen. I suspect that even they know how wrong this was.

What is the threshold for ordering the death of American citizens?

Joe Biden likened Tea Party members to terrorists.

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Golly, if they’re terrorists, then Obama can have them killed, right?

Obama himself called Americans his enemies

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’

And why not punish them with a nice Predator missile?

In fact, we are “treacherous enemies.”

Obama’s website once trumpeted this:

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

Terrorists. Terrorists need to be killed, even if they are Americans.

How about killing anyone who is a threat to democracy? Barack Obama once said that the Chamber of Commerce was a threat to democracy. Why not kill them?

David Plouffe said those who support Republicans are a threat to democracy

“They are becoming the central financial actors in the 2010 election,” Plouffe told reporters in Washington yesterday. “What’s happening out there is really a hijacking of our democracy.”

I guess they can be killed as well. Eric Holder would no doubt permit it.

A whole new world of opportunity has been opened up for Obama.

What now is the threshold for an American President to order the assassination of American citizens? Who can Obama have killed simply because he’s in a pissy mood?

Who’s next?

Aren’t we bombing Libya because its leader was killing his people?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
192 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

OK, so if an American soldier had killed Anwar al-Awlaki in a firefight in Afghanistan would that soldier have violated the terrorist’s Constitutional rights?

I don’t know why anyone would think that but if being an American at war with America means you get a special pass after taking up arms against your own countrymen, then you’ve effectively turned The Constitution into a suicide pact. When the Union defeated Lee at Gettysburg, were Pickett’s Constitutional rights violated? Ponder that but please do NOT think I’m comparing the men on any part of that hallowed battlefield with any terrorist past, present or future.

The Obama Administration and their leftist allies have so thoroughly muddled the waters in fighting this war that it seems like they prefer to kill high value targets – terrorist leaders to be specific – rather than capturing them or else risk having to incarcerate them in the facility at Guantanamo. Beyond the possible intelligence benefit from interrogating HVTs, I’m still fine with these deaths and the manner in which they occur because these are enemies that deliberately avoid wearing uniforms. They are illegal combatants and as such get no protection under our laws.

@tfhr:

OK, so if an American soldier had killed Anwar al-Awlaki in a firefight in Afghanistan would that soldier have violated the terrorist’s Constitutional rights?

No. We are not at war in Yemen and if one argues that we are, then Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.

Had Awlaki been killed in a firefight in Iran or Iraq, that’s entirely acceptable.

This was a targeted and specific assassination.

This is a bad precedent. As I said, who’s next? Can we fly drones anywhere around the world knocking off anyone we want?

How about Iran flying a drone over the US taking out what it considers its enemies?

If an AMERICAN joins the enemy, they are the ENEMY. It doesn’t matter where they are. If another country is protecting them, then that country is aiding the enemy. What surprises me the most is that Obama authorized the strike. It sounds like something Bush would do.

If we can’t target AMERICAN enemy, all that the enemy has to do is recruit as many Americans as they can.

You are so wrong it is almost comical.

We are at war with these people — people who are engaged in acts of war against the US. Like it or not, there was no possibility of capturing this enemy of the United States, and therefore taking his life was an appropriate exercise of the power of the commander in chief.

But let’s consider your theory that this jihadi swine had constitutional rights while in Yemen. By your logic, sending in troops to capture him would have been unacceptable for a variety of reasons — the lack of a warrant, lack of criminal charges, failure to observe extradition protocols — and he would therefore have to be released free and clear after being given access to our intelligence sources. Do you see the absurdity of your position now?

Consider this concept, too, that terrorists are the enemies of all humanity and my be dealt with as such. There is ample international law precedent for this, dating back to the very origin of international law. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/316001.php

you do know that both renounced their US citizenship. Hence it was not an assassination of US citizens. They were enemies in an enemy camp.

