There is Nothing Wrong with Using Drones to Kill American Al Qaeda Members


Flags and a uniform. That's what you call an army.

Flags and a uniform. That’s what you call an army.

So we’re having this debate again.

Get ready for the big debate again over the need to act against al-Qaeda threats and the need to afford Americans their civil rights. The last time the US targeted an American for a lethal military attack, it was Anwar al-Awlaki, who was repeatedly targeted and finally killed in a drone strike despite his status as a US citizen — and as was another American, Samir Khan, an AQ propagandist. CNN reports today that the Obama administration is debating at its “highest levels” whether to launch another military strike against an American member of al-Qaeda:

Swap out Al Qaeda for Nazi Germany and a drone for a B-17 and we wouldn’t even be having this ridiculous conversation each time.

We are not engaged in a criminal investigation of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a criminal organization. It’s not a drug smuggling ring or a mob outlet. It’s an international enemy force with tens of thousands of soldiers.

Its members are not American citizens no matter what passports they hold. They give up being Americans when they join it.

Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States. That’s not a metaphor or a figure of speech.

In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued his first fatwa, a 30-page polemic entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” against the United States and Israel, and it was published in a London newspaper called Al Quds al Arabi.

Al Qaeda members reject the Constitution of the United States and the idea of the nation state. They believe that Islam is supreme over the United States and over all other allegiances.

Al Qaeda members take an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda and its leaders. They place their Bayat, their oath to Al Qaeda leaders, above any and all other commitments. Their Al Qaeda oath is considered the equivalent of the oath to Mohammed.

An Al Qaeda member cannot break his oath without becoming a Kuffar, an infidel. To remain a Muslim in good standing, he must remain loyal to Al Qaeda.

1. Any Al Qaeda member who had American citizenship has already given it up by joining Al Qaeda. He is not engaged in a criminal enterprise, but in a war against the United States.

2. Al Qaeda members don’t need to be prosecuted. They’re not shoplifting in our stores or mugging passerby. They’re engaged in a war with us. We can either kill them or they can kill us.

3. There is no need to “gather evidence” against enemy personnel. The correct term is gathering intelligence. It’s not a job for the Justice Department, but for the military.

4. It might be helpful to capture some enemy combatants for intelligence purposes, but that’s often risky in enemy territory.

5. Finally, it’s not a slippery slope. Not unless you move to Yemen and join Al Qaeda and make videos calling on your followers to kill Americans. And in that case, it’s not a slope at all.

6. American citizenship is not magic. It doesn’t mean that you can join an enemy army and expect to be shielded from attack because you have to be prosecuted first.

That’s not how war works.

  • blert

    “It does mean that you can join an enemy army and expect to be shielded from attack because you have to be prosecuted first.”

    That doesn’t read right… something’s missing.

    • mmichlin

      Should be “It does not mean…” – just a typo

    • Silver Gonzales

      This is the logic used by the well known dhimmy Ron Paulestine and his band of leftist wackjobs/Israel haters on the BOD. The Ron Paul Institute.

      • MnVoiceofReason

        Do you ever get the feeling Libertarians are just really, really fiscally conservative Leftists?

        • J. Bargholz

          They have circled so far to the right that they have run into the leftists on the other side.

    • T800

      you cited it wrong, read it again.
      “It does mean that you can’t [can NOT] join an enemy army and expect to be shielded from attack because you have to be prosecuted first.”

      Or more simply said; “you can’t join an enemy army and expect to be shielded from attack because you have to be prosecuted first.”
      Or “you can join an enemy army,but do not expect to be shielded from attack because you have to be prosecuted first.

      I hope that’s helpful.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Yes it’s a typo, thanks for catching it

  • wileyvet

    What ever happened to the American Taliban John Walker Lind? Lost track of that loser over a decade ago.

    • A Z

      “In January 2003, Lindh was sent to the U.S. Penitentiary, Victorville, a high-security facility northeast of Los Angeles.

      October 4, 2002, Judge T.S. Ellis, III formally imposed the sentence: 20 years without possibility of parole

      In 2010, Lindh and the Syrian-American prisoner Enaam Arnaout sued to lift restrictions on group prayer by Muslim inmates in the Communication Management Unit.[36] On January 11, 2013, a federal judge ruled in their favor, saying that the government had shown no compelling interest in restricting the religious speech of the inmates by prohibiting them from praying together.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

      I assume he is still there

      • wileyvet

        Thanks for that. Amazing using the laws you don’t believe in, of a country you wish to destroy, to improve your life in a prison of that country, for an act against said country. My head is spinning.

        • MnVoiceofReason

          Amen to that

  • T800

    that is the clearest,most concise presentation of the justification for drone attacks I’ve ever seen. Great job.

  • 20pizzapies

    Yea , and the right is part of the reason we’re even talking about this . Yea you got screamers on the left , but on the right you got’em too ,but for different reasons . Half the belly-aching I heard about the drone attack whacking al Awlaki , was coming from right wing blogs about “executing an American citizen ” without a trial .

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I know. That’s why I have to keep reposting the obvious.

      • 20pizzapies

        It’s a worrying sign when we even have to think twice about whacking a traitor .

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It shows a certain amount of confusion about what we believe.

          • 20pizzapies

            That’s the understatement of the year Daniel . It is something Americans should work hard to resolve , and is worrisome to me , because I always have , and still do believe , that USSR/ Russia if given a clear shot at us …..will take it . Especially in the poisonous atmosphere of our political morass , this poses an opportunity .

          • Drakken

            It is not the Russians that you have to worry about, they work for Russia’s self interest and are having a lot of fun effing with Obummer. It is the muslims you will have to worry about.

          • 20pizzapies

            Think again my friend , it takes only 300 nukes hitting their targets to wipe out the US , how many do the Russians Have ? While Islam is indeed a virulent enemy , they have no Nukes and no ICBM technology to get them here . Any Islamic threat would be maybe ONE snuck in , ONE detonation , and that would bring about their absolute demise at our hands . Russia’s self interests ? INDEED .Russians of Putin’s mindset feel humiliated by the end of the Cold War and in their minds blame their woes and future worries on the US . The more oil we produce , the less theirs brings on the world market and theirs costs them more to get out of the ground than ours . In addition it is said Israel [ our Ally ] is sitting on one of the worlds largest natural gas discoveries .

          • J. Bargholz

            I’m not worried about Putin trying to nuke America. Not even with that trsitor in the White House.

          • Drakken

            The Russians like we used to be are practical and logical, Putin has zero interest of going to war against the US, period, so get that foolish notion out of your head. If Iran puts a nuke into the US by whatever means, the Russians know that Iran is toast and their cities will burn. Russia has the most minerals on earth, so energy can fluctuate and Russia still has options.

          • 20pizzapies

            Practical and logical ? Are you serious ? WHEN was that ? Forget Iran , Iran is a flea on an elephants back . Russia’s got Nukes , and the ICBM’s to deliver them , and recently violated START and tested intermediate range ballistic missiles to reach anywhere in Europe or the M.E. Russia also has a Nuclear Submarine Fleet , putting their nukes about 7- 11 minutes from any US target . And you’re worried about jihadis ?

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Pakistan, an Islamic country, has nukes. Your statement is wrong.

          • 20pizzapies

            Yes that’s right , and they are designed mainly to hit their arch enemy India . Their ICBM capability at present is non-existent . It’s one thing to have nukes , quite another to get them to hit where you want them to go .
            Survivability after a counter-attack or response is the key difference between Pakistan and Russia taking a shot at the US . How many Pakistani nuclear capable subs are as we speak lurking less than 20 miles off our coast ? Now ask yourself , how many Russian Subs ? Think about it bunky .

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            First, bunky is a name for someone you room with and that is not my name. So try not to resort o name calling, it makes you look worse than you already are.
            Second, he design of ANY nuclear weapon is to kill on a mass scale, not to hit their arch enemy.
            As for their ICBM capability, a simple google search would show that they are aggressively pursuing that now. Third, the taimur missile is the first ICBM Pakistan has developed that has a range of 7000km (4349.6 miles). While it might not be enough to launch a devastating attack on the United States, it has the capability to do damage.
            Fourth, the more we kill innocent civilians in Pakistan with drone attacks, the more we pi** off future members of their government prompting more hatred from the region. Pakistan is no joke, according to Wikipedia, it boasts 12th largest military in the world (by total of active, reserve and paramilitary, 6th most populated country in the world (Russia is 9th) and we keep stirring the area (China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran) with a “we are the meddlesome giant policeman of the world.” attitude.
            I care not about the subs that are off our coastline, we do it to them all the time. I worry more about the Navy Iran has sent to provoke us. I’m assuming your 20 mile off the coast was a typo as everything i have read said a distance between 275 and 300 miles. Do you even do homework there, bunky?
            The cold war is over and since it has been, there are other things to worry about. Namely people who kill for their God. There are many, many more things to worry about. To me a pi**ed off Russian doesn’t compare to a pi**ed off Islamic that would kill for irrational reasons.
            But, i won’t let your argument divide us, you seem to desire safety and i desire liberty.
            At times, google can be your friend, use it when you need you “talking points”.

          • 20pizzapies

            NO , “first ” – bunky does not mean roommate . What rock have you been living under ? , and besides I’ll call you what I like which is befitting to your low mentality . Wiki for military statistics ? That’s your speed , try Jane’s it’s a bit more accurate . Better study up on your geography too . I never said I was worried about pissing off Russians , I ‘m saying we should watch our back , looks like your reading comprehension is lacking too . Pakistan already hates the US as it does the Hindus of India and anyone else who is an infidel . And they DO NOT have the capability of any devastating attack on the US .
            btw , you do know the distance between Pakistan and the United States , West or East coast …right ? And NO , they have no capacity to launch an attack on any part of the continental United Staes , not even Hawaii .
            Go take a smart pill bunky .

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Yawn.
            Thanks for the name calling. Strengthens your case ten fold (sarc). If you arent thinking outside of the box, youre not going understand life. Everything is not as you see it. But I am digressing, I am merely going to move away from the crazy getting weird for a different opinion (remember yours isnt ALWAYS right). Anyways, you have a safe day, wear your helmet and take your meds.
            God bless you.

          • 20pizzapies

            Yea , whatever bunky , and I’m sure your blessing was “sincere ” .
            Everything is not as you’ve been led to believe .

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Believe what you want. I don’t care about your name calling (even though i am reminded of a Jr. high school kid with your repetitious use of name calling), your view is skewed from mine. I have facts and history on my side. I am being smarter than you by removing myself from a thread where the only position here is to not produce any evidence and to call names. Seems like you nor the author have no candor when it comes to a debate or your positions.
            My blessing was sincere and the last statement in your post shall be repeated back to you. Everything is not as you’ve been led to believe. So, have a great day, i’m going to spend time with my family and loved ones and not bother myself with this trashy scene. But, hey, maybe i’ll come back and tell you all what blog you can find your names on and screen shots of how you people think when it comes to a challenge to your ideals or beliefs. You have zero tolerance and that gives you ZERO credibility.
            Goodbye!

          • 20pizzapies

            LOL…..get off your soap box , and btw , what gives you the idea that I give a flying duck what someone like you thinks of my credibility . You’re free to worry about the sucker punch coming from the Pakistanis , or any other muslim group , but that will leave you open to get blind sided by the Russians . Don’t hurt yourself there in the peanut gallery .

          • 20pizzapies

            No , it’s not the muslims I worry about , they can not destroy the US , they can draw blood at the least and already have . Since you think it’s fun that the Russians are having, why don’t you join them like Snowden .You sound like a Putin assss kisser anyway .

          • J. Bargholz

            The Constitution does give those accused of treason the right to a trial but it also gives the President authority to take military action against those who wage war against America.

            You’re right. Drone strikes against any terrorists waging war against America are legal, even within American borders because it isn’t a matter of law enforcement. People can debate it back and forth but it’s right there in the Constitution for anybody to see.

  • SoCalMike

    We have sell outs and water boys for Islamo-facists on the right too.
    Ron and Rand Paul for instance doing their part to lower the bar for AQ and raise the bar for US COINTEL OPS.
    THANKS Paul boys. You prove that selling out Americans is not the sole providence of the Democrats.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I wouldn’t call the Pauls “right”. It’s just where they find it convenient to hang their hats. They seem far too comfortable chatting up the left.

      But yes…

  • DogmaelJones1

    “That’s not how war works.” Ditto.

  • Berceuse

    So the president draws up a secret list of U.S. citizens that he personally believes to be guilty of treason, despite zero legal evidence and zero judicial review. He then orders and proceeds to carry out the execution of those citizens one by one, assassinating them as they sit quietly in their homes in a non-combat situation and a non-war zone.

    And you don’t see a Constitutional problem?

    Show me the passage in the Bill of Rights (remember them?) authorizing the government to deprive any citizen of due process, for any reason.

    Show me the passage in the Constitution establishing heinousness of the crime as the benchmark for abrogation of a citizen’s inalienable rights. (What, by the way, do you understand “inalienable” to mean, exactly?)

    Killing an American citizen engaged in direct warfare in a war zone situation is one thing. Targeted assassinations based on hearsay is precisely the kind of government abuse from which the Constitution was intended to protect us. It’s distressing to hear conservatives failing to grasp such fundamental concepts, because if we don’t get it, I guarantee you Obama and the progressives don’t.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They are in a war zone and in a combat situation.

      The president is not obligated to publicly announce military targets before they are bombed, regardless of whether there are American citizens there.

      If that was how we did things, we would lose every war.

      Due process has no relation to the battlefield. Enemy combatants are killed when they are engaged in a war against the United States.

      Due process applies to criminal proceedings in criminal matters.

      The Constitution does not in any way shape or form prevent American military personnel from killing enemy personnel on the battlefield.

      • Berceuse

        I appreciate the reply, as well as your intelligence. I believe you and some of my other fellow conservatives, whom i respect and admire, are wrong on this one, and would greatly enjoy engaging in a substantive debate with you in depth on this issue. While this is obviously not the venue for such a debate, I did want to address a couple of your points:

        1) My understanding was that Awlaki was specifically singled out and targeted at a house in Yemen while eating breakfast. He was not engaged in a paramilitary operation at the time, nor did we have evidence that he EVER engaged in such an operation — merely that he may have INTENDED as much.

        2) We need Constitutional protection to ensure that a president — frankly, this president more so than any other in our lifetime — cannot and does not unilaterally declare any citizen of this country an “enemy combatant” subject to assassination without judicial review. I’m sure you understand I am not defending the scum Awlaki. Rather, I am defending you and me. The republic can survive little worms like Awlaki. What will bring us down is abrogation of our supposedly inalienable rights in the spirit of eliminating the despicable among us.

        Thanks again for listening, sir.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Anwar Al-Awlaki headed Al Qaeda operations in the area and was involved in organizing multiple attacks against the United States. We have communications between him and multiple attackers, both attempted and implemented.

          The only people being declared combatants are blatant members of Al Qaeda. The Constitutional protection for not randomly killing Americans already exists. There is no Constitutional protection for enemy leaders in a war.

          Americans walking down the street in the US are not being targeted. Americans in London, Paris, etc are not being targeted. The only people being targeted are terrorists in what are frankly enemy countries, some of whom happen to have American citizenship.

          It’s like arguing that because the President bombed Dresden, he can bomb Milwaukee.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Don’t you hate it when the pesky Constitution gets in the way of agendas?
            a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.
            Enemy leaders in a war don’t have rights, i agree. But American Citizens do and it is the Governments job to bring charges (absentee works for me) against all criminals, and last i checked acts of terror is criminal act and to prove that in a court of law.

            Face it, you, your editors, liberals, conservatives, red people and orange people may not like it but the rule of law is in place for a reason. It sucks when that pesky Constitution gets in the way, huh?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Constitution doesn’t get in the way of killing enemy soldiers.

            A citizen who leaves the country, joins an enemy force and carries on a war against the United States is as much of a fair target as any non-citizen.

            An American citizen in the German or Japanese armies could be bombed the same way a non-citizen could.

          • Drakken

            American citizens do not have Constitutional protections when taking arms against our nation period. So your argument is moot.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Well thank you for your input. But, you don’t get to decide that. Period. Could you please show me where it says that or is it just in your mind? I do not want a ruling or an act or amendment. Just show me how i and millions that think like me are wrong. Don’t try too hard. You might find the Federal Income tax law quicker.
            I love how you people try to silence people you don’t agree with by calling them moot or never providing any evidence. Can’t we all just debate like you were taught in school? Back up with facts and not opinion??

          • Drakken

            I think the onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to eliminate enemy combatants on foreign soil, frankly speaking we have run into a few carrying EU and American passports, we simply but bullets into them.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            no i beg to differ. I am no the one making claims that is ok to kill civilians. You and some of the other posters are.
            If you make the claim that a killer should die, on or off American soil, you should prove why. Ball is in your court. Lazy argument you and the author give for it when if it is in the constitution, you just name or cite the article and section and clause if needed. If it is not, your point is MOOT!

          • Drakken

            It applies to foreign soil, not on our shores where Constitutional protects apply. Please name the article, section or clause where it says it applies to foreign soil? Hint it doesn’t, reading is fundamental my friend.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            could you show me where in the Constitution is applies American civilians only to our shores? That argument is asinine! Not one Constitutional scholar has brought forth any evidence that i can find. The pundits, MSM and idiota on both sides have argued both for and against. Neither have shown where it’s ok (in the Constitution) to target an American for death without Habeus Corpus. You are starting to look uninformed and quiet humorous by asking me to do your homework.
            Again, i DO not have to show you anything, as i am not making the argument that says the Constitution says it’s ok. I’m saying it doesn’t and in everything i’ve read (articles, sections and clasues as well as federalist papers) doesn’t support your argument.
            You chimed in on the post, as well as the author and neither of you can provide where it says what you have said. Ball was in your court, stolen and i make drastic fade away for 2! Have a great night.
            If reading is fundamental my friend, so is coming to a battle if wits armed.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Habeus Corpus applies to criminal matters in the United States, not to killing enemy fighters on a battlefield.

