Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 112

Thread: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

  1. #31
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    The problem is Anwar-al-Awlaki never denied what he did - he bragged about it - in my book that is an informal way of pleading guilty.

    Would it really have been necessary to charge him with treason, murder and conspiracy to commit murder (among a slew of charges)?

    We would have had to charge him, issue an arrest warrant - find him, capture him, bring him back to the US and once that impossible task was done and many were killed in the process, give Anwar-al-Awlaki a trial - which without question would be al-Awlaki on a soapbox....

    As a libertarian I'm all for going through the correct channels of due process but a situation like al-Awlaki is a totally different scenario and beast.
    Bringing in a charge of treason only confuses things. He need not be convicted of treason to be declared a foreign combatant at war with the US; that can be done administratively. Either way he gets a Hellfire missile up his rear.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  2. #32
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It seems that there is the Constitution and there is the Constitution of your imagination.

    In the real Constitution when a US citizen joins foreign combatants to take up arms against the US then he has revoked his citizenship and becomes a foreign combatant. There need no longer be any concern about his rights as a citizen. His disposition becomes a military matter to be handled by military means, and that includes his identification as a foreign combatant. So it is not a matter of patience running out and claiming that anything goes, it is a matter of established law.

    People are often astonished to find something in the Constitution that they don't like, but there it is.
    With all due respect, I have given reference to the imaginary Constitution you claim is a figment of my imagination.

    Can you please point out to me, in the real Constitution, the support for your assertion; "when a US citizen joins foreign combatants to take up arms against the US then he has revoked his citizenship and becomes a foreign combatant. There need no longer be any concern about his rights as a citizen. His disposition becomes a military matter to be handled by military means, and that includes his identification as a foreign combatant."?
    Last edited by TML; 03-10-13 at 05:29 PM.

  3. #33
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Exactly why our imaginary "assassination court" would have issued the permit to kill him. Clear evidence. The only real objection to this procedure would be if it were used under questionable circumstances.





    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot. Anwar-al-Awlaki is a good example of that.

    Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?

    It's not exactly like Anwar-al-Awlaki was shy about his plight....

  4. #34
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No, I am not. I am responding to someone who wrote "show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon" to support his attempt to equate law with opinion of WH legal counsel
    You are correct in that a legal opinion is not the law. It is what it is: a legal opinion or interpretation of the law. However, from the Executive, such opinions have long given the President clout - justification - to either expand his legal reach or ignore portions of the law as he sees fit. This is where I agree with Rand Paul in principle at least. American citizens needed to know what the issues are on both sides of this matter. As far as I'm concerned, it's a settle matter: No drone strikes on US soil; no drone strikes against suspected terrorist unless and until all other avenues have been exhausted. Of course, WE, THE PEOPLE, may never know to what extremes the President has taken in fighting terrorism as Commander-in-Chief, but I must believe that all players - from Intel to Defense to Presidential Advisors to Congress, if necessary, have all had their say and other avenuers were thoroughly addressed or attempted before breaking out one of the most mobile, flexible and leathal weapon in America's military arsenal - drones w/laser guided missles - to kill discriminently.

    I try to remember, at least from my vantage point as a private citizen, the social-political waters the President of the United States has to navigate on a daily basis. I imagine sometimes matters aren't as clear cut as we, this nation's citizesn, expect them to be. So, in most cases I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt until I learn otherwise.

    Where drone stikes against Americans abroad is concerned in fighting the War on Terror, I think the President deserves some latitude here. Same could be said for wireless wiretaps, a position I still have reservations over, but can understand the need to listen in on private cell phone conversations in a nation that is a cultural magnet - the perverbial "melting pot" - for people from all walks of life come to experience the liberties we, natural born and deemed citizens, often take for granted. I admit I've given GWB flack over the Patriot Act in the past, but the more I learn of how the terrorist operated leading up to 9/11, the more I realize such a bold step needed to be taken. Perhaps not as broad as originally authorized (hence, the reason the Patriot Act was replaced with the USA Patriot Act), but necessary nonetheless.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-10-13 at 05:57 PM.

  5. #35
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    With all due respect, I have given reference to the imaginary Constitution you claim is a figment of my imagination.

    Can you please point out to me, in the real Constitution, the support for your assertion; "when a US citizen joins foreign combatants to take up arms against the US then he has revoked his citizenship and becomes a foreign combatant. There need no longer be any concern about his rights as a citizen. His disposition becomes a military matter to be handled by military means, and that includes his identification as a foreign combatant."?
    It's that damned Commander in Chief thing again. As part of his authority over foreign affairs, the President directs the State Department to administer procedures whereby a person automatically loses his citizenship, and those rules are part of that.