Thank you so much, Dr John, for writing this. You are absolutely correct. What’s also scary, by reading the comment here and comments elsewhere, is the bloodlust so apparent among the American citizenry. Makes me think of Arlo Guthrie’s ‘Alice’s Restaurant Massacree’..
“And I went up there, I said, “Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.” And I started jumpin up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, “KILL, KILL.” And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, “You’re our boy.”
Didn’t feel too good about it.”

Are we a Republic or a mob-ruled democracy? Seems to me the progressives have done a fine job over the last century, turning so many away from our Constitution and replacing it with ‘whatever feels good for the moment’.
What a pitiful state our country is in if there are so many who will help Obama rip the Constitution to shreds.

If Joe Biden decides I am a terrorist because I write prose criticizing the Obama Administration, is it legal to assassinate me? Is a Jihadi propagandist considered to be eligible for assassination? By the same reasoning, Arafat should have been assassinated and many others as well. If we are back in the business of assassination, a system or standard would be appropriate rather than the Obama indiscriminate death warrant. If we are at war, do we distinguish between political leaders and soldiers. We have given the non-uniform wearing soldiers special dispensation and afforded them the Geneva Convention, why? If we are to summarily execute political enemies, why do we go out of our way to allow non-uniformed soldiers the option to throw down their weapons and walk away, but condemn their leaders to a silent death from above, without the option of walking away.
Do we have a set of guidelines or is it the scalp belt of Obama that is ultimately important? Where do we draw the line in defining political enemies? Everyone feels good and celebrates this monster’s death, but are we outlining dangerous precedents for the future. Perhaps a personal enemy may be designated a terrorist, Biden has no reservations about designating the TEA Party as terrorists and Napolitano considers vets as potential terrorists. May we assume the president can make a preemptive strike to neutralize terrorism, who will determine if the threat exists, Holder? The AG who sells military armament to Mexican Drug Cartels, the man who dropped a case that was already won against the Black Panthers, the AG who refuses to cooperate with congressional investigations.

Obama will take all the power he can. If he must first kill true enemies in a dubious manner, will he hesitate to kill indiscriminately using those same liberal parameters?

@DrJohn: “You see, that’s your opinion. It’s not the law.”

I’m sorry, but you’re misinformed, Dr. John. Treason is the only crime listed in the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies…”, which is exactly what al-Awlaki did. You may want to give the traitor a phalanx of ACLU lawyers, but I agree with the rest of the commenters here who prefer the ultimate solution.

I really do not see any kind of comparison of the Tea party and someone that was plotting in foreign country to attack US citizens. That is a straw man is I ever saw one.

What about Taliban JohnnyLindh? Captured in Afghanistan with Taliban fighters. Stayed mum while his fellow Taliban plotted a prison breakout that resulted in Mike Spann being killed. Lindh was tried in an American court, found guilty, and sentenced. To this day Lindh’s family are still trying to get him out of prison.

Under Obama’s Department of Justice findings, Lindh would be subject to extra-judicial murder. Dear progressive socialists if Awlaki can be killed by drone then the same needs to be applied to Lindh to be fair since both retain US citizenship. So ready to kill Lindh? If not than the killing of Awlaki is wrong.

It was our Vice President who designated the TEA Part as Terrorists and are we not at war with terrorism or do we play a politically correct game of semantics.

It was the head of that TSA who said American vets are potential terrorists, are we to pick and choose from among the statements of morons as to which ones we may believe and which ones to disregard. I find these statements offensive and dangerous under the present circumstances. You may have the utmost faith in the judgement of our leaders, but if there judgement was so good, why do they make such senseless and dangerous statements.

Giving the president the option to kill at his own discretion in undeclared wars without borders is a dangerous and powerful precedent.

Remember those Navy Seals that faced court martial for supposedly roughing up a known terrorist in Iraq? I didn’t lose any sleep over the assassination of a US Citizen who committed terrorist acts against the US, but Dr John is right. Now, if we were acting in coordination with the government of Yemen, that is another story.

