lol well whoever supports this presidential action should never complain again whenever police officers conduct illegal searches and seizures and confiscate your property and arrest you for your personal beliefs and speech
emceeemcee
Banned
you can't just make up the rules
While the Obama administration contends al-Awlaki’s U.S. citizenship didn’t prevent the CIA from targeting the alleged terror leader with a drone, the government didn’t have the right to take away that citizenship.
“It’s interesting,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at Friday’s daily briefing amid a barrage of questions on the airstrike that killed al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nuland said she asked State Department lawyers whether the government can revoke a person’s citizenship based on their affiliation with a foreign terrorist group, and it turned out there’s no law on the books authorizing officials to do so. “An American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case,” she said. “Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case.”
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/03/awlaki_7/singleton/
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
Yeah, police activity and bombing terrorists are basically the same thing. Right. 
Your post is so absurd I was really hoping that you were just being ironic.When was the last time cops busted you for voicing your opinion or your beliefs? Or seized your property without cause? If what you say was actually true, you'd be arrested for just posting this crap. Gosh, you must be unable to sleep at night just worrying about this, huh? Cops have never busted me or anyone I know for speaking our minds, or seized our property or just searched our belongings and homes for no reason -- or any reason. And they never will, so I'm not worried.
BTW, whether you realize it or not, your post basically just pissed all over police officers in general. 99.9% percent of them are decent, courageous folks who protect us from criminals, step into the line of fire and protect our rights and safety. Maybe you don't realize this either, but you basically have compared our cops to the fucking Gestapo in Nazi Germany. You're a class act.
An interesting and ironic choice of words. :kettle: So you're quoting other people's opinions to defend your position? Jesus Christ, you people will never, ever learn, will you?
So what exactly makes Glenn Greenwald's opinions the end-all-be-all? In that piece you cite, he voices his opinion and carefully selects "facts" out of context to back up his claims and ignoring everything else that's contrary. It's intellectually dishonest.In short, he's giving his opinion and he's just plain wrong. Worse, he's not even objective. Since we're gonna play this little game of throwing around baseless bullshit quotes and links, strap this one on:
Bleeding heart liberals refuse to shed blood NO MATTER the circumstance. Greenwald has no fucking credibilty in this issue. Nice try.
An interesting and ironic choice of words. :kettle: So you're quoting other people's opinions to defend your position? Jesus Christ, you people will never, ever learn, will you?
In short, he's giving his opinion and he's just plain wrong. Worse, he's not even objective. Since we're gonna play this little game of throwing around baseless bullshit quotes and links, strap this one on:
Bleeding heart liberals refuse to shed blood NO MATTER the circumstance. Greenwald has no fucking credibilty in this issue. Nice try.
You really are obtuse, aren't you? emceeemcee didn't cite that article because of what some idiot liberal columnist said in it. He cited it because of the what a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said in it when she quoted Federal Law.
Your ad hominem attack doesn't change the fact that Obama knew he was breaking the law when he ordered the attack, ordered the attack anyway, and now is manipulating the blind emotionalism of you and every other person who can't see past their gut reaction in this situation in order to pathetically defend what was a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal action by his administration. You're being played like a fiddle and you don't even care about it because a bad man went *boom*.
First the Right thought Obama would be too soft against Islamic terrorist, then he whacks Bin Laden and Awlaki and now the Right complains he's too hardcore...SMH
It's all political posturing, if it were McCain, it would be all fine and dandy.
That prick gave up his right to be protected by the US constitution the moment he picked up arms vs our country, don't go crying about some slippery slope, that's all BS because our president can do no right for a certain segment of our population.
It's all political posturing, if it were McCain, it would be all fine and dandy.
That prick gave up his right to be protected by the US constitution the moment he picked up arms vs our country, don't go crying about some slippery slope, that's all BS because our president can do no right for a certain segment of our population.
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
There's a gigantic difference between being stripped of your citizenship and giving it up of your own volition. WE didn't revoke it, HE gave it up. See the fucking nuance, here. Just exactly what is it that you DON'T UNDERSTAND? Perhaps I can draw you a picture. And you have the gall to call me obtuse!? Arrogant puke. Al-Alwaki by default renounced his claim to his rights as a U.S. citizen. One cannot wage war against his own country and still expect to be protected by its laws. The quote you refer to (which, BTW, was taken out of context by that hack liberal Greenwald d-bag) only addresses the revocation of citizenship.
There's no law prohibiting it either. Regardless, this "foreign terrorist group" loophole will be closed. Bet on it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
A person cannot give up his citizenship "by default." He can renounce it by:
1. formally declaring his citizenship in another state (Awlaki's citizenship with Yemen was by birth, not formal declaration, which was why he - and many other Americans - were allowed dual-citizenship)
2. joining the armed forces or government of a foreign state (Awlaki may have been a member of Al-Qaeda, but they are an international organization, not a foreign state)
3. by formally renouncing his citizenship, verbally or in writing (he didn't)
4. or by being convicted of treason (not presumed guilty without trial).
In short, your premise that Awlaki could somehow have been "automatically" no longer a citizen does not agree with U.S. Federal Law.
emceeemcee
Banned
Cindy and Trident reminding us why it's pointless engaging with the what passes for a modern conservative....
you'd get more reason out of a cucumber
you'd get more reason out of a cucumber
emceeemcee
Banned
double post
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
Don't miss my edits above! ^^^^^
This coming from the asswipe with the typo in his post
Not so fine a hair as you suggest. The difference between an international organization and a foreign state is massive. A foreign state has geographic boundaries, central leadership, formal membership, and recognition as a state by the international community. Al-Qaeda has NO geographic boundaries, NO central leadership, NO formal membership, and NO recognition as a state by anyone. In short, Al-Qaeda has NONE of the characteristics of a foreign state.
And the distinction is important. When a person declares allegiance to a foreign state they promise to protect and defend a specific, visible parcel of land and a specific, visible group of fellow citizens. When a person declares allegiance to an international organization, they promise to protect and defend an ideology. And ideas are neither specific, nor are they visible. You can't deport someone to an ideology. You can't go to the capital of an ideology. You can't, really, even negotiate with the leadership of an ideology, because each person has their own specific interpretation and execution of the ideas inherent to the ideology. They are each their own leadership.
Now, you may say that this law should be changed and that subscription to a terrorist ideology should be grounds for renouncing one's citizenship. That's a whole can of worms I'd rather not open (especially with the current imbeciles in Congress), but its plausible and valid in it's own way. Write your Congressmen. Until then, I expect the President of the United States to uphold the standing laws of this land. And in Awlaki's case, he clearly didn't.
Um... no, he didn't. Certainly not formally (the statute specifies that the written renunciation needs to be sent to the U.S. Attorney General and the verbal renunciation needs to be before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer). But even informally, as far as I'm aware, Awlaki NEVER stated in any of his videos or writings that he no longer wished to be a U.S. citizen. You are welcome to correct me on this point with evidence to the contrary if it exists.
Its all about saving some money...a bullet is way cheaper than a lawyer.
That is a very pragmatic approach.
Also, this guy wasn't just a member. This wasn't just a philosophy he prescribed to. He didn't just belong to an organization.
emceeemcee
Banned
yawn
emceeemcee
Banned
This coming from the asswipe with the typo in his post
It was 4am when I wrote that.
What's your excuse?
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
I understand what you're saying, truly. And I'm not so proud that I can't admit you make some valid points. I guess we can agree to disagree on the spirit of the law in terms of justice. To me, plotting against your country is tantamount to formal renunciation or "tendering one's resignation" from said country. Clearly, the law as written doesn't go far enough to address this situation -- and I fully believe it should. I get sickened at the thought of people, who are citizens in name only, puppeteering their way through our legal system (at taxpayer expense), using our laws to shield themselves from justice. :crying:
I could also split a very fine hair by saying that Al-Awlaki was also a Yemeni citizen (and at times used that country as a safe haven), which, IMO, could negate the argument you made in your first paragraph. :dunno: Just a thought.
Duhhhh, geez, um, because I'm dumber than a cucumber?
:kettle: (No typo in my post at 4 a.m. Hmmmm. Your's is a weak, very weak defense, hypocrite. Go away.)
Agreed! :goodpost:
emceeemcee
Banned
A typically cogent response from Georges. :1orglaugh
Although it's missing the usual hyperbole about Islamo-maoist socialist commie loving multiculturalism has failed what use are black people to society .
He must be having an off day. Come on Georges you're letting team-idiot down!