Skip to content
Advertisements

Barack Obama’s lawyers state US citizens are legitimate military targets

December 1, 2011

  When it was announced that Anwar al-Awlaki–an American who emigrated to Yemen to take up arms against the United States–was killed an a drone attack in Yemen I was not saddened, because this man was a traitor to his country and was killed while actively trying to convince people to up arms against his country. Yet I was worried because of the precedent it set. Here is part of what I wrote when it was learned that Barack Obama targeted al-Awlaki for death:

We are entering a grey area here. What is the difference between Anwar al-Awlaki and Faisal Shahzad– the failed Times Square bomber? After all, Faisal Shahzad is also an American citizen who tried to wage war on American soil. Yet Shahzad was granted his rights under the constitution and read his rights. Both men have decided that America must be attacked; Anwar al-Awaki is trying to entice Muslims to fight against the United States, while Faisal Shahzad actually carried out an attempted attack– with the help of the Taliban– that would have been successful if the bomb had exploded, and he was probably influenced by al-Awaki. The most obvious difference is the fact that Shahzad was an American on American soil while al-Awaki is an American hiding overseas.

I do not have a problem with the handling of the Shahzad case to this point. I understand fully that as a United States citizen who was arrested on American soil he will receive the full rights granted in the United States constitution, including the reading of those rights

  So my position at that time was this: if an American is overseas plotting against the United States he forfeited his rights under the constitution, but if an American is at home and caught plotting against the United States he should be offered a trial as is his constitutional right. The distinction between the two cases being one might be in a battlefield while the other is on the homeland.

  But what happens if the United States is deemed a battlefield? If this sounds outrageous to you, consider this: a bill was introduced by John McCain and passed by the Senate which shortly could be headed to the president’s desk which would deem the United State a battlefield and would give the president unprecedented powers.

Section 1031 of the NDAA reads: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force … includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…. [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial….” This “indefinite detention” section hands over to the executive branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens.  No trial needed.  Simple suspicion would suffice.

  This would make it legal for the president to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely if considered a threat, rendering the protections of the constitution null and void because the United States homeland is also a battlefield. And apparently this is something that is supported by Barack Obama because his lawyers have stated that the Executive Branch has sole authority to make citizens military targets without first going to the courts for a search warrant.

  Barack Obama can decide all on his own who he deems is a threat to the United States and we have already heard people equating the Tea Party to terrorists, and Joe Biden has already declared that working with Republicans is akin to negotiating with terrorists so the question is this; is it too much of a leap to think that Barack Obama could declare that anyone who is opposed to him is someone who should be detained for the good of the country?

  In my opinion there is no case in which it is justified to deny a United States citizen who is arrested on American soil his right to a trial by jury, even in the case of treason, yet with the exception of Ron Paul I wonder how many of the Republican candidates for president would agree with me.

Advertisements
85 Comments leave one →
  1. Phillip Cleary permalink
    December 1, 2011 10:09 pm

    Martial Law!

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:25 am

      And just in time for the election too!

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 2, 2011 9:06 am

      Phillip, WE know what it is, but I bet this administration will label it something “soft”, so as not to get anyone questioning it.

      Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        December 2, 2011 10:43 am

        Lou, don’t dekude yourself into thinking that this administration is unique in soft labeling – I remember the GWB administration pushed a bill allowing greater emissions from coal-burning power plants – they called it a clean air bill.

        And let’s not forget the Usurpation of Americans’ Rights Act, know by its acronym PATRIOT ACT, dreamed up by a GOP administration. To be honest, I wouldn’t expect any less from the Dems – but as I say, to think that either party is particularly honest in spinning its issues is naive.

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        December 2, 2011 1:53 pm

        Totally agree, there is plenty of blame to be put on both parties. Was just commenting that “this” administration will soften this issue so as not to raise any red flags, other administrations have done this as well.

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 9:17 am

        Yep, and all the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul believe the PATRIOT Act was a good idea. If it just weren’t for that Iran comment I might think about voting for him.

        Like

  2. December 1, 2011 10:34 pm

    Apparently the ‘chosen one’ is up to something with that pronouncement. This man has by his flawed foreign policy exacerbated the danger we have faced since the first Trade Tower bombing in 1991.

