LEAVE RON PAUL ALONE, LEAVE HIM ALONE FUBU MODZ

Aestu · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:12 am

Dvergar wrote:

This isn't an argument about the second amendment applying to nuclear weapons. American citizens wanting to do serious harm to the state and fellow citizens have existed since the beginning of the Union and well before it. The Constitution does account for this, it's called the 6th amendment.

Uh huh. Do you think Lincoln was constitutionally conscientious? Or FDR?

Battletard · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:17 am

Dvergar wrote:

Quote:

Yes he was an American citizen. No, he did not FORMALLY renounce his citizenship, though he did everything but. Yes he did plot against our country. Yes he wanted to kill his fellow citizens. Yes he was extremely dangerous.

There is a sizable list of American criminals just within the last decade that fit every one of your descriptions. None of them were summarily executed when they could have been brought in to stand trial.

Quote:

the Consitution cannot account for all the changes in the world 200+ years later.

This isn't an argument about the second amendment applying to nuclear weapons. American citizens wanting to do serious harm to the state and fellow citizens have existed since the beginning of the Union and well before it. The Constitution does account for this, it's called the 6th amendment.

An enemy combatant killed as a casualty of war =/= to 'execution'

Do you consider him an enemy combatant?

Battletard · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:17 am

Aestu wrote:

Dvergar wrote:

This isn't an argument about the second amendment applying to nuclear weapons. American citizens wanting to do serious harm to the state and fellow citizens have existed since the beginning of the Union and well before it. The Constitution does account for this, it's called the 6th amendment.

Uh huh. Do you think Lincoln was constitutionally conscientious? Or FDR?

Nope.avi

Fantastique · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:08 am

Dvergar wrote:

The Constitution does account for this, it's called the 6th amendment.

If you're saying that the 6th amendment should protect someone like al-Awlaki, then you are simply proving my point. The Constitution is not able to account for situations that exist 200+ years after its creation.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:25 am

Um, no. This is a perfect example where the Constitution get's it right. Americans, no matter how heinous their crimes or intentions are, deserve a trial before conviction or execution. I'm sure the amendments which protect us from the government were added because the founders understood what governments are capable of.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:46 am

Well here is where the argument devolves into bickering.

I don't think we should be stuck protecting al-Awlaki's "rights" while giving the scum time to plot something big against us. Sorry, I don't think American lives are expendable even if they quote-on-quote signed up for it (special forces, military, etc) or in order to protect some asshole's forfeited rights. You can think that if you want (you don't need me to tell you, the Constitution says that can) but don't try and tout that somehow this 200+ year old document is infallible or can apply to any imaginable situation because it simply cannot.

I love that document to death, but I'm not going to be the fool that blindly follows its every word. Doing so is following the same logic as the damn terrorists that we are at war with.

EDIT: We are at war on terror. al-Awlaki was a terrorist. Not only is all fair in love and war, but he was also part of the organization that we are at war with. We aren't dragging every enemy combatant to court, are we? No, we have declared war so they are all fair game. He was now simply a casualty of war, yes?

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:58 am

BRB - Letting the feds know they can carpet-bomb the inner-city ghettos since we're fighting a 'war on drugs'

Fantastique · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:12 pm

I forgot that the war on drugs and the war on terror were the same thing, thanks for using your party's stereotypical broad generalization tendency to clear that up for me. Much appreciated, as always.

Usdk · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:17 pm

I feel like eturnal and fanta switched sides for this debate.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:18 pm

lol kinda.

I think I've found one brownie that I hate more than Eturnal.

Oh god, the sun is going to rise in the West tomorrow, I KNOW IT

Dvergar · **Posted:** Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:02 pm

Fantastique wrote:

I don't think we should be stuck protecting al-Awlaki's "rights" while giving the scum time to plot something big against us.

Allegedly, he was plotting against us right up until he became a slushie. He wouldn't be plotting against us in our custody any more than he is now, he would have been in extreme isolation.

Quote:

Sorry, I don't think American lives are expendable even if they quote-on-quote signed up for it (special forces, military, etc) or in order to protect some asshole's forfeited rights

Those people signed up to defend the Constitution, it's the first thing in the oath. Justice by trial is a core principle of America. It doesn't make special forces expendable just because they're doing a job you disagree with, this is exactly what they signed up for. Adhering to the morals and values we preach to the rest of the world is worth a whole team of special forces.

Quote:

You can think that if you want (you don't need me to tell you, the Constitution says that can) but don't try and tout that somehow this 200+ year old document is infallible or can apply to any imaginable situation because it simply cannot.

I can think and say whatever I want, until you decide that my speech isn't free anymore because "some 200+ year old document" didn't predict what I would say.

Quote:

I'm not going to be the fool that blindly follows its every word. Doing so is following the same logic as the damn terrorists that we are at war with.

Not even remotely, you're "well the ends justifies the means because someone told me this guy was bad" justification sounds a hell of a lot more like terrorism than bringing in an accused terrorist to stand fair trial for the crimes he's committed.

Quote:

EDIT: We are at war on terror. al-Awlaki was a terrorist. Not only is all fair in love and war, but he was also part of the organization that we are at war with. We aren't dragging every enemy combatant to court, are we? No, we have declared war so they are all fair game. He was now simply a casualty of war, yes?

You seem to be missing the very important fact that he was a citizen. In fact, the only people arguing that he wasn't a citizen are posting in this thread. Even the Obama Administration agrees that he was a US citizen. You don't stop being a citizen just because you did something the government doesn't like.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

LEAVE RON PAUL ALONE, LEAVE HIM ALONE FUBU MODZ

Who is online