|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 16, 2011 3:04:52 GMT -5
He was still legally a citizen and was denied his right to due process. Saying you're no longer a US citizen doesn't make it so and committing treason doesn't mean you're not a US citizen. By all means, charge him with treason, but do so in the manner the constitution says to do it. So, what about all those Confederate soldiers we murdered without trial back in the Civil War? Uniformed soldiers killed during a declared war between recognised, sovereign nation states. Very, VERY different to a state deciding unilaterally to target civilians for death without trial. That is, in fact, a war crime, during time of war, and a crime against humanity ALL the time. That's precisley the sort of thing that the US claims is its justification for declaring war on other countries! Seriously... what is your justification for US military intervention in Libya, for example? That Ghadafti was killing people he considered dangerous without trial? And the difference here is...? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 16, 2011 3:06:11 GMT -5
B, he was conspiring with an enemy army to kill innocent people. Fair, next. A. How do you know whether he was or not, since he was never given a trial? B. Which "enemy army" are you alleging he was conspiring with, anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 16, 2011 8:35:58 GMT -5
You can't just claim that someone you don't like* isn't an American citizen through some non-legal process- and therefore no entitled to the protections he is entitled. That's just silly. Legally you are right he was still a US citizen. I say that if you betray your country and are actively trying to kill is people you have given up you citizenship. Did Adam Yahiye Gadahn lose his citizenship and get extra-legally executed when he was accused of treason? No, because accusation is not and never will be proof. Your argument that accusation is proof is the doctrine of every tyrant from Nero to McCarthy. You must prove accusation in court (unless they're wearing a uniform, on a battlefield or shooting someone). Accusation are not proof. Proof however is just what we call it. Oh, and Gadahn has been targeted before they just have not hit him yet. Didn't you say you thought it was okay to shoot deserters? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 16, 2011 8:40:17 GMT -5
Was he 1) A uniform-wearing member or commander of a recognised millitary force from a country the US has declared war on? 2) A combatant on a battlefield? 3) Directly threatening someone's life by having breakfast? 4) A convicted criminal? If a person is killed without any of those four being fullfilled, it's murder. Those rules were made to protect innocent people from being killed. They were also made before organizations like Al-Qaeda came about. Right now they are protecting people they never were designed to. If it comes down to violating those rules to protect others in the futures the rules be damned. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 16, 2011 16:00:40 GMT -5
You can't just claim that someone you don't like* isn't an American citizen through some non-legal process- and therefore no entitled to the protections he is entitled. That's just silly. Legally you are right he was still a US citizen. I say that if you betray your country and are actively trying to kill is people you have given up you citizenship. Nope. Even really bad criminals, traitors, serial killers and so on, are still citizens. Citizenship is both a legal tool and a description of identity- you don't stop coming from Kentucky just because you're a terrorist. Therefore, this person was innocent. I thought they'd captured him. Oh well. After a trial, sure. Was he 1) A uniform-wearing member or commander of a recognised millitary force from a country the US has declared war on? 2) A combatant on a battlefield? 3) Directly threatening someone's life by having breakfast? 4) A convicted criminal? If a person is killed without any of those four being fullfilled, it's murder. Those rules were made to protect innocent people from being killed. The laws were made to prevent the president shooting people without court order. You want the president to shoot people without court order. That's murder. Terrorist organisations have always existed. Al-Qaeda, for instance, is 30 years old. The Soviet Union was a far greater threat than AQ, and yet they were defeated without completely disregarding US law. Then change the law, don't just ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Oct 16, 2011 16:17:58 GMT -5
So, what about all those Confederate soldiers we murdered without trial back in the Civil War? Uniformed soldiers killed during a declared war between recognised, sovereign nation states. Very, VERY different to a state deciding unilaterally to target civilians for death without trial. That is, in fact, a war crime, during time of war, and a crime against humanity ALL the time. That's precisley the sort of thing that the US claims is its justification for declaring war on other countries! I don't see the difference between an American in Al-Qaeda and an American in the Confederate Army. Both have joined organizations that attack and kill Americans. Gaddafi was massacring innocent civilians. To my knowledge, this man was NOT an innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 16, 2011 16:21:24 GMT -5
Uniformed soldiers killed during a declared war between recognised, sovereign nation states. Very, VERY different to a state deciding unilaterally to target civilians for death without trial. That is, in fact, a war crime, during time of war, and a crime against humanity ALL the time. That's precisley the sort of thing that the US claims is its justification for declaring war on other countries! I don't see the difference between an American in Al-Qaeda and an American in the Confederate Army. Both have joined organizations that attack and kill Americans. The Confederates wore uniforms and fought on battlefields. This person did not wear a uniform, in fact he denied affiliation with Al Qaeda. He never used a weapon and was nowhere near a battlefield. The charges against him were not millitary, they were criminal. Criminal charges must be proven in court. Until proven guilty, sure. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 16, 2011 17:25:17 GMT -5
Nope. Even really bad criminals, traitors, serial killers and so on, are still citizens. Citizenship is both a legal tool and a description of identity- you don't stop coming from Kentucky just because you're a terrorist. Where you are from and where your allegiances lie are to very different things. In a legal sense, but not in reality. If they capture him. If they get a chance to kill him first that's what will happen. That is not what those rules were made for. You can call it anything you want, I thing it is justified. The Soviet Union was also the government of a country, there is a very big difference. Sure we could change US law. We could also change International law. Until then we are not going to sit back and do nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 16, 2011 18:09:14 GMT -5
I don't see the difference between an American in Al-Qaeda and an American in the Confederate Army. Both have joined organizations that attack and kill Americans. The Confederates wore uniforms and fought on battlefields. This person did not wear a uniform, in fact he denied affiliation with Al Qaeda. He never used a weapon and was nowhere near a battlefield. The charges against him were not millitary, they were criminal. Criminal charges must be proven in court. And it can be argued that Confederates were also fighting to protect some Americans, whereas Al-Qaeda are willing to kill all Americans. |
|