    The sad story of William Alexander Morgan provides an example:

    William Alexander Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  6. #36
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    You are correct in that a legal opinion is not the law. It is what it is: a legal opinion or interpretation of the law. However, from the Executive, such opinions have long given the President clout - justification - to either expand his legal reach or ignore portions of the law as he sees fit.
    Again, the person I was addressing stated "show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion
    until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon"

    My point was that if the document is secret then no one can "show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous"

  7. #37
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It's that damned Commander in Chief thing again. As part of his authority over foreign affairs, the President directs the State Department to administer procedures whereby a person automatically loses his citizenship, and those rules are part of that.

    The sad story of William Alexander Morgan provides an example:

    William Alexander Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I already debunked your false claims the last time you posted this. An American can only lose their citizenship under the circumstances specified by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
    8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Al-Awlaki performed no actions that meet the standards of the law and would result in the loss of citizenship. The state department has issue no such claim either. The memo released discussing the legality of the drone strikes didn't make any mention about removing citizenship, merely stating it wasn't an obstacle to assassination.

    The whole concept is merely a made up fantasy of yours that contradicts existing laws, legal precedent, the constitution and the actions of the state department. Al-Awlaki was a citizen on the day he was killed and the current administration considers that acceptable, no way around it.

  8. #38
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    It's that damned Commander in Chief thing again. As part of his authority over foreign affairs, the President directs the State Department to administer procedures whereby a person automatically loses his citizenship, and those rules are part of that.

    The sad story of William Alexander Morgan provides an example:

    William Alexander Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Wikipedia is not a citation from the Constitution, nor does that link give reference to the Constitution, to support your assertion.

    The real Constitution authorizes Congress to create the rules on citizenship in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    They did this in the US Code 8 USC § 1481 that, rathi, points out.

    As to Alexander Morgan, I will point out that the State Department revoking his citizenship, doesn’t entail whether or not such was lawful. And we should notice that it was probably not lawful since “In April 2007, the US State Department declared that Morgan's US citizenship was effectively restored, nearly 50 years after the government stripped him of his rights in 1959”. They revoked it based on 8 USC § 1481 (3) “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States”. In which he was not engaged in hostilities, and if he were, that would make Article 3 Section 3 applicable.

    Article 3 Section 3 “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”

    As the US Code coincides... 8 USC § 1481 Loss of nationality … “(7) committing any act of treason against, … … 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.

    The Commander in Chief does not have the authority to willy nilly revoke citizenship.

  9. #39
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    I already debunked your false claims the last time you posted this. An American can only lose their citizenship under the circumstances specified by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
    8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Al-Awlaki performed no actions that meet the standards of the law and would result in the loss of citizenship. The state department has issue no such claim either. The memo released discussing the legality of the drone strikes didn't make any mention about removing citizenship, merely stating it wasn't an obstacle to assassination.

    The whole concept is merely a made up fantasy of yours that contradicts existing laws, legal precedent, the constitution and the actions of the state department. Al-Awlaki was a citizen on the day he was killed and the current administration considers that acceptable, no way around it.
    Nope, I debunk you back. The Act isn't binding on the President in war time with regard to his functions as Commander in Chief. He may have the State Department deal with the issue of citizenship of a combatant at war with the US if he thinks it best, but he need not.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  10. #40
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,552
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    Wikipedia is not a citation from the Constitution, nor does that link give reference to the Constitution, to support your assertion.

    The real Constitution authorizes Congress to create the rules on citizenship in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    They did this in the US Code 8 USC § 1481 that, rathi, points out.

    As to Alexander Morgan, I will point out that the State Department revoking his citizenship, doesn’t entail whether or not such was lawful. And we should notice that it was probably not lawful since “In April 2007, the US State Department declared that Morgan's US citizenship was effectively restored, nearly 50 years after the government stripped him of his rights in 1959”. They revoked it based on 8 USC § 1481 (3) “entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States”. In which he was not engaged in hostilities, and if he were, that would make Article 3 Section 3 applicable.

    Article 3 Section 3 “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”

    As the US Code coincides... 8 USC § 1481 Loss of nationality … “(7) committing any act of treason against, … … 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.

    The Commander in Chief does not have the authority to willy nilly revoke citizenship.
    Morgan was a senior commander in a foreign country. The country need not be at war with the US for the State department to revoke his citizenship; this is from a peacetime statute. If he were at war with the US the statute doesn't necessarily apply unless the President says it does.

    The state department acted lawfully in both cases. It was clear in the latter instance that he had fallen out of favor with Castro.

    The Commander in Chief has the authority to willy nilly do all sorts of things you'd probably find distasteful and unfair.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •