In response to:

Random Thoughts

kbreez Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 7:44 PM
I agree withg You about the American being killed. If you join the enemy what do you expect? John Walker Lindh anybody?
Corbett_ Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:02 PM
Kbreeze -- So you willing to throw out the 5th Amendment. Are there any other parts of teh COnstitution you think we can do without?
wiseone Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 8:02 PM
Lindh could have been executed for treason after being convicted. No one, not Bush, not Obama, not anyone, wants to kill any enemy combatant if he'snot a mortal threat to Americans.

But if an enemy combatant takes up arms against the US he is no less a danger if he happens to be a US citizen. The President's first duty is to provide for a common defense. If he doesn't do that the rest of his job won't matter.

This is just as true for Obama as it was for Bush.
Corbett_ Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 8:37 PM

The Presidents 1st and ONLY duty is to uphold the Constitution. It is in his oath. That means ALL OF IT -- including the 5th Amendment.
MarineGunner Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:17 PM
The U.S. Constitution does not apply to any but American citizens, and it does not protect enemy combatants. If it did, each American military member would need a Grand Jury indictment or presentment before killing each enemy soldier. This is obviously not the meaning or intent that was intended by the authors of the Constitution, nor is it what the Constitution says.
MarineGunner Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:21 PM
Furthermore, terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention, contrary to what is said by those who either have not read the Geneva Convention or are incapable of understanding what is plainly written. Such inability to understand is usually the result of politically motivated agenda filters that blind the reader to its obvious meaning.
Corbett_ Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:40 PM
Marinegunner -- Don't give me that nonsense about military members needing a grand jury indictment. You're not that damned stupid. You KNOW we are not talking about a battlefield. We are talking about the US government deciding to kill people because they have been accused of doing something the government doesn't like.
Corbett_ Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:43 PM
Marinegunner --

Read the 5th Amendment. Does it have a clause that makes an exception for people accused of terrorism? Does it say, "No one except accused terrorists shall be held to answer..."?

No -- it says "No one". What part of "No one" can't you understand?
ranma2 Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 11:20 PM

Are you talking about giving the miranda to ARMED people?
Cops are allowed to kill armed hostage-takers without "trying to arrest them".

An armed person in a highly hostile/dangerous place does not enjoy the luxury of the 5th amendment which is meant for ordinary citizens who are not threatening to shoot at the USA government.

A terrorist US citizen is the same as an unstable kid with an AK47 who is hiding in his place of crime. The police would shoot him dead. And so would the USA military.

You should try arresting someone with AK, and tell me how that goes.
You'd be dead. and the world would have a bump in IQ average.

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

I can't get excited by the question of whether Senator Robert Menendez had sex with a prostitute in Central America. It is her word against his -- and when it comes to a prostitute's word against a politician's word, that is too close to call.

If an American citizen went off to join Hitler's army during World War II, would there have been any question that this alone would make it legal to kill him? Why then is there an uproar about killing an American citizen who has joined terrorist organizations that...