    Given his naive appeasement of the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and any other host of Jihadi terrorists, he has enhanced the position of Islamic terrorists in their agenda to destroy us.

    Also, before anyone mentions that ‘;he’ killed Osama bin Laden, Obama did no such thing. Further though initially reported but then ‘scrubbed’ by the media, he waffled in making that decision. He had to be dragged into that decision by Leon Panetta.

    Additionally to add insult to injury, in a boast of his greatness he gave away Seal Team Six operational tactics and helped expose the identity of those warriors. He is a disgrace to this country and incompetent and inept. I would further pontificate that those who support him are themselves on the same wave length of ignorance. Just my opinion….WM

    Like

  3. December 2, 2011 12:50 am

    This is some very scary stuff Steve. The constitution already addresses cases when an American citizen collaborates with the enemy. It’s called treason. So the question should be ask, why do we even need this? It’s vague and one can see the very real possibly of this law being misused in the future to detain political rivals or organizations who disagree with government policy. I’m not even sure it’s constitutional without an amendment, because nowhere in the constitution does it give congress or the President the power to enforce such a terrible thing. You know it’s a bad thing when two progressives like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are backing it. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about restoring our liberties and the constitution. When are people going to finally see this???

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:28 am

      This makes me take a second look at Ron Paul, he is the only one that we know for sure would never go for something like this.

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 2, 2011 7:29 am

      John, I have thought the same thing about Dr. Paul. There is that thing about being called an “isolationist” that does not appeal to most people. On the other hand, he might warrant being considered as a serious runner, not what the MSM wants to say about him. I am inclined to believe that this President does NOT have our best interest at heart and I believe he would not hesitate to put this to the test on those of us that have been so easily labeled a potential terrorist. The article I read in hillbuzz,

      http://hillbuzz.org/if-youre-reading-this-youre-a-terrorist-and-we-can-kill-you-for-it-41243

      about it had if you were buying gold, were anti-abortion, had Ron Paul/Libertarian Party bumper stickers or fly the American Flag, you were labeled a terrorist.Those things never were illegal in the past, but now we are going to have to be cautious about what we say and do. We saw this coming, didn’t we?

      Like

      • December 2, 2011 8:16 am

        We did lou222. They laid the ground work early in his administration.

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 9:19 am

        Yes we did and it is all coming together now!

        Like

      • toldya permalink
        December 4, 2011 7:41 am

        That was the MIAC report. Missouri Information and Analysis Center (?). This document was widely distributed to federal and state level law enforcement nation wide.

        Like

  4. Arrgy permalink
    December 2, 2011 12:55 am

    Obama’s lawyers? Then why has he stated he’ll veto the bill? This is a republican backed bill. Why no outrage at them?

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:30 am

      I did mention the bill was sponsored by John McCain, they are no better than Democrats on many issues and this is one of them. Obama stated he will veto the bill, that’s great but we all have seen what his promises are worth.

      Like

  5. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    December 2, 2011 12:59 am

    Where does the idea originate that the protections of the US Constitution are there only for US citizens?

    As to the defense bill, it’s absurd to think that the outrageous powers contemplated for the administration are something only President Obama would want. If John McCain had won the election, he would be promoting this bill – hell, he’s one of the sponsors in the Senate.

    If it gives you guys the warm fuzzies to oppose this because you hate Obama, well, whatever – I just hope to see you out there on the front lines expressing your outrage when it’s a GOP President explaining why he needs the power to declare citizens enemy combatants, and then aim lethal weapons at them.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!

    TGY

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:32 am

      I did mention that it was McCain who wrote the bill and you are right, once these powers are given to Obama all future presidents will also want them (except Ron Paul) and that is what is so scary about this bill.

