Maedhros (5,536 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141076397
Al-Qaida leader killed in drone strike was born in Oregon
I ahve said it before- If you want to know the truth about right and wrong in any situation, look to the side the DUmp supports- the other side is the right one:
Gadahn, who had treason charges pending against him, was killed in a drone strike in January
Good. Hope he is burning in hell.
Another American citizen executed without due process.
Gadahn presented no imminent threat to the United States - he was a propagandist, not a fighter or commander.
The U.S. Government charged Gadahn with treason. Here is what the Constitution says about treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Clearly, the Constitution requirements for conviction in this case were not met. Thus, the execution of Gadahn was unconstitutional.
If we, the American people, don't hold our President to account for extrajudicial executions of enemies of the state, then exactly what will we hold him accountable for?
Let's see...
1) He was adhering to AQ- who has sworn they are in a war against the US and have attacked us on our soil.
2) Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Um.. traitor. Too bad he was killed by a drone strike... by accident.
Yeah- why don't you complain to Barry about it. I am sure he cares about it... if he's read about it in the paper yet.
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
20. It's not about Gadahn, it's about our system of due process. More accurately, it's about how we have abandoned due process.
You take up arms against the US then **** you.
geek tragedy (45,353 posts)
24. due process is not applicable to military conflict.
One does not serve AL Qaeda bunkers in Waziristan with court notices.
We bomb Al Qaeda. It's what we do.
Anyone evil and dumb enough to place himself in al Qaeda strongholds in Af-Pak gets what's coming to him.
I'll mourn the innocent families and bystanders who get killed by our bombs.
When someone who deserves it stumbles into his own death, the death is a side benefit not a tragedy.
George II (6,092 posts)
4. ARE YOU SERIOUS????? I suppose the United States Army should never have battled the Confederat Army? After all, just about every member of the Confederacy were American citizens, right?
"Propagandists" don't shoot guns or plant bombs, but they recruit those who shoot guns and plant bombs.
No tears or pity for him.
Goes to aid and comfort...
cui bono (13,188 posts)
6. I agree with you Maedhros. Someone who doesn't want to hear the truth alerted though.
The first few responses to this thread make me feel I took a hard right on the internets.
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
22. Some people get a rush when the American Military kills The Other.
Some of those people are apparently on DU
okaawhatever (7,010 posts) <--- swear this is not me. 
12. If you truly cared as much as you say you do you'd be familiar with the laws regarding loss of
citizenship. People who take up arms against the US lose their citizenship. (I posted the US Code in a later post) Unlike you, the majority of Americans are okay with revoking citizenship in certain instances, especially where national security is concerned. He was welcome to due process, he could have come back and faced charges and received it. He was charged back in 2006.
So your opinion is that we should have continued to allow him to work with a group whose fundamental purpose is to kill Americans?
cui bono (13,188 posts)
13. Thank you for informing me of that, albeit in a completely illogical and rude manner.
It's because you are an idiot.
Fantastic Anarchist (5,285 posts)
79. That's some wizard-level circular reasoning.
"Laws of war regulate" ...
"Our country has every right to kill those who have engaged in warfare against us ..."
Well, I have no sympathy for Adam and his reactionary assholes, but I won't blindly trust the state to just let me know it's fine with killing people for my protection.
Personally if someone is trying to kill you, FA, I am going to let them- then charge them for murder... because you are an idiot and need to be taken out of the gene pool.
geek tragedy (45,353 posts)
26. He was an imminent threat in the same way a cook on a German U-boat was an imminent threat.
Don't recall many war crimes trials for those guys being killed by depth charges.
He physically joined Al Qaeda combatants in the theater of combat. That's placing himself in the line of fire.
His fault.
TriplD (148 posts)
56. Untill the USSC rules that torpedoes are protected speech that will remain a horrible analogy.
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
33. If we can snatch Bin Laden from Pakistan, we could have captured Gadahn.
Due process does not require that the defendant turn themselves in.
I'm not a big fan of bloodthirsty warmongering.
Bye now.
What an idiot. They shot OBL.
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
68. Thank you for confirming my point - they were able to extricate Bin Laden.
And, enough of you.
/ignore list.
NoJusticeNoPeace (3,983 posts)
29. Drones...dear god. Just the drone issue alone should be something that concerns us.
Put aside who was droned or why.
When you are able to kill people with no risk to yourself.... ... ...
Imagine someone like Ted Cruz as president, with drones, and for that matter, nukes at his disposal.
Instead of focusing on this one action or even this administration, how about a discussion about weapons, killing in general.
If he is on USA land and acting as a terrorist you take him out the same way you take out an armed bank robber.
^ sows no idea about how reality really works.
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
37. Our Constitution is a limitation on our Government's actions against all people, not just citizens.
BTW, can a non-citizen be charged with Treason?
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
60. Why are we avoiding the definitions of "war," "combatant," and "battlefield?" The pro-drone-execution folks rely entirely on Bush's definitions of these things to justify their position.
Maedhros (5,536 posts)
67. So many want to rely on the special conditions of war to justify extra-judicial actions, yet no state of war exists. There are no "enemy combatants" if there is no war, because there is no "enemy". There are no "combatants" if there is no combat.
The Barry definition of the War on Terror is right there, guys. [magically waves hand] 'there is no war..."
SpankMe (809 posts)
48. One of the most interesting threads on DU this week. If you stripped out the comments from this "discussion" and displayed them without any evidence of the web site of origin, a reader would probably assume is was from a right wing web site.
It's interesting how some assertions or opinions posted here can elicit so much right wing-sounding derp. I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, just to the totality of this thread. Sort of turns DU on its head
geek tragedy (45,353 posts)
58. You mean the people throwing a pity party for a far right wing theocratic terrorist and making false, discredited arguments why that far right wing theocratic terrorist was entitled to be protected from the consequences of his own decisions? Because there is zero legal argument that either AQ traitor scumbag had their rights violated.
They weren't even targeted.
They willfully put themselves in the presence of those waging war against the United States as part of their efforts to help wage war against the United States. The US had no obligation to make sure that it dropped no bombs or fired no bullets that might harm a hair on the head of these assholes. It had no obligation in any way to do anything that preserved their safety.
far right wing terrorists... but they can't say Islamic Extremists... becuase it might offend someones [islamic extremists'] feelings.
Reter (882 posts)
64. Pearlman? He was Jewish? Then converted and joined Al-Qaida? Now that's stunning.
Wait... what?
