CIA able to kill american citizens that are helping al qiada

I dont think the al qiada is good, and i also dont think americans should be helping them, but this law bothers me. I know i dont have a link to it because i read it in the newspaper today. Since a lot of american forcers are over in afganistan there are lots of possible people to kill. If bush declares marshal law and uses the forces in america to take it over there will be no one to help protec the american citizens. So if the soldiers that are over sea hear of this and want to save the people, the cia can kill them based on this new law.

If someone could find a link related to this story i would appreciate it.

I am Hoping you misunderstood this!

The CIA is now able to kill deployed troops for wanting to assist there fellow citizens "back home" if marshall law is inacted???!!

Please!

Boomslang

That is why we have a 2nd amendment. Everyone needs to calm down, Democracy is kept free by 2 things, Smart heads, and Civil War.

Use your brains and know what's going on is the first step to prevention, when that fails Civil War always shakens up Big Brother a bit.

Sincerely,
no signature

boomslang that is not what i meant. What i meant is that the cia could say the troops were helping the al quiada and kill them, when in reality the troops were not helping al quiada and trying to help the american people. Im not saying they will, but i am just saying that it might be a possibility.

LOL
you lot couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, love to see you try and organise a civil war.

I seem to recall our lot kicking the Sh!t out of your lot a couple hundred years back....

That is not 100% accurate. The American Patriots did not "kick the Sh!t" out of England. We did (every once in a while) fight a good fight but in the end the English backed out for fear of a wider conflict in Europe since the French and Russians were sending us aid and the fact that the war was costing the Brits ALOT of money. There was no decisive battle that forced the Brits to flee.
And Lupe if you are saying that Americans can't organize well enough to fight a civil war I suggest that you do a little research. We had a dandy of a war about 150 years ago, or didn't you hear?

Sorry my last post was a little off topic. As to the original topic, I have serious doubts as to the validity of this. I do not see how a law could be passed that allows the CIA to kill American soldiers for any reason whatsoever.
My 2 cents worth.

"And Lupe if you are saying that Americans can't organize well enough to fight a civil war I suggest that you do a little research. We had a dandy of a war about 150 years ago, or didn't you hear?"

I'm suggesting that your country is now to populated and diverse to effectively mobalise against your government.

People are more political than they were 150 years ago, There are now to many opposing demographics the very best you could hope for would be 50% of the country rising up to fight the other 50%

Its one of the things i find so amusing about the constnt "we need the right to bear arms incase one day we have to take the country back"

Its a hilarious concept similar to the time when the IRA imagined that the people of wales and scotland and Ireland would support a march on London.

People are to comfortable nowadays.

most likely a tiny segment of your population would head to the hills, hole up in bunkers and wait for the citizens to rise to their cause, the citizens meanwhile would sit in their nice suburban houses watching you on CNN and thinking "well.....I don't like whats happening but if its a choice between joining those nuts and getting shot or watching the edited highlights on fox, I think I'll sit this one out"

I see your point, hadn't thought about the population explosion. I would assume, however, that this would be the case in most (if not all) Western countries.

I believe so.

Certainly we couldn't rise up.....doubt most of Europe could. The Spanish could have a decent crack at it, they did it fairly recently and they are a divided nation so theoretically one faction could rise against the other.

The only difference is that you don't hear Brits suggesting they need to carry guns in case one day they have to mobalise against the government.

Yes, but not all of us say that we need to be able to carry guns. Certainly not I. I am not a big fan of the second amendment but I am less of a fan of tinkering around with the Constitution. The founding fathers did a pretty good job in constructing that document. As far as I can tell the only reason the second amendment was inserted was due to our lack of a standing army. If we needed a military we would have one at the ready in every home.

couldn't agree more.
and as there is no need for a civilian army any more (threats no longer being invasive in nature and wars being focused on reconacance and long range weaponry) the argument becomes void. or at least there are far better ones.

If you are going to quote a newspaper story, at least quote it correctly.

The story in question had to do with the CIA missle attack that took out the Al Qaeda terrorists in Quatar. Those in the car included an American citizen from Buffalo, New York, who was the leader of the terrorist cell whose members were arrested not too long ago.

The story indicated that the CIA has the authority to assasinate American citizens who are outside the US, have been found to be working for Al Qaeda, and only as a last resort, ie, law enforcment efforts to arrest them have failed. It also stated that the authorization to take these measures would have to come from very high sources in the government.

This has NOTHING to do with our military. Think about it. If the military were to rebel against the US government, do you think the CIA could do a single thing about it? And besides, it would never happen. We support our President as the Commander in Chief. Period.

As far as Loopy's outragous crap about "50% against 50%" in an American civil war, you'd be lucky to get 1% to agree to what it would take to mount such a coup. It's a ridiculous comment.

And oh, by the way, Loopy, we don't keep the right to bear arms so that we can "take back our country", you dip#. We keep them to protect ourselves from criminals, and dip# socialist whiners like you...

ahhhhhh I see *nods*

that is what i was trying to get across but i couldnt really explain it well sorry next time if i post a news story i will have a link.

I think if the government did soemtin very desisive like disbnd the fredonm of religion or to bear arm we would have more than enough for a civil war.