      Like

    • toldya permalink
      December 4, 2011 8:18 am

      This has nothing to do with the fake “right/left” paradigm we’ve been conditioned to accept. These creatures are bought and paid for GLOBALISTS. Agenda 21. New world order. Continuity of government. Tracking you with cell phones (now) soon to be with chip implants (coming soon). Population reduction through mandatory vaccines. All the things you’ve been told are “conspiracy theory” are coming to fruition. TSA check points on the highways (Tennessee so far), treated like cattle at the air port, crashing the economy and staging false flag terror attacks to create a climate of fear. People who are hungry, scared and ignorant will readily give up their rights for “protection” by the nanny state thus allowing justification for more laws we don’t need and more security. We’ve seen this throughout history. Coupled with the propaganda media’s talking points and demonization of straw men created out of need for a threat. Next step, another attack blamed on “militia” or constitutionalists/ patriots. Perhaps something bad enough to declare martial law over. For so many generations we’ve been brainwashed to believe everything the TV media tells us. Those of us who question official stories of events and don’t fall in line will be dealt with in other ways. Any one want to disregard FEMA camps as tin foil hat conspiracy now? We’ve already put thousands of US citizens in internment camps for the way they looked (WW2). Why not do it now for the way they think? The so called patriot act was written before 9-11 even happened. The GOP didn’t write it, the Democrats didn’t write it either. It was sitting in a safe somewhere when the planes hit the towers and the missile hit the Pentagon (see any plane wreckage in those photos? Seats, wings, fuselage, engines, luggage, passengers’ bodies?) Ever heard of building 7? Wasn’t even in the official 9-11 Commission’s report. Wasn’t hit by a plane or plane parts. Just fell right into it’s own basement at free fall speed. People need to quit worrying about being labeled, start researching for yourselves, and stop believing anything the propaganda media tells you (from MSNBC right on up to FOX).

      Like

  6. December 2, 2011 1:49 am

    The Congress is not much better saying that American citizens can be detained without trial. Obama did say he’d veto that!

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:32 am

      But we know what Obama’s word is worth…..

      Like

      • December 3, 2011 3:21 am

        Just the fact that Repubs want it is very bad IMO.

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 9:20 am

        It sure is Harrison, all presidents will have this power and we can rest assured that once it is in place it will grow and grow no matter which party is in the White House.

        Like

  7. When does the hate stop? permalink
    December 2, 2011 2:02 am

    America’s watch tower? Looks like a hate inducing, propaganda site to me. Same ol sh*t.

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:34 am

      Thank you so much for stopping by, I hope you continue to visit. I don’t hate anyone, and this is an anti-propaganda site. Turn on the MSM if you want propaganda.

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 2, 2011 9:13 am

      Hate inducing? Last I heard, there WAS freedom of speech and you are welcome to voice your opinion or to move along to a blog that you feel comfortable at. If you say it is the “same ol sh*t”, then why are you reading it? I would say this is a group of people that are putting in their opinions on what is going on and they are entitled to those opinions, right or wrong. Maybe everyone is just trying to get other opinions to consider other than their own. Did you ever think of that? You can either read them or not, that is your CHOICE. I don’t see any HATE being thrown about, only you must see that.

      Like

    • December 3, 2011 3:22 am

      De-programming can be painful. Hopefully you’ll stick with it!

      Like

    • December 3, 2011 5:04 pm

      Watch Tower is a site for expressing opinions from both sides – something progressives, enslaved to the radical socialist practice of silencing their critics, cannot stomach. They are proven purveyors of race baiting, class warfare and demonize anyone who disagrees with their failed ideology.

      The most up to the moment proof is the New York Times where one of their silly dilettantes compared the Tea Party to the KKK. In a rational discourse we might turn that around by saying the progressive left in a sense are more in tune with those animals then the Tea Party – both are haters….WM

      Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        December 3, 2011 5:43 pm

        Generalize much?

        The right is at least as guilty of the sins you mention.

        Take good care and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 8:05 pm

        The comment you are responding to William is also proof of that was well. This person did not refute what I wrote and did not try to convince me why I am wrong.

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 8:06 pm

        TGY, I have to admit that I am guilty of generalizing quite a bit myself.

        Like

  8. toldya permalink
    December 2, 2011 5:36 am

    Links right up with the MIAC report of 2008 (?) where Christians, vets, gun owners, constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters and a myriad of others were indicated as being possible terrorists. Thanks to the SPLC and DHS brain washing law enforcement agencies across the board, it’s no longer cool to love freedom and liberty. If you question authority, you are beat down ( physically or figuratively ). I believe they’re preparing for the collapse of the fake dollar. Heard that they may quit propping up the system after Christmas.
    I guess “when do tha hatin’ stop?” has already chosen sides. Looks like your site’s being trolled, Steve.

