I'm not saying the GOVT should be able to arbitrarily strip citizenship for any reason. But a terrorist who has plotted against the US can hardly expect sympathy.
But it then sounds as if that's exactly the argument you want to make. Because who designates "terrorist"? It's not us, it's the government. If you're saying that once designated a "terrorist", one shouldn't expect the protections of the Constitution; then you are saying it's up to the government to apply at their digression the namesake "terrorist" and once doing so remove themselves from the constraints and rules of the Constitution.
Does not matter what I believe. The point is Obama holds Muslim terrorist in a higher light then he does US citizens. Obama gives the foreign terrorist more rights than US citizens
If I could follow what the hell you were talking about, I'd respond.
That doesn't state that treaties are made a part of the Constitution.
Also, did you notice that Article Six lists those three things in order of supremacy: Constitution, Laws of the United States, Treaties.
The quoted portion also clearly states that laws which contradict treaties supersede those treaties.
Who would you feel stands a better chance in an American court an American citizen who speaks perfect English, and radicalized by a foreign religious ideology or a middle-eastern picked up in a hovel who speaks enough English to spew hatred in any tongue?
Think about it.
You asked: How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?
Your question presupposes that unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) are entitled to a trial, which they are not. Article Six of the Constitution incorporates treaties made under the authority of the US government and gives them the full force of law; in this case, the Geneva Conventions, and not the Fifth Amendment, would be the relevant legal text in determining the status of the Cleric.
Yet terrorist in Gitmo get trials
Welp, Obama was teetering when it comes to my re-election vote. This seals it.
I certainly wont vote GOP or Tea Party soo.... I'm gonna go start my own party! With blackjack! And hookers!
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:
By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?
That granted by the Constitution.
How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?
Does not matter. Why are citizens targeted for assassination while foreign terrorist get constitutional rights?
Do we allow the government to define when we are no longer citizens then?
Does not matter. Why are citizens targeted for assassination while foreign terrorist get constitutional rights?
I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?
I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?
Has he lost his citizenship b/c of terrorist activity?
And so will this terrorist if he isn't killed in the process of detaining him. Obama just made clear that it's fine if we have to kill him.
I would be for reading him his rights if he surrendered, but the fact is that he is a dangerous cleric who is hiding in a mountainous region and is surrounded by people who like to shoot Americans. Since when is it illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?
Then why spend money on trials just kill all the ones in custody. Unless it is only US citizens we kill
Nobody is saying anything about executions in lieu of trials.
No one is calling for killing of foreign terrorist just the ones that are US citizens. Is Obama protecting the Muslims for a reason?
Your question presupposes that unlawful combatants (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) are entitled to a trial, which they are not. Article Six of the Constitution incorporates treaties made under the authority of the US government and gives them the full force of law; in this case, the Geneva Conventions, and not the Fifth Amendment, would be the relevant legal text in determining the status of the Cleric.
What is "the supreme law of the land" if not the Constitution?
It makes no mention of importance or supremacy. It simply says that the Constitution, legislation, and treaties are "the supreme law of the land".
1. Where's the contradiction?
Here's how I see it...
He's an American citizen, just like the Hutaree militia weirdos, BUT he left the country with the intention of taking part in an active terror campaign against the United States.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?