TexasCHLforum.com

lkd wrote:

Reloader wrote:Treason is Treason..

Unless you're an elected politician....

Or an appointed one (Holder)

In my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent. To my knowledge, he never actually killed anyone himself, he just tried to incite others to. He definitely condoned the killing of American citizens...

...however, I see American citizens cheering for his death, a fellow citizen. Who is next? Gun owners, people who support the Constitution, right-wingers, survivalists and more have already been branded as terrorists and threats by many. It's a slippery slope.

War is Heck! Collateral damage.

MadMonkey wrote:In my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent. To my knowledge, he never actually killed anyone himself, he just tried to incite others to. He definitely condoned the killing of American citizens...

...however, I see American citizens cheering for his death, a fellow citizen. Who is next? Gun owners, people who support the Constitution, right-wingers, survivalists and more have already been branded as terrorists and threats by many. It's a slippery slope.

...when they became traitors, they were no longer fellow citizens...both had public track records of traitorous acts...they were active in the jihad (war) against their country...you stand in front of the rifles of American servicemen instead of behind them, you get what you deserve...

speedsix wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:In my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent. To my knowledge, he never actually killed anyone himself, he just tried to incite others to. He definitely condoned the killing of American citizens...

...however, I see American citizens cheering for his death, a fellow citizen. Who is next? Gun owners, people who support the Constitution, right-wingers, survivalists and more have already been branded as terrorists and threats by many. It's a slippery slope.

...when they became traitors, they were no longer fellow citizens...both had public track records of traitorous acts...they were active in the jihad (war) against their country...you stand in front of the rifles of American servicemen instead of behind them, you get what you deserve...

And when the definition of "traitor" or "terrorist" has changed enough to encompass people like us, will you still be willing to see targeted killings without due process?

I don't disagree that he was an evil man. But I still don't think it makes it okay. I'm not convinced that consistently killing people in 6+ different countries is helping us as a nation or as a people... if anything, I believe it has the potential to incite even more hate against the USA. In my opinion, we should be focusing on securing our borders, protecting our own people and not blowing money everywhere else.

MadMonkey wrote:

speedsix wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:In my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent. To my knowledge, he never actually killed anyone himself, he just tried to incite others to. He definitely condoned the killing of American citizens...

...however, I see American citizens cheering for his death, a fellow citizen. Who is next? Gun owners, people who support the Constitution, right-wingers, survivalists and more have already been branded as terrorists and threats by many. It's a slippery slope.

...when they became traitors, they were no longer fellow citizens...both had public track records of traitorous acts...they were active in the jihad (war) against their country...you stand in front of the rifles of American servicemen instead of behind them, you get what you deserve...

And when the definition of "traitor" or "terrorist" has changed enough to encompass people like us, will you still be willing to see targeted killings without due process?




I don't disagree that he was an evil man. But I still don't think it makes it okay. I'm not convinced that consistently killing people in 6+ different countries is helping us as a nation or as a people... if anything, I believe it has the potential to incite even more hate against the USA. In my opinion, we should be focusing on securing our borders, protecting our own people and not blowing money everywhere else.

...we either stop the terrorists "over there" or over here...they're gonna hate us no matter what...if you're talking about the terrorists...who cares about anyone not involved in the war's opinion...the topic addresses overseas killings...not domestic...but my answer's the same...once you've committed traitorous acts and caused Americans harm, you should be taken out immediately...you are at war with what USED TO BE your country...
...it takes people like you to maintain balance and insure that it doesn't get to be unfairly applied...and people like me to be willing to do the dirty deed to save lives...we won't agree with each other...but we're on the same side...

So how do we go about ensuring that it is fairly applied?

The government has already stated that right wing, Christian, gun owning, Constitution supporting males, especially veterans, are possible domestic terrorists. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members of this board fit into this description on nearly all accounts.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber at least received due process. Even the Nazis were put on trial. The Norway shooter is facing legal proceedings.

Have we lost so much faith in our legal system that we can not trust it to deliver justice to the worst of the worst?

If so, how can any of us trust that we will be set free when wrongly accused?

...more accurately, some of us have lost faith in the system's will to stop the evil before it gets to us and ours...
...specifically to the OP's question and back on topic: our government chose to assassinate two known terrorists whose deeds were public knowledge...perhaps because the governments of the countries where they were hiding cannot be trusted to deliver them to us or allow extradition...they did well...we are at war...and , for once...they took the gloves off and won...

bnc wrote:So how do we go about ensuring that it is fairly applied?

The government has already stated that right wing, Christian, gun owning, Constitution supporting males, especially veterans, are possible domestic terrorists. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members of this board fit into this description on nearly all accounts.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber at least received due process. Even the Nazis were put on trial. The Norway shooter is facing legal proceedings.

Have we lost so much faith in our legal system that we can not trust it to deliver justice to the worst of the worst?

If so, how can any of us trust that we will be set free when wrongly accused?

I tend to agree with the assertion that setting precedents like this can lead to other "undesirables" suffering similar fates (RKBA, Abortion-protestors, etc.).

On the other hand, I look at this American Citizen as an enemy-combatant. I tend to shoot at them and ask questions later. (Did I hit him center-mass?).

...that's real...it would get out of hand...our founding Fathers set up this gov't to regulate and hold each branch in check...Executive, Legislative, and Judicial...if each branch was doing what they're supposed to do...a lot of this would get taken care of without stepping outside the law...and before assassination became necessary...but I don't see that any one of the three is doing their jobs...

Purplehood wrote:

bnc wrote:So how do we go about ensuring that it is fairly applied?

The government has already stated that right wing, Christian, gun owning, Constitution supporting males, especially veterans, are possible domestic terrorists. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members of this board fit into this description on nearly all accounts.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber at least received due process. Even the Nazis were put on trial. The Norway shooter is facing legal proceedings.

Have we lost so much faith in our legal system that we can not trust it to deliver justice to the worst of the worst?

If so, how can any of us trust that we will be set free when wrongly accused?

I tend to agree with the assertion that setting precedents like this can lead to other "undesirables" suffering similar fates (RKBA, Abortion-protestors, etc.).

On the other hand, I look at this American Citizen as an enemy-combatant. I tend to shoot at them and ask questions later. (Did I hit him center-mass?).

I agree. He wasn't a "mastermind" behind his desk in a NY mosque (where he should have been taken and tried), he was on foreign soil training directly with Al Qaeda and planning future attacks on U.S. soil. This makes him no different than if we saw Goebels or Goering driving down a road in WWII and we had cross hairs on them. Or bombing a known location where the German High Command was known to be meeting. He removed himself from conspirator to active enemy combatant. There's a difference between that and any other person(s) they want to "target".

Put another way, if your neighbor decides to come after you or your family, which of us would hesitate to stop the threat? I wouldn't; but where's HIS due process? Immediate threats require immediate actions.

speedsix wrote:...that's real...it would get out of hand...our founding Fathers set up this gov't to regulate and hold each branch in check...Executive, Legislative, and Judicial...if each branch was doing what they're supposed to do...a lot of this would get taken care of without stepping outside the law...and before assassination became necessary...but I don't see that any one of the three is doing their jobs...

I have the general-feeling that the American populace has let our government let us down since the American Civil War. Reconstruction was simply a giant-power-grab by the Feds and Politicians in general.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

bnc wrote:So how do we go about ensuring that it is fairly applied?

The government has already stated that right wing, Christian, gun owning, Constitution supporting males, especially veterans, are possible domestic terrorists. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members of this board fit into this description on nearly all accounts.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber at least received due process. Even the Nazis were put on trial. The Norway shooter is facing legal proceedings.

Have we lost so much faith in our legal system that we can not trust it to deliver justice to the worst of the worst?

If so, how can any of us trust that we will be set free when wrongly accused?

I tend to agree with the assertion that setting precedents like this can lead to other "undesirables" suffering similar fates (RKBA, Abortion-protestors, etc.).

On the other hand, I look at this American Citizen as an enemy-combatant. I tend to shoot at them and ask questions later. (Did I hit him center-mass?).

I agree. He wasn't a "mastermind" behind his desk in a NY mosque (where he should have been taken and tried), he was on foreign soil training directly with Al Qaeda and planning future attacks on U.S. soil. This makes him no different than if we saw Goebels or Goering driving down a road in WWII and we had cross hairs on them. Or bombing a known location where the German High Command was known to be meeting. He removed himself from conspirator to active enemy combatant. There's a difference between that and any other person(s) they want to "target".

Put another way, if your neighbor decides to come after you or your family, which of us would hesitate to stop the threat? I wouldn't; but where's HIS due process? Immediate threats require immediate actions.

...that bell rings clear to these old ears!!!

Purplehood wrote:

speedsix wrote:...that's real...it would get out of hand...our founding Fathers set up this gov't to regulate and hold each branch in check...Executive, Legislative, and Judicial...if each branch was doing what they're supposed to do...a lot of this would get taken care of without stepping outside the law...and before assassination became necessary...but I don't see that any one of the three is doing their jobs...

I have the general-feeling that the American populace has let our government let us down since the American Civil War. Reconstruction was simply a giant-power-grab by the Feds and Politicians in general.

...since the Federal government "won" that war...some would say it's over and they're just gonna run us...I'd say we just need to fight smarter...just like then, today the Feds are better armed and control transportation and communication...it has to be won in the ballot box or it's just gonna get messy again...and I don't expect better results...people have to VOTE and VOTE SMART...for things to get better...


...here's our biggest problem...and why they don't fear us... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MadMonkey wrote:In my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent. To my knowledge, he never actually killed anyone himself, he just tried to incite others to. He definitely condoned the killing of American citizens...

...however, I see American citizens cheering for his death, a fellow citizen. Who is next? Gun owners, people who support the Constitution, right-wingers, survivalists and more have already been branded as terrorists and threats by many. It's a slippery slope.

Under Texas law, he killed everyone of the soldiers murdered at Fort Hood. I see no problem with precedent. You are trying to stretch this action to an absurd extreme by your comparison with gun owners in the United States with a U.S. citizen who left the jurisdiction and joined foreigners in a war against the United States. This is not my area of law, but I suspect a good argument could be made that he forfeited his citizenship by doing so.

In my view, he had two choices; come back to the United States so he could get his day in court, or stay abroad and get a missile in his lap. As Yoda said, "he chose poorly."

Chas.