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:35 am

      Exactly! This all ties together doesn’t it, the foundation was laid right from the beginning and we can see them slowly circling and waiting for their chance.

      Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 2, 2011 7:38 am

      Toldya, didn’t The One tell us that he now has the “money situation” in the US under control and now he can move on to help the EU? After all, we have no problems here and he is The One, so he needs to spread his help around. We are living in dangerous times. A long time ago, I made mention of the movie Doctor Zhivago and the era it was staged in. You might want to watch it and see where we are heading. It is one of my “most loved” movies, I never thought it might become a reality HERE. Guess we need to watch what we say and do or we might have a knock at our door. TGY stated that it is not only the Democrats and I think most of us are in agreement there.

      Like

      • December 3, 2011 9:22 am

        You know, I have never seen Doctor Zhivago but it is one that I have had on my “must view” lists for years.

        Like

      • toldya permalink
        December 4, 2011 8:24 am

        You’re right except for the knock part. The only sound we’ll hear is the sound of a battering ram at 3 AM.

        Like

  9. LD Jackson permalink
    December 2, 2011 6:40 am

    This is disturbing. I need to do more investigating, but if this passes, it undermines the very essence of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a large portion of what makes America so different from the rest of the world.

    Like

    • December 2, 2011 6:58 am

      The bill has already passed and needs to be reconciled before it heads to the president. He has said he would veto it but why did his lawyers release this statement?

      Like

      • LD Jackson permalink
        December 2, 2011 7:00 am

        From what I have been able to learn, the legislation that passed the Senate was amended with language to clarify it’s intent. Supposedly, and I use that term loosely, they added language that made it clear that the target of detention was not American citizens. I have only been able to locate bits and pieces, so I am not sure exactly how far the language goes. We need to check it out, to be sure.

        Like

      • lou222 permalink
        December 2, 2011 7:41 am

        I read that it was an amendment, as well, LD. Hope someone can clarify this for us, it makes a big difference with the exact wording. I also wonder if the President saying he would veto it, well we know he tells un-truths now and then, is he just trying to throw us off?

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        December 2, 2011 10:58 am

        LD, language exempting US citizens is absolutely useless – let’s say I’m picked up by the police and accused of terrorist activity. I’m a citizen. When they search me, they toss my wallet with its ID. Then I’m just some clown without ID – obviously a likely terror suspect. I could be sent to Syria for questioning (yes, we do that) before my family realizes I’m gone. And without charge, I have no right to a lawyer.

        As soon as we start differentiating between groups of people, we’re actually opening the door to the abuse of all the people at whatever level is permitted for the ;east protected. If we permit some people to be held indefinitely without charge or bail, it will come to pass that people in the protected group will be similarly abused.

        And if it turns out that the detainee is innocent – was just in the wrong place at the wrong time – well, tough.

        And similar things have happened in this country. When Giuliani was Mayor of NYC, he crafted a very aggressive property confiscation law. If you were stopped and your car impounded because it was used in the commission of a crime – like you were patronizing a hooker or had drugs in the car – they’d sell the car before you could even post bail to get out of lockup, and you’d be out one car – even if you subsequently were acquitted of the charges that got the car seized.

        Take good care and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 9:24 am

        Larry, I thought I had read that the amendment failed and was removed from the bill. I could be wrong.

        Like

  10. bunkerville permalink
    December 2, 2011 10:43 am

    As I read it, the Udall amendment failed, thus it remained in the Appropriations bill. Last night they passed the appropriations S. 1867 bill by a vote 93-7. I updated my post for the vote breakdown. If I heard right this morning from Napoltano, it now goes back to the House. It was presented as a done deal if the Senate bill passed, but apparently there is still time for a correction,

    Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 2, 2011 1:55 pm

      Yes, to the House and then to the Presidents desk, if the House passes it. Should be interesting to see how they vote.

      Like

    • December 3, 2011 9:26 am

      That is what I had ready as well.

      Like

  11. December 2, 2011 12:41 pm

    I have no problem with political assassinations of proven terrorists as long as the target is indeed a traitor or proven threat to be a threat to our well being. While giving the ‘benefit of the doubt’ is an accepted practice by rational people in this or any other country, it is not in the mind of a traitor.

