Obama makes U.S. Citizen "Hit List"

[JohannesH]

Go for it... Iceland style:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/world ... .html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E

[Hobo Joe]

Go for it... Iceland style:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/world ... .html?_r=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E

Holy shit, that's amazing.


The best part is that it sounds like he's good at being a mayor too.

[echoone]

Why do those "Brown guys" get rights under american law and all that good stuff, but an american citizens don't even get a trial?

Citizenship is not equatable to rights. That's a common misconception. It has to do with location, location, location. Citizens who are not within our boarders do not receive the protections afforded by the US Constitution. Likewise, illegals within our borders, who clearly are not citizens, frequently receive full benefit of the Constitution.

There are also many legal grey areas. People hate to admit that, but its true. Also, if you declare war, commit violent acts, and refuse to wear a uniform, you are technically either a spy or an illegal combatant. Legally, even after you are taken into custody, you can be summarily executed on the spot at the discretion of whoever is in charge at the time.

As for the US, political assassination is illegal under US law. Wartime, battlefield assassination is perfectly legal. If you want constitutional protections, don't do stupid things such as those outlined above, including a declaration of war.

People frequently have a hard time with this concept, but things inside of a war zone frequently change many things you take for granted.

[SpliFF]

Citizenship is not equatable to rights. That's a common misconception. It has to do with location, location, location. Citizens who are not within our boarders do not receive the protections afforded by the US Constitution.

Really, how did you reach that conclusion?

Likewise, illegals within our borders, who clearly are not citizens, frequently receive full benefit of the Constitution.

Who told you that? I think you'll find they have the protection of American courts and refugee laws under U.N. obligations, not the constitution specifically.

There are also many legal grey areas. People hate to admit that, but its true. Also, if you declare war, commit violent acts, and refuse to wear a uniform, you are technically either a spy or an illegal combatant.

Spies can't "declare war". There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant" under any international law. That's something Bush invented to justify his own illegal actions. Technically anyone commiting violence without a uniform is a criminal and subject to criminal law enforcement.

Legally, even after you are taken into custody, you can be summarily executed on the spot at the discretion of whoever is in charge at the time.

Bullshit.

As for the US, political assassination is illegal under US law. Wartime, battlefield assassination is perfectly legal. If you want constitutional protections, don't do stupid things such as those outlined above, including a declaration of war.

The U.S. cannot make laws for other countries. Nor is it's interpretation of what is legal correct under any U.N. or international laws. Nor has it formally declared war in all areas of it's operations.

People frequently have a hard time with this concept, but things inside of a war zone frequently change many things you take for granted.

You have a hard time with these concepts apparently. Nobody ever said you can't shoot back at your enemies but since the invasion itself is an illegal, undeclared conflict between a superpower and the countries citizens it's a bit rich to go pointing the finger at people for fighting back.

What would YOU do if the Taliban had invaded America? Wouldn't you fight back? Would that take anyway your rights under International law. Which part of any International agreements authorises the assasination of anybody?

I think you struggle to seperate the concept of what is legal, with the concept of getting away with unlawful acts. The U.S. has committed many atrocities and warcrimes but will they be held accountable? Unfortunately it's doubtful.

[SpliFF]

There are also many legal grey areas. People hate to admit that, but its true. Also, if you declare war, commit violent acts, and refuse to wear a uniform, you are technically either a spy or an illegal combatant.

Spies can't "declare war". There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant" under any international law. That's something Bush invented to justify his own illegal actions. Technically anyone commiting violence without a uniform is a criminal and subject to criminal law enforcement.

Legally, even after you are taken into custody, you can be summarily executed on the spot at the discretion of whoever is in charge at the time.

Bullshit.

As for the US, political assassination is illegal under US law. Wartime, battlefield assassination is perfectly legal. If you want constitutional protections, don't do stupid things such as those outlined above, including a declaration of war.

The U.S. cannot make laws for other countries. Nor is it's interpretation of what is legal correct under any U.N. or international laws. Nor has it formally declared war in all areas of it's operations.

People frequently have a hard time with this concept, but things inside of a war zone frequently change many things you take for granted.

You have a hard time with these concepts apparently. Nobody ever said you can't shoot back at your enemies but since the invasion itself is an illegal, undeclared conflict between a superpower and the countries citizens it's a bit rich to go pointing the finger at people for fighting back.

What would YOU do if the Taliban had invaded America? Wouldn't you fight back? Would that take anyway your rights under International law. Which part of any International agreements authorises the assasination of anybody?

I think you struggle to seperate the concept of what is legal, with the concept of getting away with unlawful acts. The U.S. has committed many atrocities and warcrimes but will they be held accountable? Unfortunately it's doubtful.

[SpliFF]

site error repost

[SpliFF]

repost due to forum problem