I don’t know why you’re saying y’all. I was fine with the prisoner exchange with Berghdal. Prisoner exchanges are a regular action during war. Always has been. As long as the exchanges are for combatants of roughly equivalent rank, I’m fine with it.
There’s no bad faith here on my end. I don’t like the idea of the US government killing american citizens without a trial. I’ve always consistently held that view.
Wasn’t Alwaki still an active terrorist when he was hit? I’m not seeing how you could give him due process if he is involved in semi military actions against the country. If it were possible to catch him or extradite him, fine.
I mean, even in this country if you don’t surrender yourself your due process may end up in the street.
That’s what we said. The Government (Obama himself for the example being discussed) decided to kill US Citizens without so much as an inducement let alone a trial and conviction. Heck, they didn’t even attempt to apprehend him or his completely innocent family members. They just droned him. BOOM. It was clearly unconstitutional to do so.
Okay, my apologies.
In that context ya’ll, was a reference to our right leaning friends here.
The point is, they shouldn’t have to, the Government has a paramount duty to follow the Constitution. By your standards, the cops should just gun down any and all suspected criminals and let the families sue them. Does that sound good to you?
The tears are for the Constitution, not the suspected terrorist. I have very little doubt that he (not so much his dead family members) was guilty of most if not all of what they accused him of. But the Constitution doesn’t care about guilt or innocence, it only cares about the Right of due process before the government can infect punishment.
That’s not how it works.
What court convicted him of terrorism?
Obama was the judge, jury and the executioner.
On second thought we should have sent a seal team in, arrested him, read him his Miranda rights and flown him back to the United States to face trial. Exposing the seal team to death to make an arrest of a known terrorists on foreign soil because he needs due process rights. Yeah that’s the ticket to deal with terrorists.
Allan
Allan
Except that is exactly how it worked.
I have noticed that you spend a great deal of time on the world how should be, not how it is.
You oughta maybe ponder that.
That’s not how it works. You can not give up your rights. You can only choose not to exercise them.
If you say so.
We ought to ask the dude how that particular fairy tale worked out for him.
Oh, wait…
most certainly is not.
see where it says “crime”. please, go find us the law that makes being an enemy a crime.
who’s ya’ll?
i support killing enemies at war. if they surrender, fine, if not, shoot first. thats what you do with enemies.
birgdahl should have been left to rot. i do not support deserters. they should be shot too.
why are you talking about crime, according to Bush doctrine they are enemy combatant and not privy to constitutional rights.
why do you think America can just lock people up indefinite without trial.
Terrorist are not “Enemies” in the eyes of the government they are not organized government forces they are enemy combatant in an endless war which is why GITMO exist in the first place.
under the law POW have rights, enemy combatant have no rights according to the U.S government.
there are currently 40 people left in GITMO the government doesn’t have enough evidence to charge them with a crime so they kinda just are leaving them to rot.
according to the U.S government enemy combatant don’t have rights.
the U.S government is very clear that terrorist are not enemies as defined by international law.
the supreme court even said “Yo these people have rights” and the government said nope.
Nah America needed to kill him,
then kill child son two week later.
then kill his child daughter few years later.
it ain’t your constitution.