    Having worked the streets here and traveled in the course of my profession to ‘other’ places I can tell you ‘touchy – feely’ sentiments are no longer affordable.

    The only thing that was done wrong with Al Awlaki’s assassination was that they didn’t yank his citizenship. before they killed him. However he was a traitor and neither he not any other such fellow travelers deserve our constitutional protections.

    As for the impounded car analogy – it is not germain to the argument. When I was on the job we only impounded cars of drunk drivers, people with warrants or if the car was used in the commission of a crime – the guidelines were and still are clear.

    Those sentiments are great if you are on the outside looking in and have the luxury of deciding the moral relevancy of any situation as fits your decided sensibilities – reality is usually far different. Just my opinion….WM

    Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 2, 2011 8:57 pm

      William, sorry, I raised the issue of the impounded car not to show that the car could be seized, with which I have no problem, but to show that it would be sold out from under you, without recourse, even if you were never convicted of the crime.

      It was just such a seizure and sale, in fact, that was the catalyst to my realizing that our war on drugs is more of a war on Americans – a sheriff’s personal vehicle was seized and sold when his son gave a ride to a friend who was found to be carrying pot. The revenue potential of selling impounded cars was so compelling that New York and other jurisdictions found a way to do so that apparently passed Constitutional muster.

      Like

  12. You should see you from here! permalink
    December 2, 2011 1:35 pm

    All I see is Hate of Liberals and protection of the right. Same sh*t for the last ten years.
    “appeasement of the Muslim Brotherhood”
    “the ‘chosen one’ is up to something”
    “And just in time for the election too!”
    “two progressives like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are backing it.” Progressives? What? lolol
    “But we know what Obama’s word is worth”
    “Toldya, didn’t The One tell us ”
    Why didn’t the story read,
    Republican’s lawyers state US citizens are legitimate military targets?

    Keep watching fox/GOP TV and ramp up that hate. It’s what they want.

    Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 2, 2011 1:51 pm

      Well, at least you are reading the posts and not just commenting. However, IF you really paid attention, you would see there is blame going around on BOTH sides of the aisle, not just against the Democrats. Also, I would say the majority of the posters here take all the cable channels with a grain of salt and research on their own, if they even watch the tube.

      Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 2, 2011 9:13 pm

      Okay, so these guys use code and buzzwords. The left doesn’t? You don’t?

      Sure, the slogans and shibboleths you quote are seen by many as code for hatred of the left or of the kinds of policies liberals believe are necessary to maintain our national health.

      They’re based on fear and assumptions.

      But what is hatred? When you use the word, aren’t you using it as a buzzword every bit as ill-informed as the code you complain about? And when you assume that these fellows all glue themselves to the tube to watch Faux News, aren’t you making the same assumptions about them that you accuse them of making?

      90% of your post was simply quoting other statements here. I’m certain, though, that if you had written a post 100% composed of your own thoughts and opinions, I am certain that it would be as chock full of liberal buzzwords and code phrases as the posts authored by our conservative brethren here – brethren with whom we share our great nation.

      I’ve always said our nation is simply too strong to be taken down by a single politician or party. I point to the administration of George W Bush as proof. If neither side can be man enough to overcome this intransigent intolerance for ideas and beliefs of others, then perhaps I’m wrong and our nation won’t survive. Remember what Lincoln said: A house divided against itself cannot long stand.

      Take good care, and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

    • December 3, 2011 9:29 am

      I am not sure where you see the hate, and I am also sure you didn’t read the part about how Republicans crafted this bill. I am an equal opportunity basher.

      Like

  13. December 2, 2011 7:59 pm

    Doesn’t this scare anyone? Because it scares the living CRAP out of me. I don’t think that kind of power should be wielded by the President. I was against flat out killing Al Awlaki from the start on the grounds that his case never went in front of a judge. (I never denied he was a dirtbag that should have been killed – just that I didn’t like the idea of the lack of legality behind it) I know that incenses fellow conservatives but I don’t like that kind of power being exercised in the executive branch alone. People have forgotten what checks and balances are in the US – the reason being it’s too easy to abuse down the road.

    Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 2, 2011 9:03 pm

      Wait – if we learn that an American citizen is in the military service of an enemy and has taken up arms against us, are we required to hold legal proceedings to strip him of his citizenship? Doesn’t that mean that if we know he’s in an enemy force, we cannot engage that force for fear of injuring or killing him?

      He wasn’t targeted because he was an American – if that was his only claim to fame, it would have been far more appropriate simply to ignore the sorry sack of s*. He was targetted because his language and technical skills were of great value to the enemy, and we’d have targeted him as zealously had he been British, Yemeni or Israeli, as long as he was in service to the enemy to our detriment.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

      • December 3, 2011 9:34 am

        I agree with you there TGY, in my opinion there is a difference between Al Awlaki and Hassan simply because of where the attack took place.

        Like

    • bunkerville permalink
      December 2, 2011 9:24 pm

      It is because of what we have as President, that while I might earlier have gone along with droning away anyone who we deemed a danger, no more. It is because of the “we” factor.Just who is “we”? Scares the crap out of me big time.

      Like

    • December 3, 2011 9:32 am

      I didn’t have a problem with killing Al Awlaki because he was overseas plotting against America and he had to be brought to justice before he suceeded. We have seen several instances now where Americans in the US being caught (the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber) and brought to trial as is their right even if they are traitors. There is a diffence there in my opinion but this would make that distinction go away.

      Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        December 3, 2011 1:11 pm

        That’s tricky, Steve. The Constitution defines treason but also guarantees due peocess of law, and not just to citizens. The show bomber and the Times Square bomber have to be legally defined as traitors, and that requires due process. We know (I think) the dangers of exempting anything from that universal requirement.

        Take good care and may God bless us all!

        TGY

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 8:22 pm

        I agree TGY, this is a very tricky issue. And yes a person must be convicted of treason before they can be called a traitor–if George Washington had ever caught Benedict Arnold he would have been given a trial before he was hanged, and I don’t think I am arguing to the contrary, although we don’t know if there was an opportunity to capture al Awlaki alive.
        The constitution is the law of OUR land and all other nations have their own constitutions or laws with which they are supposed to abide by. If these other nations do not abide by our constitution why are they to be granted rights under our constitution?

        Like

    • lou222 permalink
      December 3, 2011 8:03 pm

      It appears to me that “checks and balances” are a thing of the past. Look how easy it is to just bypass Congress when the administration doesn’t like something? I am also not speaking of just THIS administration, before someone accuses me of being one sided.

      Like

      • December 3, 2011 8:26 pm

        Both sides have been expanding government for many years, this is nothing new. But the speed at which this administration is progressing is probably something that hasn’t been seen before.

        Like

  14. December 2, 2011 9:33 pm

    Very good point. Also if someone in our military took up arms with our enemy he is simply a traitor. Case in point Nidal Hassan. In an Islamic country he would have been summarily executed. In his case, with the evidence against him past the point of over whelming he is not , in my opinion, worthy of being afforded the same rights as other citizens as was Al Awlaki not worthy of any consideration. Both men a fanatical animals.

    Again, in my opinion, both men abrogated those rights. Hassan for murdering his fellow unarmed soldiers and Al Awlaki for aiding and abetting that deed. Of course I will be branded a fascist for that opinion – but life is tough….WM

    Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 3, 2011 1:13 pm

      Once again, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution – with the single exception of holding office – are not restricted only to US citizens!!!!

      Like

      • December 3, 2011 1:46 pm

        so, what are we supposed to do..hold a trail for every bad guy on the battlefield?

        perhaps we can just turn every soldier into “judge dredd”?

        “you are in violation of the geneva convention HOW DO YOU PLEAD?”

        “not guilty!”

        “somehow, I thought you’d say that”

        BLAM BLAM BLAM!

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        December 3, 2011 2:11 pm

        Ah – so in your vision of the perfect USA, a police officer pulls a car over for speeding, discovers that the driver is a Candaian citizen, thus not eligible for rights under the US Constitution, and executes him on the spot . . .