It’s really sort of amusing to watch this hand wringing by the same guy who, back in July, was advocating the execution of US citizen George Soros via a Predator missile.

Guess Dr. J was for it before he was against it, eh?

@Skookum:
“If Joe Biden decides I am a terrorist because I write prose criticizing the Obama Administration, is it legal to assassinate me?”

If President Obama decides that you are a member of the organization responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that you are threatening further attacks against the United States, it is legal for him to use necessary and appropriate force against you. That is the letter and the spirit of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution. Whether a Hellfire missile would be considered necessary and appropriate is up to the government to decide. If you are chilling in the United States, it probably would not be. If you are hiding in Yemen, then yes, a Hellfire missile would be appropriate.

The Resolution does not make any exemptions for belligerents who hold US citizenship. At no time in our history have we ever declared belligerents who hold US citizenship inviolable. In fact, we have killed a great many belligerent US citizens throughout our history: several in the War on Terror under Bush; by anecdote, at least eight in World War Two; and tens of thousands in the Civil War. Washington himself fielded an army against American citizens during the Whiskey Rebellion. The commander-in-chief, executing his Article II and statutory war powers, has never concerned himself with the citizenship of a belligerent commander, and there is no reason for him to start now. When an enemy commander is located in theater, he should be attacked and killed.

You may also note that the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not give any authority to Vice President Biden, nor does it identify the Tea Party (which did not exist in 2001) as a target for the use of force. Joe Biden’s opinions of the Tea Party are irrelevant to this issue.

This sort of thing was treated as a law enforcement problem until 9/11. After that, it was treated as a military problem.

@DrJohn:

Are you saying that there was not sufficient grounds for a warrant and apprehension but sufficient grounds to kill him?

No, you moron — I’m saying it is a friggin’ war, not cops & robbers.

@DrJohn:

Wrong — war=war=war. In war you kill the enemy. Get that into your brain and quit thinking like freakin’ Cindy Sheehan.

@DrJohn:

Joe Biden is full of shit, and i merely proof that the Democrats are insincere when they talk about civility.

But I’ll give you a really easy way to decide — if the House impeaches and the Senate convicts and removes Obama for taking out terrorists, then he was werong. Otherwise it was correct. But if your hero Ron Paul gets his way, then start practicing your bows towards Mecca, because we will soon thereafter be incorporated into the global caliphate.

@John Cooper:

Don’t bother Dr. John with little things like the Constitution — he clearly only believes the amalgam of left-wing ravings, pro-jihad propaganda, and Ron Paul pronouncements that makes the poor terrorists the victims and America the bad guy. And oddly enough, that allows him to believe that by siding with America’s enemies he is the true patriot.

The latest guy is Aaron Bassler which was shot and killed by a stalking 3 man SWAT team. The team even acknowledged that they shot him seven times as soon as they found him rather than telling to freeze or anything verbally. Bassler was killed in California.

@Anna Puma:

The difference, of course, is that Lindh was in custody. Anwar al-Awlaki was not. That is a distinction that does make a difference.

I’m with Cheney on this:

I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified,” Cheney said in an interview Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.“ ”I‘m waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for quote ’overreacting’ to the events of 9/11.”

In part, and in brief, here’s why: On Due Process and Targeting Citizens:

had a U.S. service member knowingly and intentionally fired on Anwar Al Aulaqi in circumstances in which his capture was feasible without incurring undue risk to forces or nearby civilians, I would consider that a real problem as a matter of due process.

This basic principle, however, does not answer the question of the legality of the killing. Rather, it raises the question of what precisely due process requires in these admittedly unusual circumstances. The chatter on the political left notwithstanding, it clearly does not require prospective judicial review of targeting decisions or military operations. The Due Process Clause does not even require that in domestic settings involving police actions–like a hostage situation, for example. What it requires in the hostage situation, rather, is that force only be used as a last resort when other options are not available. And it seems to me that it requires something similar here too. That is to say that I think it requires a strong preference for the capture, instead of the kill–and it requires the exhaustion or non-availability of reasonable options either for a conventional trial or for military detention with appropriate habeas review. In other words, while for the non-citizen, targeting is lawful purely on the basis of status, with respect to the citizen, it is lawful on the basis of status plus necessity.

