reply to post by seabag
Yes, and my response to you is. Where is the proof?
You came in this thread saying how the ad was out of context and proceeded to attack Paul's foreign policy, to no avail, I might add.
You said terrorists or enemy combatants of former American citizenry lose all of their rights under the Constitution but where is the proof, recorded
in public court that he was guilty? How can you say somebody is treasonous without proof or conviction? We're not JUST talking about Al Awlaki,
we're talking about ANYBODY that the government chooses to deem terrorist or enemy combatant.
Like I said in my earlier post, two lawyers determined his fate. LAWYERS & NOT witnesses, per article 3 of the Constitution.
Where is the absolute proof? If the military, cia, dod, pentagon or anybody had the proof, they wouldn't need lawyers to decide, they would be able
to convict him in a speedy trial but that wasn't necessary, not even for his teenage son.
What happened to your nuclear Iran argument? Since you didn't rebut my Iran explanation, your silence is acquiescence and you know you were wrong. If
you, an active military service person, can be absolutely wrong about an entire sovereign and foreign nations' missile capabilities, I don't trust
your knowledge on the Constitution either.
edit on 1-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)