It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sweetliberty
Originally posted by kalunom
Here is a video I found showing Herman Cain being questioned about Al-Awlaki. In the video Herman Cain says that he, as an American citizen, should be charged, tried, and brought to justice.
So it is not just Ron Paul who thinks this way.
I'm so proud of Ron Paul and Herman Cain for speaking out against killing American citizens without due process. I hope more will realize just how troubling this is to all Americans.
We need more public figures speaking out against this.
A couple of friends at work are Obama supporters simply "because he's black"! They support anything Obama does regardless of what it is. Thats pathetic and I hope I never fall into that kind of thinking with anyone I might support for potus.
I have to wonder about that homegrown terror list and just how long it is.
This is a very serious and scary subject that shouldn't be excused.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by kalunom
Innocent until proven guilty? Who has proven Al-Awlaki guilty?
Oh trust me, he has been proven guilty.
He went to war against the USA, he lost his life. That is it. I do not feel the slightest bit of sorry for him.
Originally posted by seachange
Even in a war, you give your enemy an opportunity to surrender when on the battlefield.
There is some evidence he may have been an enemy (though nothing solid that I've seen). But even if I accept that evidence, where is the evidence that he was given the opportunity to surrender on the battlefield? Did the military phone home and say: "Hey, we're about to send over a missile to kill you. This is your last chance to surrender. Yes or No?" I'd like to hear the audio of that.
You could say that the so-called terrorist was involved in war against the United States. Congress is the branch of the government that authorizes war. So, I challenge anyone who thinks this was an act of war to point to the passed piece of legislation authorizing war against him in specific.
Originally posted by maddog99
reply to post by Robbnn
Incorrect...we have not declared war since WWII and even during war people do have the right to a trial by jury!
During WWII when we captured Nazis and American traitors, they were executed. But not before they had their day in court...even if it was a military court!
OMG what have we become if we stand by the same ideals as the other countries who have no freedom, no constitution or bill of rights?
And BTW, isn't this the same guy who was attending luncheons at the Pentagon less than 6 months after 911?
What's this sites motto? Deny Ignorance?
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
These types of statements are why Ron Paul will never be elected to office. This was a MILITARY opperation and as comparison....if you are say...a member of the U.S. Army or Marines...and you are ordered to charge a hill...and a soldier in the middle of battle...turns around and runs the other way....by Military Codes of Justice....it is PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR AN OFFICER TO SHOOT DEAD THIS SOLDIER FOR DISOBEYING ORDERS IN A BATTLE OR FOR COWARDICE.
Now...in this case...an American has become a traitor and is actively running operations that have or can inflict casualties on American Soldiers or Civilians. It is PERFECTLY LEGAL for this TRAITOR to be killed.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
There is a difference between due process by arrest of a criminal and BATTLEFIELD CONDITIONS.
Was this guy walking in a Mall in the United States? Was he minding his own buisness shopping in a Grocery Store? NO!
He was in a car in Yemen with another admitted terrorist as he himself has bragged that he is a terrorist and calls for the death of Americans.
He is a TRAITOR!
Even if his only crime was to encite and enlist Terrorists and terrorism during battlefield opperations....HIS DEATH IS JUSTIFIED BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
--Enemy combatants do have rights to due process as affirmed by the SCOTUS in Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)--
“When the United States acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution, including Art. III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." --Reid v Covert (1957)--