This, in turn, raises the question of when, in this context, one has reached the point of necessity–or last resort, if you will. I propose the following answer to this question. For due process purposes, one has reached the point of last resort, at which lethal force against a U.S. national becomes lawful, when (1) the suspect has been identified with a high degree of confidence using the best available intelligence subjected to heightened internal review, (2) no option for capture plausibly exists without undue risk to forces or civilians, and (3) the foreseeable consequence of a failure to interdict the suspect will be the loss of opportunity to neutralize the threat he poses and thus presents an unreasonable risk to human life.

Notice that this test does not cast the idea of a last resort in some temporal sense, like that the suspect is on his way to planting a bomb and our forces are running out of time. It treats, rather, imminence or urgency in terms of lost opportunity. That is, the government has the duty to protect society, and–given what it knows about the target–it cannot pass up opportunities to stop him when they present themselves. As a functional matter, this test will be far more permissive with respect to countries that cannot or will not exercise jurisdiction over their territory than it will in countries that do, where sovereignty concerns will also–and for the same reason–play a far bigger role. After all, the availability of options for capture in a country that has control over its territory, a functioning rule of law, and a willingness to cooperate will tend to be far stronger than in countries with large ungoverned spaces. But the key question seems to me simple: Are innocent people likely to die if we don’t act? That question, at least conceptually, isn’t profoundly different than it is with a domestic hostage situation.

Let’s hold up what we know about the Al Aulaqi case to this test:

(1) He has clearly been identified with a high degree of confidence using the best intelligence available and a multi-layered review process as a high-level operational terrorist leader in a group that the government reasonably regards as part of Al Qaeda (or at least cobelligerent with it) and who has actually planned attacks on behalf of that group. Critically, this intelligence, some of which has become public, is not simply about his role as a charismatic, inspirational jihadist cheerleader or as an internet propagandist, facts that would not, repugnant though these activities are, be grounds for targeting him.

(2) Efforts to capture Al Aulaqi have clearly been made. This morning’s New York Times, for example, has a lengthy story about such efforts over a long period of time:

But in fact, the Yemeni security services, many trained by American Special Forces soldiers, appear to have pursued Mr. Awlaki for almost two years in a hunt that was often hindered by the shifting allegiances of Yemen’s tribes and the deep unpopularity of Mr. Saleh’s government.

In 2009 and 2010, Mr. Awlaki seems to have been mostly in the southern heartland of his own powerful tribe, the Awaliq, where killing him would have been politically costly for the government, and capturing him nearly impossible. The area where Mr. Awlaki was finally killed, in the remote north, did not afford him the same tribal protection. There are also many tribal leaders in the far north who receive stipends from Saudi Arabia — the terrorist group’s chief target — and who would therefore have had more motive to assist in killing him.

The hunt for Mr. Awlaki has involved some close calls, including the failed American drone strike in May, and the previously unreported operation in the Yemeni village. Yemen’s elite counterterrorism commandos, backed by weapons from Yemen’s regular armed forces, formed a ring around the town as commanders began negotiating with local leaders to hand Mr. Awlaki over, said one member of the unit.

“We stayed a whole week, but the villagers were supporting him,” said the counterterrorism officer, who is not authorized to speak on the record. “The local people began firing on us, and we fired back, and while it was happening, they helped him to escape.”

What’s more, Al Aulaqi has been on notice for quite some time that he is wanted and has not sought to surrender or turn himself in, and the government has made clear it would accept his surrender. So there’s a strong basis on which the government can argue here that it has pursued remedies short of lethal force. It has tried to take Al Aulaqi alive and remained open to the possibility but the chance did not pan out. What did pan out was an opportunity to attack a car from a remote, stand-off position.