            Otherwise any American war in which there were American citizens on the other side was fought unconstitutionally.

          • Drakken

            What you have read into something and what is actual is really quite different. You say the Constitution says that we cannot target foreign jihadists on foreign soil, I say we can. Impasse?

          • Drakken

            Well policy, laws and practice would argue very differently than what you advocate, and don’t misunderstand me, I don’t trust this administration except to eff up a wet dream. You have yourself a very nice day.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            You too Drakken. Have yourself an excellent day. While i disagree with you, i respect your points!

          • Drakken

            As I do yours, no worries and nobody lost any body parts in the process.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Isn’t that the truth my good man. Any person who can logically have a difference of opinion with another is someone i will support and back. LMAO on the body parts statement. Needed that!

          • Drakken

            I must apologize as sometimes my sense of humor does get lost in translation.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            no need to apologize. I’m sure in many ways, we have the same passion in this war and world. Hats off to you for a great conversation!

          • Drakken

            Cheers!

          • J. Bargholz

            Article I, section 8, 10 and Article II, section 2, 1 of the Constitution.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            To appease you and your laziness, this is from wikipedia on Article 3. Ball is in your court.

            In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that “[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses.”[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

            Punishment for treason may not “work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person” so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered “tainted” by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

            In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

            As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

          • Drakken

            With respect, what the court ruling applies too is domestic, not foreign, so again, the onus is on you to prove the court ruling applies to foreign soil.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            the Onus was never on me. You want to kill someone, civilian or not, YOU need to prove why. I don’t. End of story.

          • Drakken

            The only proof you need is intent and action, then let the bullets fly.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Drakken, i hope you are not a COP. You would suck as one and any agency that hires you would definitely be in need of firing you. You have zero argument skills and have yet to provide any proof to back up any of your words. At least try like i did to cite something. Wrong or not! Jeesh!

            When did debating liberties become an issue?

            They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin

          • Drakken

            You seem to be under the impression that Islamic jihad (terrorism) is a law enforcement solution and problem when it isn’t, it is a military problem and solution. I am a retired Fed in the private sector. You are extremely confused as to what foreign and domestic are, they are quite different and different laws and rules apply. In the US, you get all the protections the Constitution and Bill of Rights that apply, on FOREIGN soil you don’t, because, wait for it, you are under foreign jurisdiction and if you are an enemy combatant, it does NOT matter that you are a US citizen, because you ARE taking arms against the US, hence the enemy.

          • J. Bargholz

            Drones aren’t used to kill traitors. They’re used to kill terrorists waging war against America. Nothing you pasted is relevant. Not that Wikipedia, the Supreme Court or the Federalist Papers could contravene the Constitution.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Oh an I’m really glad to have this conversation with you. Too many times authors, journalists and writers do not make themselves accessible to posters and i;m glad that you do. It makes it way easier to get your side and to give you another sides as well. Thanks.

        • Drakken

          We as a nation can suffer our fools, but never our traitors.

      • FromMyColdDeadHands

        terrorism is a criminal act!!
        BIll Ayers and many other terrorist have been put in jail and afforded due process under the constitution because they committed a crime. And when they committed those acts, on American soil, they created a battlefield. They engaged in war against the United States. You are picking and choosing.

        • Drakken

          Terrorism is an act of war, not a criminal act, therefore no protections from the Constitution, end of story.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Terrorism by individuals or small domestic groups is a criminal act.

          Terrorism as part of an international war by a group with thousands of soldiers that is capturing pieces of territory for itself is a… war.

    • cxt

      Berceuse
      But is it “hearsay” when the targets words–often on video tape–are readily available on Youtube?
      I would also argue–as has many others that the Con is not a suicide pact.
      I would also suggest that your thought problem needs some adjustment. if you rephrase it more exactly thus.
      “Hiding far from the front lines busily plotting to kill more innocent people”
      You will perhaps have a better POV.
      Or consider this–if some dude down the block is plotting to kill me–I find out about it and kill him first–sans “due process”–then I have committed no “crime.” I acted in self-defense of my person or others and as such its LEGAL.
      Self defense does not actually require an actual attack–merely a good faith belief that your in lethal danger.
      If someone was posting videos on Youtube that they plan on killing YOU and are agitating OTHERS to kill YOU—then killing that person might well be viewed as self defense. The more so since people have actually carried out such attack prior.

      • FromMyColdDeadHands

        you do not have the right to attack first. You DO have the right to accuse and have the legal system do it’s job.
        Since you mentioned it, posting a video on youtube citing to kill someone falls in the realm of LAW ENFORCEMENT. Chances are that if you did that (i’m sure it’s been done before by an idiot), the federal government is not going to send a drone after you. There are clear channels that we, as law abiding citizens, must use to bring those who wish to harm us to justice and doing so without due process or to face accusers would be injustice not only to the citizen in this case, but to the American People as well. We are after all killing people in OUR names based off of known liars who won’t allow anyone to see the way information was collected (Enhanced Interrogation or spying) or know the crimes which this “citizen” faces other than terrorism.
        Remember Richard Jewel whom the government tried to pen the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing on and later found that it was Eric Rudolph. No apology was ever issued and for years, Mr. Jewell was convicted in a court of public opinion. Judging by the author and some posters on here, he should have been killed for being a terrorist who wanted to kill people, with no proof.
        While i agree that the terrorist are bad guys, it’s common knowledge that some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees are just regular people picked up for having ties to terrorist. If that is the case, shouldn’t a few presidents be in jail for the same? Bush has ties to Bin Ladin, Obamas ties to Odinga and the Muslim Brotherhood… but they get passes right? Because they aren’t confessing that they want to kill Americans?

        • Drakken

          You are comparing citizens on our soil to those on foreign soil, big difference, if you abroad, it is open season, on American soil you get protections the law affords.

          • Berceuse

            You are wrong. The Supreme Court established in Reid v. Covert in 1957 that Constitutional protections apply to U.S. citizens overseas.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Mrs. Covert was not an enemy soldier.

          • Berceuse

            Irrelevant. U.S. case law has long established that there is nothing a citizen can do to lose his citizenship nor his Constitutional rights, even in treason. There is no precedent changing this fact. Treason, by the way, is a purely legal term.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Oh SNAP, you just smacked down the author!

          • Berceuse

            I don’t see it that way. It’s not about winning and losing but dialog. He’s given me a lot to think about, and I understand that viewpoint much better now that it’s been explained to me by an educated and intelligent individual, as opposed to being screamed at by ignoramuses, so often the case here.

          • J. Bargholz

            American citizenship can be revoked. What “case law” says otherwise? And how would the President be bound by it?

            For the upteenth time, this is not a criminal case and treason is irrelevant. The President has authority to kill anybody waging war against America. Anybody.

          • Berceuse

            This is from the U.S. State Department web page: “The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken (Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)): a person cannot lose U.S. nationality unless he or she voluntarily relinquishes that status.”

            Those two passages in parentheses — that’s what’s known as “case law.” The law also states, by the way, that even if you voluntarily relinquish your citizenship, you can get it back any time you choose. It’s impossible to permanently lose citizenship, except in the rare circumstances I addressed in my earlier post.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That was established by a liberal “Living Constitution” court.

            Denaturalization was historically the standard response to defectors. If you’re so concerned about the Constitution, why are you discarding it for a ridiculous recent liberal ruling that claims Denaturalization is Cruel and Unusual punishment.

          • Berceuse

            Awlaki was not denaturalized before he was assassinated. Historically, denaturalization has applied to naturalized citizens. Within a specified probationary period, a newly documented citizen may lose that status upon commission of a crime or other moral turpitude. The vast majority of denaturalization cases have involved fraudulent citizenship applications. The bulk of the remainder occurred during the Wilson Administration’s assaults on his perceived political opponents, including the Palmer raids and the violence against innocent Americans by the administration’s unofficial attack dogs, the formerly fascist American Legion. Are you sure you want to align yourself with that moment in our history?

          • Berceuse

            The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from depriving a citizen of life or liberty without due process. There is no asterisk after the Fourth Amendment, no “except when…” clause. By inserting your own such clause to fit this present circumstance, you are taking a liberal “living Constitution” interpretation.

          • Drakken

            Habeas Corpus applies to US soil, not foreign.

          • Berceuse

            Once again you are flat wrong. U.S. citizens most certainly are entitled to habeas corpus protections overseas. In fact, Hanaf v. Geren established that foreign enemy combatants are equally entitled.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hanaf v. Geren. Can you clarify that reference?

          • J. Bargholz

            OK, now you’re just lying.

          • Berceuse

            Look it up for yourself. You might want to get informed before spouting off your opinions. Just a suggestion.

        • cxt

          FromMyColdDeadHAnd
          Nope…….there really is no real requirement that you must wait until someone strikes first in order to defend yourself.
          All that is legally required is that you have a legitimate fear for your life or others to use lethal force.
          You run around town threating to kill me or my kids–post Youtube videos threating to kill me and my kids. I don’t have to wait until you have a gun trained on me and the hammer cocked before I can act to defend myself.
          The more so if you have made such threats prior and carried them out.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          “you do not have the right to attack first.”

          Yes you do. That’s how war works.

          “You DO have the right to accuse and have the legal system do it’s job.”

          The legal system applies to enemy combatants only once they have been captured, not when they are active on the battlefield.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            modern (and lawless) war works hat way. In WW2 we as American were not interested in war. We did not go to war because we were threatened. We went to war because we were attacked.

            “The legal system applies to enemy combatants only once they have been captured, not when they are active on the battlefield.”

            Um, would you not want YOUR country, the greatest country in the world, to become a beacon of shining light and capture this guy to bring him to justice or do you fear that he might get off on technicality (which is doubtful).

            What on earth were the Nuremberg trials for if not to bring war criminals to justice? What law did they abide? It wasn’t our constitution. It was international communal efforts to bring those accused to justice. To give closure for the atrocities to the dead.

            I can’t believe you don’t want your country to lead by example in law and civility. YOU are exactly what people hate about Americans, always wanting war and to kill someone. The international community hates the way we deal with things in war and if you’re happy about that, you are sad, sad little man.

          • Drakken

            Here is a slight suggestion, go put yourself in uniform and go overseas and fight in a foreign country as I have and then come back and argue semantics. Until then, it is nothing more than an academic exercise in futility.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Thank you for your suggestion. And i really think it speaks highly of you to assume i have not served. TO assume one has not served because they disagree with you does nothing for you or your character. It only strengthens the idea that you were wrong or lack idea. Please refrain from attacking me or my service.

          • Drakken

            I don’t, assumption really is the mother of all eff ups, so take no offense as none was meant.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            That is the truth. I am hard to offend. I just didn’t want to see that happen. often when you criticize anyone, they make it a habit to label you (much like the Govt.). I refuse to be labeled like that. And while you were spot on and i did not serve due to injury, my service is not the issue of what i believe. It might have changed things as you said, but it wouldn’t change anything in my mind.
            Thank you for your service and God bless you!

          • Drakken

            Always remember my friend, everyday is a holiday, every meal is a feast and every formation is a family reunion, its all good.

          • Drakken

            Frankly speaking, you should go into the law profession, you certainly argue like a lawyer, and that is a compliment. And please, let us not get into what the meaning of the word is, is ok? ;)

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We were attacked on September 11. President Bush went to war with the backing of Congress.

            “I can’t believe you don’t want your country to lead by example in law and civility..”

            I’m not terribly impressed by this liberalspeak.

            The first job of the United States is to protect its citizens, not to bend over backward for its enemies to impress foreigners.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            wow, i am shocked that you are clueless. Just shocked that you have any degree in journalism at all. Bush went to war with whom? Oh yeah, the war on terror. A war against a faceless enemy. That is the dumbest statement i have heard.
            As for the liberal speak, i’m far from it as YOU have demonstrated.
            You have no business being a journalist. PERIOD! You assume i’m a liberal, left wing, Paultard (insults don’t hurt me) and i’m guessing never been to the battlefield.
            You are a joke. Seriously dude, you’re losing the battle here. Bush did this, Bush did that… blame Bush for anything more, you don’t bother me. Truth is, you’re a war mongering person who refuses to believe that you could be wrong, not by me but also on this blog (that’s what i am calling it because no journalist writes as badly as you do and attacks readers for an opinion).
            Still have not done what a responsible journalist from any institution (David Horowitz has to be proud of your antics) and provided proof of anything you say. You strike me as a liberal, if you say it, it must be true.

            I could care less about what you say Daniel, you haven’t illustrated any professionalism in your stories, your comments or your candor. You have no place in journalism as you are a biased individual. Journalism deserves BOTH sides of the story, pal. Any of the people on this site have lowered their I.Q.’s reading your comments and stories that are fact-less pieces of dung. Keep up the blogging, it’s what you are best at.

    • Drakken

      It’s called war, not trying to enforce some law.

    • FromMyColdDeadHands

      I am 100% positive that this site is as far from conservative as you can get. Just look at many of the comments and see how sick and mentally ill they are. You could pull out the Constitution and they still wouldn’t believe you. This site, i’ve got to call the David Horowitz freedom center and ask about this site and some more questions about the beliefs of their Shillman Journalism Fellows who promote leftist ideas. Their answer will make for good laughs or reports.

    • Stopislamnow

      Once again politically correct to the max, berceuse !…can’t make omelets without breaking some eggs ..I think when a guy gets ” Droned” there are usually pretty good reasons for it ,and the opponents do not have such concerns ,it is really too bad we also need to resort to killing people ,”A la guerre comme a la guerre “,either you fight or you submit ..Seems ike it is the way of the word ,and all those neat rules we have made mean nothing when you are facing a ruthless ennemy ,and yes in a way you have to become like them ,it is them or you …messy business …

  • cxt

    Great article!
    Back in WW2 groups of Swedes, French, Norwegians….and possibly some Americans etc. joined the SS.
    At no point did anyone claim that their citizenship trumped their actions and choices.
    It was largely and correctly viewed as treason.
    I see no practical/substantive difference in their actions and the actions of the current crop of traitors.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There is no difference except that denaturalizing them was easier.

    • Berceuse

      You are actually making the argument against your own position. In WW-II, yes, there were many people who supported the Axis, and yes, it was treasonous. This includes members of the American Bund. At no point, however, did our government undertake to single out, target and assassinate any of those traitors without the appropriate judicial review, as heinous as their actions were. No one would have dreamed of it. What Obama has done is wholly unprecedented in our nation’s history. That’s how far we have drifted from the ideals of the Framers in the space of just one generation.

      • NAHALKIDES

        Any traitors who joined the Wehrmacht in WWII were indeed subject to being targeted without judicial review, as I pointed out yesterday. An American wearing a German uniform was a legitimate military target and could simply be shot on sight like any other soldier – no court proceedings.

        Perhaps it’s the fact that al-qaeda leaders are being singled out and bombs dropped on their heads that bothers you. But that kind of intelligence and technology did not exist in WWII. If it had, President Roosevelt would have been justified in using it. To see this, consider Capt. Al-Awlaki of the German army – historically, Pres. Roosevelt could order an attack on his unit by any available American forces, but would not have been able to order a drone strike, for instance. Now suppose that drone technology and actionable intelligence had been available – Capt. Al-Awlaki has been located in a safe house in Dresden. Can Pres. Roosevelt order a drone or smart-bomb attack against the house without judicial warrant? Of course he can!

        This is war, Beceuse, not an ordinary criminal action. There was no way to arrest Al-Awlaki, no way to bring him to trial in an American court or even a military commission. But as an enemy combatant, he could be killed on the spot, and he was. This is not a problem for American liberty – Obamacare is.

        • Berceuse

          You make interesting points. I’d like to debate it further, particularly the WW-II analogy, but the two points I will make now:

          1) I don’t know if you’ve ever served in the military, but there is not a single soldier who is authorized to shoot an american citizen on sight outside of an active, hot firefight. That aspect of the UCMJ has never changed.

          2) Your argument that it was not possible to arrest him is factually correct, but it incorrectly assumes that’s the only alternative, or even the alternative I am suggesting.

          In my view the solution is relatively simple: We already have the FISA courts established to adjudicate matters such as this. It would not be difficult to adjust the law to require the president to obtain the FISA judge’s approval to take lethal action against citizens suspected of terrorism. The criteria for such action — i.e., the burden of proof necessary — could be established under the same law.

          Instead, what we have is a president in whom I have no confidence and no trust unilaterally deciding whom to assassinate based on his own determination of “enemy combatant” status — the same president who has excused, appeased and even tied himself again and again to radical islamist groups, including terrorist groups, and who has criminally used the mechanisms of U.S. law enforcement against his domestic political opponents. I admire — but will never share — your faith in him and the extremist movement he leads.

          As I mentioned to Mr. G, it’s not Awlaki I’m protecting and defending, but you and me.

          • Drakken

            You are trying to object to eliminating jihadist with a law enforcement mindset, start thinking in military terms. Just think that WW2 we would have used a ton of bombs to get this scumbag instead of a drone.

          • Berceuse

            Wrong on all counts. I object to the unicameral assassination of U.S. citizens, with a CONSTITUTIONAL mindset. We never would have undertaken such an action — and didn’t, in WW-II or any other time in our nation’s near 300-year history. Any surprise that it was Obama who chose to sneer at and disregard the Constitution? What’s shocking is the support not just from his own misguided party and liberty-hating followers, but from people claiming the conservative mantle.

            Almost all counts. Awlaki was a scumbag. We agree on that point.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Actually the program was begun under Bush. Do you seriously believe that Bush would not have given the order on Awlaki under the same set of conditions?

          • Berceuse

            We’ll never know. Bush did, however make a number of mistakes — every president does — including, IMHO, some that were unconstitutional.

          • J. Bargholz

            This President will persecute Americans both legally and illegally no matter how many terrorists we protect. It is pointless to try and prevent drone strikes.

          • Berceuse

            Um…no, not really. The president on his own accord recently stopped drone strikes on U.S. citizens, bending to public pressure. Were you not aware of that?

          • Drakken

            The dumbazz in the white house didn’t buckle to jacksh*t. Obummer and his lackys and the pentagon and the intelligence community are all at odds at how to continue with the drone program. The spooks have already figured it out, give drones and support to the contractors and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear.

          • Berceuse

            Go look up the President’s current policy prohibiting drone strikes of U.S. citizens and why it was put in place, then come back and tell us what it says.

          • J. Bargholz

            Um….completely irrelevant to my point. He willl continue to use every government agency at his disposal to persecute dissidents. He is doing it now. Were you not aware of that? And if you think he will hesitate to break any promise, agreement or announcement made by his Administration, you’re fooling yourself.

          • Berceuse

            I didn’t disagree with your first statement about Obama’s abuses. I was responding to your second statement, that it’s pointless to stop drone strikes on Americans. It’s not. It’s already done.

          • J. Bargholz

            Again, Obama is not going to give up a tool like drone strikes, no mttter what he says from day to day or minute to minute. I don’t recall any policy papers, executive orders or anything else on the subject. And Drakken is right asbout him pretendingo wash his hands of the matter and leave it to people who can be scapegoated. That’s how he commits most of his crimes. Chicago style.

      • cxt

        Berceuse
        Your getting hung up on a parsing of words…..in this case “assassinate”…….in the case of ww2 “assassinate” was not really a goal as we were ALREADY waging total war. There would have been no point or advantage to targeting specific traitors since we were killing the Nazi’s by the truckload.
        IF the Nazi’s had been waging terrorist attacks and hiding among the civ pop THEN targeted “assassination” would have been both logical and efficient…..had they the means to do it.
        And to be honest I’m not sure your POV on what the Framers would or would not do is all that solid.
        Take “Free Speech” in the time of the Framers and well beyond it was perfectly legal to shoot people in the face or run swords through them if they SAID things someone found objectionable.
        Hamilton–Burr etc.
        Clearly their view of “free speech” differed in many ways from how we view it today.
        I suspect that the Framers would have had little problem targeting traitors if they had the means to do so.
        Remember these are not people THE GOV “claims” are traitors. These are people whom THEMSELVES claim to be traitors.

      • Drakken

        Sorry mate, but! We did not take and use judicial review when dealing with traitors working for the enemy, if we came across them, we shot them, it is that simple, and if a American picks up arms and shout allah Akbar, its open season and there is no bag limit. Just wait until Europe gets the jihadist in Syria back into their midst creating mayhem, hopefully they will start lining a few up against the wall instead of the appeasement policies they have now. Our framers made no accommodation for traitors, period. They hung them.

        • Berceuse

          You are confusing the issues. I served in Afghanistan in ’01. In a battle situation in an active war zone, obviously we shot and killed the enemy. If one them happened to be a U.S. citizen, too bad for him. What our government did to Awlaki, however, is something else entirely. It doesn’t matter that you are OK with it. You’re wrong. You don’t get to “line up” and shoot whomever you don’t happen to like. It’s that simple. Mate.

          • Drakken

            It is the same bloody thing, no difference at all, we too have ran into hajis and westerners running around with EU and American passports, we simply shot them on the spot. If your carry arms for the enemy, we sure do get to shoot them on the spot, that is the difference between USMC doctrine and Army policy.

          • Berceuse

            Your post is nonsensical and fraudulent. First, who said anything about the Marines? Second, there is no difference between the Marines and the Army when it comes to the uniform code. Finally, you’re lying about having served — which is about the most pathetic thing I’ve seen. Anyone who HAS served knows fully well that: a) we are not finding enemy combatants with U.S. passports among the dead, and b) we are NOT out shooting anyone on sight. Go troll somewhere else, kid.

          • J. Bargholz

            The uniform code dsesn’t apply to the President.

          • Berceuse

            What does that have to do with anything? Please read posts before responding to them.

          • J. Bargholz

            Killing terrorists with drones has been approved by the President and has nothing to do with any uniform code.

            Your stupidity is annoying.

          • Berceuse

            The Constitution prohibits the government from assassinating citizens. It wasn’t the President’s authority to take. I never said anything about the president being bound by the UCMJ. Again, read before you spout.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Constitution prohibits executions of criminals in the US without due process (whether this even applies to states is another debate).

            It does not prohibit soldiers from killing enemy soldiers in war.

          • Berceuse

            As I’ve reiterated many times, what happens in the heat of a war-zone battlefield firefight is one thing. Both case law and the reasonable man standard would support this. That is something quite different than a government bureaucrat deciding, with no legal oversight (which the basis of due process), that a given citizen is an enemy of the state, specifically hunting him down and assassinating him in a non-combat environment and a non-war zone. Is it your contention that these two scenarios are indistinguishable from one another?

          • J. Bargholz

            Is English a foreign language for you? Stop repeating the same lies and falsehoods over and over. I would really enjoy kicking your teeth in.

          • Berceuse

            I’m sure this level of rage and impotence is nothing new to you. You’re obviously a disturbed human being. I hope you get help, man. Seriously, good luck to you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Which category would you place Operation Vengeance targeting Admiral Yamamoto in?

          • Berceuse

            Adm. Yamamoto was not a U.S. citizen and was not entitled to the Constitutionally protected presumption of innocence.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That doesn’t really address the question.

            Suppose Yamamoto had been a US citizen or suppose his pilot had been, would they be entitled to a presumption of innocence?

          • Berceuse

            In creating that hypothetical, you are engaging in the kind of “slippery slope” thinking that you dismissed as invalid in your essay. It’s ok with me, just wanted to point that out. ;)

            In answer to your question, I suppose he would have been protected…although finding him guilty in absentia of treason and possibly even war crimes would have taken all of half an hour.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH! Sorry for my caps but someone gets it!

          • Berceuse

            The attraction to me of modern conservative thinking is its adherence to the rule of law. We can’t afford to suspend Constitutional protections in the name of expediency or because they may apply to someone we don’t happen to like, even if it’s heinous criminals. That’s what the left does.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            I agree 100%. I’ve been saying in this comment section the entire time about the rule of law and how people on this forum want to suspend it. I’ve been called a troll and a few other things (author doesn’t like me challenging him). It’s funny how they argue that i am left when they are the ones pulling the same tricks the left is pulling. I’m glad to have met you and learned your view. I am glad that there is more than one objectionable person here

          • Berceuse

            I have great respect for Mr. Greenfield’s intellect and writing skills. He is almost always dead-on. Just not on this issue or on the stop-and-frisk laws, for which I also need to take him to task, for many of the same reasons. ;)
            We conservatives rant and rave — and rightly so — when the progressives cherry pick the Constitutional protections that they are willing to throw overboard in the interest and furtherance of ideology. (Second Amendment anyone?) It undermines our own righteous cause when we fall prey to the same temptation.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            I have NO respect for anyone who cherry picks the constitutional rights of Americans. Zero, zilch, nada. Writers who are great don’t cherry pick, they use evidence (which he has yet to provide) to back up claims and support theories. This guy is nothing more than a progressive (at best) blogger. You may have your opinion but we disagree on that one. The rest of your post i agree with. :)
            Have a great day!

          • cxt

            Berceuse
            But we can’t allow mass murderers to use our laws and legal systems against us either…….to assert that we must allow ourselves to be killed in order to preserve our laws is spurious at best.
            “Life” comes before “Liberty” for a reason. The dead have no “liberties” at all.
            Jews by the millions were “good citizens” and followed the law/s right into the gas chambers. And that is precisely the future our foes have planned for us.
            We have a fundamental disagreement over how the Constitution should be interpreted in this case/s. IMO we have no conflict between rule of law and our taking direct action.
            I maintain the Constitution is not a suicide pact…….while you seem to think it is.

          • Berceuse

            You are welcome to tell me what you think, but you have no business telling me what I think. Especially when you twist my words into absurdist straw-man arguments. No offense, but peace, out.

          • cxt

            Berceuse
            Not trying to “tell you what you think” I’m pointing out what you SAY–and it’s logical conclusions.
            I have no idea what is in your head……but I can read what you posted.
            If there is disjunction between the 2 then that is not my fault either.

          • J. Bargholz

            The only straw man argument is yours. Terrorists at war with America have no due proccess rights.

          • J. Bargholz

            Drone strikes against terrorists is not a criminal or law enforcment matter.

          • Berceuse

            Who said it was?

          • J. Bargholz

            You did. You claim that it is a civil liberty issue governed by the Amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights.) It is not, and the Bill doesn’t protect terrorists anyway.

            Again: Article I, section 8, 10 and Article II, section 2, 1.

            Read them. Learn them. Live them.

          • Berceuse

            Please go find where I said this was a law enforcement matter and repost it. I’ll wait.

          • J. Bargholz

            The first nine Ammendments cover civil liberties. They do not prohibit the President from ordering military action against those at war with America. Stop being disingenuous, you little turd.

          • Berceuse

            Your increasingly hysterical, shrieking insults and lack of substance say everything necessary about your understanding of this issue and your intellect. Typical. An empty mind always churns out empty insults. Tell you what: Go educate yourself and come on back. If you can speak intelligently and civilly, I’ll be happy to re-engage. Until then, peace, out.

          • Drakken

            Your problem is that you think terrorist are criminals, they are not, It is a national security problem.

          • Berceuse

            Please go find where I ever said any such thing and repost it here. Don’t put words in my mouth. It’s cheap and dishonest.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s unworkable in wartime and I think you know that….

            But from a legal standpoint, the Constitution protects citizens, non-citizens and even illegal aliens.

            There’s no basis for distinguishing between an American and a non-American if you treat such action as a criminal matter, rather than a military matter.

            If you’re claiming that the Constitution protects Americans on the enemy side, then it protects non-American enemy soldiers as well which leads to obvious absurdity in which it becomes impossible to kill anyone on the other side.

          • Berceuse

            I acknowledge that in the specific hypothetical scenario you described — a scenario we have never faced as a nation and almost certainly never will — it would be difficult and cumbersome, but certainly not unworkable to find some way to satisfy the due process — ahem — inalienable right. But I happen to believe our Framers intentionally built difficult and cumbersome into the Bill of Rights, and for good reason.

            To reiterate: I do not treat this as a criminal matter. That is a misunderstanding. The point I am making is that even as a military matter, the Bill of Rights does not get usurped. I am all for targeted killings of any foreign combatant as necessary. Same with U.S. citizens, as long as due process is put into place. It is absurd (and frightening) to me that we require FISA court oversight for wiretaps on U.S. “foreign combatants” but zero oversight to target and kill those same individuals.

            Daniel, do you really trust Obama with that level of extra-Constitutional authority?

          • J. Bargholz

            The Bill of Rights has no bearing on the President’s authority to strike at those waging war against America. You should know that.

          • Berceuse

            Of course it does. Jesus. There is no provision authorizing suspension of the Bill of Rights. How could you not understand this?

          • Drakken

            And how many times did you get on the horn and ask for permission to shoot a haji that may or may not be a US citizen again? Exactly

          • Berceuse

            I’ve explained repeatedly, what happens in a “hot” firefight is something entirely different. No one would have the authority to specifically track down, target and murder a U.S. citizen under the conditions of Awlaki’s assassination. The result would be court martial. Are you intellectually incapable of distinguishing the two situations, or are you intentionally confusing them?

          • J. Bargholz

            Of course it doesn’t. There is no provision limiting the President’s authority to use the military against those who wage war against America, and they are not protected by the Bill of Rights. Civil authorities can be used againt them without a trial too.

            Stop trying to pretend this is a criminal matter concerning civil liberties. It isn’t.

          • J. Bargholz

            Besides, even in America the President can declart martial law, suspend habeus corpus and even suspend Congress. Terrorists have no rights, American or not.

            Do some research..

          • Berceuse

            You keep spouting off in ignorance. Those authorities are spelled out in the Constitution. Murdering citizens without due process is not. Either show me the provision authorizing it or go troll somewhere else. You can’t, of course, because it doesn’t exist. Quite the contrary.

          • J. Bargholz

            Stop pretending this is a law enforcement matter. It isn’t, no matter how many times you stupidly insist it is. Past Presidents have declared martial law and suspended habeus corpus (not that habeus corpus has any bearing on military action against armies at war with America.) Americans who defected to the Mexican army in the Mexican American War were not treated as criminals — they were killed as enemy soldiers/combatants. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution also gives the President the power to adjourn Congress.

            Try reading the Constitution instead of regurgitating a false argument you plagiarized from some other moron. Your stolid stupidity and dishonesty are tiresome.

          • Berceuse

            You have no idea what you are talking about.

          • J. Bargholz

            You’re being dishonest –and obtuse. The President doesn’t need a declaration of war to wield the military and the “bill of rights” does absolutely nothing to constrain his command of the military. Article four has nothing to do with his position as Com mander in Chief He doesn’t issue warrants to terroristat war with America. He has them killed
            Stop prreetending you know the first thing about the English language. Your premise that this is a law enforcement issue is false. The only thing more contemptible than a lawyer is a wannabe. Lawyers. They argue like children and fancy that they’re intelligent. Very stupid people, most of them.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If you believe that Due Process is the issue, then what is your legal basis for claiming that it applies only to Americans and not foreigners when the law makes no such legal distinction within the US.

          • Berceuse

            First, thank you for addressing my point of view on its own merit, rather than twisting it into an absurdist straw man, as others here have done. I am aware of no case law granting due process to foreign-documented and foreign-based combatants. It has been long established that everyone within our borders is protected by the Bill of Rights, as well as citizens overseas. Everyone else is fair game.

          • Berceuse

            OK, Daniel, I’ve answered your hypothetical scenario. I’d respectfully request that you answer the following scenario:

            If we grant the president this level of unicameral executive authority to abrogate the Fourth Amendment rights of a citizen in the interest of national security, what’s to stop a president from, say, declaring that anyone who opposes his sociopolitical program is an “enemy of the state”? What’s to stop that same president, once he’s made that unicameral declaration, from rounding up his opponents in the tens of thousands and throwing them in jail, storming into newspapers critical of his programs and shutting them down, sending out paramilitary storm troopers to knock heads and otherwise using the tools of the State to harass and intimidate?

            As you well know, your scenario has never happened in our nation’s near 300-year history, and never will. The scenario I just described not only can happen, but did — and not that long ago. Do you honestly believe that Obama would restrain himself from stooping to Wilsonian abuses if he felt it necessary?

          • Berceuse

            By the way, I’m not as quick to dismiss slippery slope arguments. They can be taken too far, but they have their place. The Constitution was crafted on the basis of such thinking: “This is the extreme tyranny of which governments are capable. Let’s set the bar WAY up here to ensure we never go there.”

          • J. Bargholz

            The President absolutely does have the authority to order military strikes against those waging war against America, regardless of their nationality. He doesn’t even need Congtess to formally declare War, as I’m sure you know.

          • Berceuse

            Like others here, you are confusing the issues. Awlaki was sitting at a table, eating breakfast, in a country against which we were not at war. Show me the provision in the Bill of Rights authorizing suspension of due process, please.

          • J. Bargholz

            Awlaki could have been sitting on a toilet here in America and it wouldn’t have mattered one jot. He was waging war against America and as Greenfield already instructed you, he was at a terrorist camp in a country that has perpetrated acts of war against America.

            AND STOP PRETENDING THIS IS A CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUE.

          • Berceuse

            Which act of war did the Republic of Yemen perpetrate against us? Educate yourself or stop trolling here. Your ignorant posts are embarrassing.

          • J. Bargholz

            Keep beating off those strawmen, clown. Awlaki was Al Qaeda not Yemeni and harboring Al Qaeda is an act of war by Yemen. Pull your head out, trolltard.

      • J. Bargholz

        They weren’t executed for treason. They were killed while waging war against America. It was legal and prudent.

        • Berceuse

          Cite the case law, please. Show me the provision in the Bill of Rights authorizing it.

          • Berceuse

            As I suspected: radio silence.

          • Drakken

            The Bill of Rights don’t cover US citizens who take up arms against the US. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • Berceuse

            Please cite the case law. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

          • J. Bargholz

            Case law is irrelevant. The President has constitutional authority to send the military against any group waging war against America. He doesn’t need court approval.

          • J. Bargholz

            Again: This is not a criminal matter and the President’s power and authority are enumerated in Article II of the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not offer protection to Americans who wage war against America.

          • Berceuse

            Cite the provision or the case law, please. I’m waiting. I’ve asked many times.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Enemy soldiers, regardless of citizenship, are killed on the battlefield in war.

            There is no case law involved.

          • J. Bargholz

            Now you’re just being an @$$hole. Case law is irrelevant, you shyster.

          • J. Bargholz

            I’ve already cited the relevant amendments mutiple times, and the Constitution supersedes any case law — not that this is a criminal or law enforcement matter.

  • cxt

    FromMyColdDeadHands
    “The idea that if you fight for the other side, you’re a traitor argument is asinine.”
    Exactly how is that “asinine?” Seems like a reasonable concept to me. I mean if you join the enemy and actively participate in the planning and execution of your fellow citizens then how is that NOT “treason?”
    More to the point—joining the enemy, plotting to kill ones fellow citizens, actively supporting and helping those plotting to kill ones fellow citizens and/or actively taking part in the killing yourself THEN claiming you can’t be touched without “due process” sounds more like a PERVERSION of “due process” than anything else…….at least to me.
    If anything that is simply a case of societies foes using societies own rules against it. Just because they are evil does not mean they are stupid……and we should not be stupid either.
    The Constitution should not be viewed as a suicide pact…….not the first person to point that out.

    • FromMyColdDeadHands

      Your post s welcomed and i am glad to have this debate with you. The concept that our “enemies” are defined by a notoriously lying government and those that believe that government is what is asinine to me. We have a Government that is aiding the enemy in Egypt, Libya and now in Syria known as the Muslim Brotherhood. When the locals in these countries found out that these were puppet governments that had direct ties to Al Qaeda, they rejected them. Just as we should look at both sides of the argument.
      Just because you don’t like the bill of rights or support EVERY single right in it, doesn’t mean we should pick and choose. All rights are given to us by God. And, as citizens of the United States, we should afford these rights to all citizens, even if you disagree with what they have been accused of.
      Suppose that i wanted to stifle your right to Habeus Corpus, you might be upset because i was trampling on those rights. What on earth makes you think that you have the right to say who can determine when a CITIZENS rights are to be used and not used?
      This is not a selective rights process. All rights are granted to all Citizens of the United States and in some cases, the Magna Carta. The last thing you should be doing is infighting with someone you disagree with.
      Remember the quote that is attributed to Martin Niemoller, “First They Came…”. No one stood up in that quote and in the end there was no one left to stand up for him (you). When people stand up for their rights, they are never truly lost.

      Your rebuttal??

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Our enemies are defined by their own assertions and actions which they have conveniently put on video.

        • FromMyColdDeadHands

          it doesn’t work that way, Daniel. Criminals are defined by assertions and actions. They put it to video. They aren’t allowed to be droned. They are picked up by Law enforcement and given their day in front of their accusers. Why is it so hard to grasp this for you?

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            What gets me is ANYONE, according to multiple acts signed and put into law by the president, who the president says is an enemy can be detained indefinitely and/or killed. Doesn’t matter where, just that they get the boogie man.

            Well, suppose you disagree with that premise, you are now a traitor and you can be droned. You disagree with the IRS and it’s practiced, you can be labeled a traitor and droned. As the President said, “The Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans. But boys, don’t get any ideas. I have two words for you, Predator Drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking.”

            The Jonas Brothers are traitors, DRONE them!!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            When has anyone been droned for disagreeing with the IRS?

            For that matter when has anyone been killed by a drone on American soil?

            For that matter when has anyone been killed by a drone outside a battlefield?

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            i think you mussed up your hair when those ideal flew over your head.

            Those points i brought up simply infer that at any time, you can be called a traitor or an enemy of the state for your views that don’t match the governments.

            I’d suggest you read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/us-drone-strike_n_2813857.html
            from the huffington post about what Eric Holder said about using drones on American soil. Couple that with the fact that the president can declare (without due process) anyone an enemy combatant. If you are declared one of these combatants, you could be killed or at the very least targeted by a drone.

            And, to answer your last question, when Al-Awlaki’s son was killed he was at a wedding party and multiple people in that party were killed. Yemen is not on the lists of battlefields that i have seen. Last i checked it was Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, we drone strike Yemenis, Pakistanis and any other country we deem to harbor terrorist. Ummm, last i checked, shooting first into a state that is considered an ally (and some not) is an declaration of war. Are we at war with the Yemenis? The Pakistanis?

            Who we are at war with is retired military, returning veterans, constitutional believers, ron paul supporters, libertarians and a few other “extremist” that former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano has labeled as “Domestic terrorist”. Care to drone them as well??

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Drones are being used to kill enemy personnel on the battlefield.

            They’re as likely to be used to kill Americans in the United States as an F-16 is.

            And yes, Yemen is on the list of battlefields. Al Qaeda has a major presence there and controls sizable swaths of territory. Al-Awlaki’s clan has a major presence in the government. And the United States was attacked there.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            you sir, have lost integrity. You make the argument that Turley is left and you can see where i get my view of the constitution. Then you turn around and use the left talking point that yes, Drones can be used in America (HuffPo article) but have likelihood of being used as an F-16.
            Do you know what side you are on? You’ve reached for the left/right paradigm and insinuated that i am left, indicating that you are right. Yet, you refuse to believe that this can happen or is being implemented.
            I have to wonder, are you a blogger or a journalist? What school did you go to for journalism? What sources do you cite for your article?
            Why do you argue with readers when if you are a true journalist, you’d offer an honest rebuttal with evidence or at the very least cite some work for me to look up. You write a few articles a day yet, they don’t seem like the work of a journalist but that of a blogger who just has to be right.
            You make claims you don’t back up in comments, you attack someone for challenging you and you have made a fool out of this website for allowing you a place to spew your inaccuracies. Here is some much needed advice for you from one man to you.
            1.) Never challenge a reader if you are not prepared to offer evidence in your stories or your comments.
            2.) Don’t assume a right/left argument because you don’t get along with the person (remember saying that?)
            3.) Learn to have an argument that you can back up with something other than yes it happens (refer to #1)
            4.) If you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the comment section. You have done nothing to add to the argument/debate but assume i’m left and use the Paultard debate reasoning. And calling Dr. Paul’s followers Paultards really shows your class and candor. I won’t even raise that issue of what you look like when you attack him or his followers.
            Looking over the comment section, i would venture to say, you live in your moms basement, spend too much time thinking about what i say and being wrong. I’ve seen you in these comments get your self handed to you and you still refuse to back down or admit you might be wrong. I certainly can and will if you would have presented some facts or cited material as a real journalist would.
            And since you don’t act like a real journalist, your words aren’t to be trusted. Instead of your points being moot, i would suggest that you are the moot and should be put on Mute!

          • J. Bargholz

            Ad hominems now, and vicious calumny? Really? You sound envious. Who do you write propaganda for and which viper’s nest school of jounalism did you attend? You should try to follow your own four points of advice.

            He ll, I don’t get along with the guy either but I don’t insult him out of petty envy. And he’s a much better writer than you. Get over it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Opposition to drones comes from the left. They were the ones denouncing them under Bush. And any US military action.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Yawn.
            First im a troll for my belief in the constitution and what we disagree it says. Now I’m a liberal because I denounce them (and in your mind) any US military action. Neither party pertains to me and I dont believe either party cares about anything less than getting re-elected at this point. Your attacks and name calling on dis-credits any and all of you when using thr assumption tactic. Assumption is the mother of all…
            The democrat party (liberals often, left, far left) is an authoritarian party and too socialist for me. I do not believe in anything they believe in. You may judge me all you want for our differences but you only destry your own argument by stooping so low. Even educated guesses would not stoop as low as many posters here for dissenting opinions.
            It is with this opinion that I become the bigger man and not reply anymore to the posts on this webpage as I believe some of you have mental issues and it shows with your attacks. Good luck to all of you and in the future we can see which of us was on the side of what is morally and legally right.
            God bless!

          • cxt

            FromMyColdDeadhand
            Not sure why I bother………but I’ll try one more time.
            No its NOT “the Jones Brothers are traitors, DRONE them!!”
            It’s the Jones Brothers move to Yeman or wherever and start releasing videos of themselves denouncing the USA and calling for “Americans” to be killed wherever you find them, then they help plan and perhaps even take part in said killings……..a very different thing than your example.
            In your example the government is making accusations. But the reality is these guys are proud and loud in their treachery…..and should be treated accordingly.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            Not sure why you bother either. You can try as many times as you want. It’s not going to change the truth. You seem to want to skirt the law or rule of law we live by.. My thoughts are. You can’t have your cake and eat it too! Just because you dislike what the Citizen has done, you can’t take away a right because you disagree with it. Full on dictator!
            Videos also show cops killing unarmed civilians, are they guilty of treason? Video shows lots of things, but it doesn’t mean that because the video shows one thing, that they do not deserve their day in court. I’m guessing you would have loved East Germany. No court, no jury, no rights, they will just shoot you on sight!

          • cxt

            FromMyColdDeadHand
            It give you no pause what-so-ever that you cast this as a contest between “the truth” as interpreted by you and everyone else?
            When people are utterly convinced that they and only they have the “truth” and EVERYONE else is wrong…..well that is how you get an “East Germany” in the first place.
            Nope–AGAIN in your example the cop is here, in the USA, and thus subject to arrest and trial.
            A better example would be a cop that moves to East Berserkistan and starts killing Americans and making videos of his cutting people heads off.
            IN your example its simple crime…….in mine its treason.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            well, i’d love to argue you that point with you but i can’t. You see, i’ve never made this about me being right, wrong or inconclusive. I have presented evidence on here and gotten no where with anyone, including yourself. That doesn’t make me right… just informed.
            The FBI and INTERPOL have been finding fugitives from justice since it’s inception. Case closed.
            Oh, how you get an “East Germany”, suppress rights. That’s how you get an East Germany. Aren’t you already close to that now?
            Also, you’re trying again… aren’t you?

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            I am convinced that wasting my time arguing with people who are dead set on allowing the dictatorship that is a lawless government, in any country, can not be dealt with. I can only sit and watch as “they” come for them. I will not fight for these people as they wouldn’t fight for their own rights. But i can fight for my rights and my childrens rights. I believe all people should be protected by rules of law, no matter how bad they may be. Also i believe that the Bill of Rights protects rights set forth by God. Bash me or try to convince me all you want, i stand by my convictions.

          • J. Bargholz

            Approval for drone strikes against terrorists doesn’t mean approval for an American dictatorship. It doesn’t even imply it. That is a strawman argument.

          • J. Bargholz

            You are mistaken or lying. Either way you are wrong. And yes, you are trying to make this about who is right and who is wrong.

            You. You are wrong. Shame on you.

          • J. Bargholz

            First it’s a criminal matter and now it’s treason? It is WAR against America and the President has authority to kill anybody waging it.

          • J. Bargholz

            Read about the Law of Nations. Read the Constitution. Then do America a favor and SFU.

          • J. Bargholz

            Your argument is stupid nonsense. Sparing Al Awlaki and other terrorists would have absolutely no effect on what you just described. If you don’t like the powers ascribed to the President by the Constitution, you can lobby to have Congress declare a Constitutional Convention and form a new government. Whining and making false claims doesn’t accomplish anything.

          • cxt

            FromMyColdDeadHand
            “They are picked up by law enforcement”
            An attitude which pre-supposes that:
            A: There is a way for law enforcement to arrest people–pretty hard to send a cop to Yeman. ;)
            B:When a state of war exists there are other option than trying to have people arrested.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They’re not criminals.

            Criminals don’t declare war. They don’t mass in the tens of thousands and commit mass murder in the name of taking over entire country.

            That’s a war.

          • J. Bargholz

            Terrorism is not a criminal matter. “Why is it so hard to grasp this for you?” (Sic.)

          • J. Bargholz

            Terrorists aren’t criminals. Why is it so hard to grasp this for you?

      • cxt

        FromMyColdDeadHand
        Nope….again, the “government” is not saying they are our enemies THEY are saying it loud and clear, in their own words–often on Youtube.
        Somebody puts out a video or statement where they say they want to kill infidels and want all Americans dead…..I’m willing to take them at their word and act accordingly.

        • FromMyColdDeadHands

          i do not doubt the videos. I have seen them (admitingly sickened by) behead Americans on some of the videos.
          So when an American citizen says, “i’m going to kill you because of your beliefs!” on the streets of America, you just act accordingly, which means you kill them.
          Very distorted view you have.
          I guess the role of military, CIA or government is to forgo an investigation, evidence and the rule of law we have lived by for over 200 years and become Judge, jury AND executioner. I love that the Constitution only applies when you or the author of the article says it does. Skewed view of the world you guys have.

          • J. Bargholz

            Read the Constitution instead of misquoting it. I reproduced the pertinent bits above.

        • FromMyColdDeadHands

          I get that you want to protect Americans, even when it goes against the held beliefs in the constitution. I get that you guys do not like my point of view on this issue. I’m glad to have the conversation, but until anyone can point out in the constitution of the United States where it says that all rights are suspended for a citizen because they have become an enemy, i stand by my words.

          Personally, i think that the author should be focusing on issues closer to home rather than this story. 2 billion rounds of illegal ammo being purchased by DHS and multiple federal government agencies. Illegal (according to Geneva convention) and expensive hollow point bullets. NDAA, H.R. 645, H.R. 390, H.R. 1955 and so on. I’m more concerned as you can tell by atrocities against AMERICAN CITIZENS despite the charge. Anyone who commits an act of terror or crime should face accusers, families of lost and a judge with jury of peers. Hard for some of you to grasp, i know. But, we were based on a rule of law and just accusations.

          • cxt

            FromMyColdDeadHand
            I don’t what to say to you—the ammo is not “illegal” round—hollow point rounds are perfectly legal for civilian and Law Enforcement use…..it is only “illegal” for the military to use them.
            Nobody is claiming that “rights are suspended” it would be more accurate to state that the circumstances change and as they do so do your “rights.”
            How can you drag a heavily armed dude from a foreign nation that has no relationship with the USA back to face “justice?”
            In any case where would you find a jury of such a persons “peers?”

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            cxt, i’m sorry that you are clueless. Illegal according to the Geneva Convention. So if we can’t use them in war, why does the DHS need so many? Hollow points are only legal in a few select countries.
            Your argument doesn’t hold water about the heavily armed dude. I suggest you watch the video of a heavily armed terrorist who was picked up at night without incident because they watched him until they could get him.
            You have got to learn rule of law and not rule of dumb, Rights are never subject to change and if you think so, go over to England r France where that happens. Our Constitution guarantees these rights. not guarantees until cxt disagrees. You didn’t do any research on the issues i brought up, just more of the stupid arguments that make you look dumb.
            Any person who would suspend rights (it’s been done in the past by other presidents and i am critical of them) doesn’t deserve theirs. You are dismissed.

          • J. Bargholz

            Wrong.

          • J. Bargholz

            Heck, ll, even Congress is allowed to “define and punish” “offences against the Law of Nations,” which terrorism irrefutably is. – Article I, section 8, 10, US Constitution.

            The President is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia” “he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject, relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…….” Article II, section 2, 1, US Constitution.

            The President is Commander in Chief during peacetime as well as during war. He needs no permission to command the military to kill terrorists.

      • J. Bargholz

        The Constitution gives the President authority to strike against those who wage war against America. Period. Read it.

  • FromMyColdDeadHands

    OH i don’t think Daniel (author) likes my comments. All of my posts (none needed moderaion before) now must await moderation. I think i hit a nerve. LMAO. That’s ok, Daniel… i wish you the best, even when you are totally wrong. I’d recommend you look up Jonathan Turley who is a Constitutional law professor, about many of the lawless practices that you claim the constitution doesn’t cover. You’d be quite surprised. You’d be wrong about your thoughts but you’d be surprised.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I don’t moderate comments. Comments are automatically moderated. But I don’t appreciate false accusations.

      Turley is a leftist. If that’s the source of your view of the Constitution, no wonder we can’t agree.

      • FromMyColdDeadHands

        Aww, did i hurt your feelings? We don’t agree because you have a war monger like attitude. I’m far from Left wing. The sole reason i bring up Turley is because he and the president disagree on this issue. My source of of my view on the constitution is the fact that i read it multiple times along with federalist papers because i believe they are the 3rd greatest writings to ever be brought by man (Bible #1 and Magna Carta #2) You should really grow up and stop making this about left/right.
        You don’t like it because i called you out and am standing by my words. Much like the drafters of the Constitution. You should face it, you’re happier killing babies, brides, innocent mothers and fathers to get one piece of trash than you are writing/defending the supreme law of the land. I’m still waiting for your proof on the legality of killing American Citizens (enemy combatants or not). I’ll be waiting.

        Oh, if you can’t handle the heat of being called out or false accusations, maybe you are in the wrong business. You’re going to get that a lot, need a tissue for your issue??

        • Daniel Greenfield

          And now you’re trolling. How predictable.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            call it what you want. I simply want the proof and answer. Oh, wait, because i point out your flaws and your asinine arguments, i’m trolling? Or is it because i hurt your feelings?
            Your names don’t work on me. I recognize your attempt to remove yourself from a logical debate you are losing. I have stated my argument and haven’t been proven wrong. You haven’t proven anything and resorted to a liberal trick to push eyes on another subject such as trolling. We don’t get along because you can’t bring a descent argument to the table.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The final stage of the Paultard debate, hoot, scream, throw things, claim to have won the debate, taunt, do anything possible to elicit an emotional reaction.

          • FromMyColdDeadHands

            I’ll give you that Daniel, i was reading your other stories and i agree with you on many of your points. On this one i disagree. But, other than a taunt, i have done none of those things. I will iterate for you one more time, I simply asked for proof to back up your claims about the Constitution, you refused.
            I have won nothing, if anything i am disappointed that you can write so well and have a descent argument in most of your stories, yet you can’t offer a piece of evidence to back up your claim.
            When i claimed terrorism was a crime ( you said no), i backed that up with a definition from Cornell Law, still you did not offer a rebuttal or evidence. I apologize i came to the debate armed with knowledge you don’t have or possess at the current time. I meant no disrespect. You seem to be the only person i have butted heads with that has a problem with my arguments. I’m just saying, you have to show your evidence, your reason for taking your position and you haven’t done either. So, please don’t say i’m using the final stage of the Paultard debate, when in this debate i’m the only one who brought any evidence and proof.

            If anyone is guilty of using the paultard debate in this it would be you for accusing someone who is prepared of using the paultard debating process. Next attack please.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Like many other acts of violence, terrorism can be a crime when it’s carried out by small domestic groups or an act of war when it’s carried out by a foreign force that is declaring war.

            When German agents set off bombs in the US, they were engaging in military, not criminal activity.

            This conflict formally began on September 11 when a series of massive attacks were carried out against the United States by a party that had declared war against the United States.

            The United States has taken action under the War Powers Resolution backed by Congress.

            It’s a war.

          • J. Bargholz

            Cornel law school doesn’t get to define terrorism any more than the New York Times or you do.

    • J. Bargholz

      You know, the Supreme Court once made a ruling they expected the President to obey. Andrew Jackson contemptuously told them to enforce their order.

      They had to pound sand.

      • Berceuse

        Presidents throughout our history have overreached and usurped authority. Usually it’s the leftists who sneer at the rule of law, most notably Wilson, FDR and now Barry. Apparently you are OK with it. I am not.

  • David king

    Any one who declares war on the western world deserves to be eliminated by any means.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    “None of which say, if the government considers you an enemy, you can be killed.”

    Unless you join an enemy army and go to war with the US.

    In which case you are and always were fair game.