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 2:39 pm

        somehow you have transposed “police” where I said “soldier”. .

        no, in my “perfect” USA wars are conducted like wars. you kill the bad guys in their backyard in the fastest and most gruesome manner you can and come home leaving a nice big sign saying “don’t make us come back here”.

        you cannot conduct a war by having a trial for every combatant on the battlefield. a muj with an RPG that is shooting rockets in afghanistan does not have the same rights as an american citizen here in the US, and we cannot conduct a trial between him pulling his trigger and our guys pulling theirs. the only way to step up to your “constitutional rights for everyone” would be to make every soldier a “judge dredd”. perhaps you missed the sarcasm.

        Like

      • December 3, 2011 8:29 pm

        TGY, the constitution is the law of OUR land and other countries have their own laws and their own constitutions which they must abide by, even if those are contrary to ours. I am not sure why you believe that people who are not citizens of the US, and are not resticted by our laws are entitled to constitutional protections of a country which is not their’s.

        Like

      • The Georgia Yankee permalink
        December 3, 2011 10:38 pm

        Steve, if a German dude comes here and steals a car, despite the fact that he’s not a citizen, he’s entitled to all the protections of our Constitution. That’s all I said and that’s all I ever meant. That same German dude who steals a car in Berlin has to deal with the laws and governmental charter of his own land – ditto if he commits his crime in Moscow, Peking, or Buenos Aires.

        When it comes to battlefields, the comments I’ve made in this thread alone should make it clear that I don’t expect our forces ever to treat any enemy differently because he may be a US citizen.

        Like

      • December 4, 2011 8:26 am

        Thanks TGY, I understand what you are saying. I would make a distinction between people who are here legally and illegally however.

        Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 3, 2011 5:38 pm

      I never suggested that the citizenship of enemy combatants be taken into account; quite the contrary, if you read any of my other posts in this thread. What happens on a battlefield takes place without respect to citizenship. Some misguided Americans have donned enemy uniforms and spilled their blood on foreign soil in support of unjust causes. We do not mourn them or consider that their rights were abused.

      The American who was targeted for assassination by our military was, as I said, valuable to the enemy for his language and technical skills. If he had not been American, I doubt the President’s authorization to proceed would have been sought, nor should it have been. In the final analysis, his citizenship had nothing to do with his targeting.

      A muj shooting an RPG on an Afghanistan battlefield does not have the same rights as a muj in the US – your insistence on repeating “citizen” leads me to believe you still do not understand that that Afghan has the same rights in this country as you or I do, except that we may hold federal office (assuming you’re a citizen) and he cannot. In fact, if an Afghan gets up in a mall and fires a weapon, or if he parks a van full of explosives next to a federal office building and detonates it.he’s not automatically considered an enemy combatant, but an armed and dangerous criminal, and may very well be captured and brought to trial.

      What I said is that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not reserved for citizens only, except for the right to hold federal office office. I said this because too often, even those supposedly knowledgeable about the Constitution talk about it protecting citizens’ rights. They whine and complain about others being given rights of citizens. People detained at GITMO are a good example – even though the military ultimately released most of them without charge and acknowledged that they’d done nothing against the USA, many Americans were aghast at the thought of these people being treated by our government in accordance with the Constitution, as if the presumption of innocence is a courtesy accorded only to American citizens and denied all others – an point of view obviously inspired by ignorance.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      PS – Sarcasm – so that’s what it was.

      Like

  15. December 3, 2011 3:35 am

    I think all this does is quantify the “understood” long-existing, but unwritten, rules of engagement.

    ask vicky weaver about those rules..oh wait..you can’t. sorry.

    think of it this way..now that they’re written down, they are something that can be fought against and changed. combating unwritten rules is like fighting ghosts.

    Like

    • December 3, 2011 9:36 am

      And let’s not forget about Wako either.

      Like

      • December 3, 2011 2:26 pm

        this is more of an individual assassination than a “to whom it may concern” like what happened at waco. they didn’t give a damn who was inside and it was targeted at all of them, (using a m240 from a helicopter to strafe the place at the time of the raid proves that) not just the head guy. if they wanted him they could have just picked him up while he was jogging.

        at waco, they might as well have used artillery. Randy and Vicky Weaver were targeted individually because randy told the FBI that they wouldn’t spy for them.