(3) Would the foreseeable result of not taking this chance have been the loss of innocent life? This question seems to me to answer itself. A government worth anything simply has to take seriously a man who has been personally involved in terrorist actions in the past, who promises more, and who is taking active steps to conduct them.

Under these circumstances, I don’t have grave due process anxieties about targeting a U.S. national.

And one of his follow ups:

To my mind, at least, the distinction–the legal difference–is one of necessity. Assuming one has properly identified the citizen terrorist (and whether one has presents a separate issue that I will treat later), one is obliged as a matter of due process to neutralize the threat he poses by capture if possible. Only if a capture is not feasible without undue risk to forces or civilians is it consistent with due process to specifically target a U.S. national with lethal force. If the government, instead of capturing Shahzad, had simply shot him dead on the plane in New York, that would have presented a huge constitutional problem–just as I believe it would have presented a big due process problem had Navy SEALS shot Al Aulaqi between the eyes when capture was possible.

This distinction is, I suspect, as important to the administration’s legal reasoning as it is to mine. The New York Times today, for example, reports that:

The Obama administration legal team wrestled with whether it would be lawful to make Mr. Awlaki a target for death–a proposition that raised complex issues involving Mr. Awlaki’s constitutional rights as an American citizen, domestic statutes and international law.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel eventually issued a lengthy, classified memorandum that apparently concluded it would be legal to strike at someone like Mr. Awlaki in circumstances in which he was believed to be plotting attacks against the United States, and if there was no way to arrest him.

I believe the military use of force was justified.

@tfhr: Based on your reference to a Soldier possibly killing an American citizen/(s) on the battlefields of Afghanistan, it would seem that a Soldier probably wouldn’t conclusively know the citizenship of a terrorist firing on him. However, his right and obligation to eliminate the threat to him and his fellow Soldiers precedes any requirement to determine the citizenship of someone firing on him or is men.

Now imagine a predator drone @ 15,000 ft over Yemen controlled by an operator in a trailer in the desert somewhere in the Southwest US. We observe SUV/(s) depart a camp where the occupants are involved in desert things (as in NOT a live firefight in Afghanistan) and we loose a Hellfire missile on the strong hunch that we will hit an Al Qaeda operative. As a Marine of 30+ years, this sounds like an assassination effort for whomever is in the targeted vehicle. This doesn’t seem like a very close connection with the treaties we are signers of. And what of the operators? What anguish do they feel wondering if they had a Legal hit or if the vehicle was populated with women and children (yes I understand, just little almost terrorists).

At some point the clear and present danger clause has to weigh in our calculations. I guess this amoral administration not only picks economic winners (demrats) and losers (all not of the anointed political party/cronies) but they pick which real birthright citizens win or lose their life without due process. There has to be a point when the professional military passes on the drone missions to CIA sponsored operations which are solely under the purview of this WH.

Thank you for your input and I hope you have success in the drone operator hiring process. I know I want to see the known terrorists dead; however, at what price of our morality due we force our Soldiers to fight in this manner?

@Rhymes With Right:

I’m saying it is a friggin’ war

Well, that’s all we need then, isn’t it?

But hold on a sec. What war?

The End of the Global War on Terror

@Rhymes With Right:

Don’t bother Dr. John with little things like the Constitution

Actually, it is the Constitution you choose to ignore.

@Aye:

It�s really sort of amusing to watch this hand wringing by the same guy who, back in July, was advocating the execution of US citizen George Soros via a Predator missile.

Guess Dr. J was for it before he was against it, eh?

I guess it is just that Dr. John likes the terrorists and their goals, while he has an objection to those of Soros.

@Rhymes With Right: Who’ wrong? It would be nice to know which post you are responding to?

@Aye:

It’s really sort of amusing to watch this hand wringing by the same guy who, back in July, was advocating the execution of US citizen George Soros via a Predator missile.

To which you said

“This post, and some of the accompanying comments, have really jumped the shark.”

So you were against it before you were for it?

@Wm T Sherman:

This sort of thing was treated as a law enforcement problem until 9/11. After that, it was treated as a military problem.

Mainly because our government leaders failed to understand what the true nature of the problem was prior to 9/11. Now we do.

SIC SEMPER JIHADIS!

@Stix: So say yee! And I certainly hope we are obtaining DNA samples to ensure all victims were of the XY chromosome variety and hopefully the desired targets?

@drjohn:

Actually, it is the Constitution you choose to ignore.

Not really, John — I just choose to read and apply ALL OF IT, not take a selective reading of one portion like you.

@Aye: said

It’s really sort of amusing to watch this hand wringing by the same guy who, back in July, was advocating the execution of US citizen George Soros via a Predator missile.

Guess Dr. J was for it before he was against it, eh?

The post was in no small part tongue in cheek and you are free to ignore that.

But even then I wrote:

Obama has already authorized the execution of an American citizen- Anwar al-Awlaki.

How big a next step is the above?

Indeed.

@Rhymes With Right:

I guess it is just that Dr. John likes the terrorists and their goals, while he has an objection to those of Soros.

Now we’ve descended to HuffPo status.

@Stix: I must be slow tonight. Could you try that one again for greater clarity.

@drjohn:

Actually, I’d be impressed if your thinking rose to the level of HuffPo — or even to that of the KOSsacks or DUmmies.

Well, I’m glad that traitor is dead, but I can’t help but think of “Now, if Bush had done this…” Something tells me HuffPo would’ve allowed comments in that case.

@John Cooper:

I’m sorry, but you’re misinformed, Dr. John. Treason is the only crime listed in the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies…”, which is exactly what al-Awlaki did. You may want to give the traitor a phalanx of ACLU lawyers, but I agree with the rest of the commenters here who prefer the ultimate solution.

And how is treason handled?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

And for what purpose?

And what of this little part you omitted?

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.<

>

@Rhymes With Right:

Actually, I’d be impressed if your thinking rose to the level of HuffPo — or even to that of the KOSsacks or DUmmies.

Anyone who mistakes me for a left winger is brain dead.

@drjohn:

Why did he omit the part about the manner of proving treason in court? Because it is not relevant to the argument. After all, it is presumed that those who are involved in “levying War against the United States” may in fact meet with death at the hands of the United States in the course of doing so — and that a trial would be necessary only if they were captured. But implicit in the very notion of “levying War against the United States” is that said traitor (by definition an American citizen) may in fact meet his death at the hands of American military forces without being apprehended — or there even being an attempt to take him into custody. After all, that is the very nature of war — fighting and killing those who make war on the nation.

@Rhymes With Right: Again, since everything is so blue and white, I certainly hope you have the greatest of success in obtaining employment with the Drone-On Team to personally unleash the fires of hell (Hellfire missiles that is) on whomever this dear leader deems to be duh enemy. As a unit commander, I would have great difficulty ordering my Marines to fire from such great heights at targets they are unable to positively verify are the correct unarmed Arabic type person in turban and bland desert garb. In most all previous such encounters, both my Marines and I would have been digging deep for a lawyers to keep holder at bay.

@drjohn:

Anyone who mistakes me for a left winger is brain dead.

In light of the fact you are borrowing their arguments, such confusion is merely a sign of critical analysis. But the reality is that I don’t think you are a liberal — I figure you are a Paulistinian, which means I’m really wasting my time arguing with you due to the cult-like attitude of such folks.

@Rhymes With Right:

After all, that is the very nature of war — fighting and killing those who make war on the nation.

We are not at war with Yemen nor do we have troops in battle there.

Timothy McVeigh waged war on the US too. We did not just kill him.

@Rhymes With Right:

Why did he omit the part about the manner of proving treason in court? Because it is not relevant to the argument.

The Constitution says that to be guilty of treason you must be convicted of treason.

1 2 3 4