        Jose Guerena Ortiz in Arizona was targeted individually. if they just wanted him and wanted to search his home, pick him up on his way out of work and serve a search warrant on his wife at his house. no SWAT team required. the guy was a recent combat vet and they knew he had guns. invade a man’s home after those 2 factors and you KNOW he’s going for his rifle before he even figures out who’s there. probably before he’s even awake enough to know the gun is in his hand.

        remember this..we’re ALL already targets and this little bit doesn’t really change anything. if someone wants you gone, all they have to do is add a box of Chore Boy copper scrubbers under your sink ( http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/atf-classifies-chore-boy-pot-scrubber-pads-nfa-firearms?CID=examiner_alerts_article ) to be “found” later on to justify your being shot. the newspaper headline will read “man found with parts to build silencers was shot trying to escape police today”.

        Like

  16. December 3, 2011 5:39 pm

    This whole argument over whether terrorists and battlefield combatants having the same constitutional rights as Americans is ridiculous.

    It is a great touchy-feely argument for those who have never been in combat or had to personally face off against someone trying to kill you or your buddies.

    I totally reject the mantra that if we behave like those trying to kill us we in turn become like them, In the real world that idea will get you killed.

    Those enemies we now face laugh at those sentiments and take advantage of our constitutional largess, courtesy of those who don’t have the stomach to face the harsh reality of war.

    We have no obligation to extend any constitutional protections or consideration to those that would destroy us….WM

    Like

    • The Georgia Yankee permalink
      December 3, 2011 6:06 pm

      The debate isn’t over whether enemy combatants on the battlefield should be accorded rights guaranteed under the American Constitution, and never has been. My point about Constitutional rights has been that they’re not reserved just for American citizens, but I’ve never suggested that American troops should enter a battlefield armed with legal documents – paper doesn’t stop bullets. I fully expect American forces tto exert maximum lethality on the enemy in a batttlefield situation without regard to race, gender, religious orientation or citizenship. Our military should be an equal-opportunity can of whoopass.

      As to terrorists, well, how do they legitimately become defined as terrorists? Did imprisonment in GITMO automatically qualify them as terrorists? Our own military would disagree on that point. Those kids weren’t terrorists, they were young men who pissed off an elder in their own or another tribe and got turned over to our military in an ill-advised bounty program.

      Were we right to capture, imprison and try Timothy McVeigh? Or should law enforcement officers, upon capturing him and confirming his identity, simply have executed him on the spot? True, we’re under no obligation to extend Constitutional protections tto those who would destroy us, but how do we determine their motivation, off the battlefield, without due process? Due process uncovered the truth about the majority of the GITMO detainees; withoutt it, we may have made a horrible mistake for which God Himself may have had difficulty forgiving us.

      I hear the argument that only those who’ve known war are qualified to make judgments and decisions about it. It may be an inconvenient truth, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people in the US have never experienced the harsh realities of war, and in fact if our military successfully deters nations from taking the unbelievably foolish step of declaring war on us, even fewer Americans in the future will know that reality. It would be an unbelievably foolish mistake to place responsibility for decisions involving war in the hands only of those who’ve experienced it.

      Take good care and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      Like

  17. December 3, 2011 8:08 pm

    Shallow tired arguments do not serve the cause. We are dealing in real time with life threatening actions by an enemy who laugh at the moral equivalency of those who would give them thew succor of constitutional rights – we are under no obligation to extend those rights to non-citizens.

    I also do not subscribe to liberal theory of a ‘living’ constitution. It is an argument propagated by academics who live in a world of theory and prognostications and rather than solve issues those theories lead to more confusion and uncertainty….WM

    Like

  18. December 7, 2011 11:41 am

    Wasn’t the idea of reading the abridged Constitution was to give lawmakers a better understanding of it and not pass laws like this?

    Like

    • December 7, 2011 10:24 pm

      It is apparent that this was just a gimmick to appease the Tea party and nobody in the Congress really cares what the constitution stands for.

      Like

Trackbacks

  1. North Dakota police use Air Force Predator drone to locate American citizens « America's Watchtower
  2. Defense bill will allow United States citizens to be held at GITMO without trial « America's Watchtower
  3. The Congress passes a bill which may lead to 30,000 unmanned drones patrolling the skies over American cities « America's Watchtower
  4. Unmanned drones coming to a city near you in the future « America's Watchtower
  5. House committee to hold hearings on turning over internet regulation to the United Nations « America's Watchtower

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: