Skip to main content

View Diary: Assassination Rationales Then & Now--And How Awlaki Didn't Meet Any of the Criteria (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You really need to read the law please. (3+ / 0-)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/...

    In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
    You're telling us because you didn't agree with his speech, he should be killed.  

    You're telling us that he was no longer a US Citizen because he published his beliefs, he should be killed.

    When did we grant Congress our or government such powers?  Clearly we did not, as the SUPREME COURT HAS RULED.

    Making any "U.S. code" unconstitutional and invalid.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:46:35 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  you need to read some too (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

      esp. section (a) 7 including the links. Advocacy of warring against the U.S. esp. when coupled with actions that comply, meet the bar set under the U.S. Code.

      "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

      by durrati on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 12:28:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Congress or gov't, hell, it looks like durrati (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, Hayate Yagami

      is saying al-Awlaki had the power to remove his own citizenship just by saying so.

      if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 01:43:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  18 USC § 2385... (0+ / 0-)
        Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;
        clearly states this as one of several grounds for loss of native-born citizenship. He would have gone unnoticed if not for the Ft. Hood shooter and the Underwear bomber. If he had been in the U.S. and made the same statements of support he undoubtedly would have been arrested. Instead  he was targeted.

        "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

        by durrati on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:55:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The State Department disagrees with you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, gerrilea

          State Department

          [State Department spokeswoman Victoria] 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."

          "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

          by Hayate Yagami on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:27:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The disclaimer (0+ / 0-)

            was in reference to "not being convicted in a court of law" his actions clearly constitute treason... though he remained outside the reach of the law.

            She also said:

            MS. NULAND: You know, it’s interesting; I looked into this with our lawyers before coming down here. You might be interested to know that there is no law currently on the U.S. books that allows for the revocation of U.S. citizenship based on one’s affiliation with a foreign terrorist group. Now, 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.
            Which seems to indicate that might be the case.

            Maybe she should have asked someone in Justice.

            Now for a riddle: If two or more viewers on a website witness someone calling for them to make war on the United States does it constitute (heh) treason?

            I have my answer.

            "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

            by durrati on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:02:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you even reading what you write? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, SouthernLiberalinMD

              And I don't mean that as a rhetorical question.
              You quote this:

              Now, 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.[Emphasis added]
              And then IMMEDIATELY say
              Which seems to indicate that might be the case.

              "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

              by Hayate Yagami on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:11:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is obvious he didn't have his day in court (0+ / 0-)

                what I am disputing is what would have happened if he did. I say his treason was online for all to see and his death was extra-juridical but only because he was out of reach of a court. Should his treason, or threat to innocent lives, be put aside because of that?

                "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

                by durrati on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:34:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wasn't that question answered already? (2+ / 0-)

                  The US constitution tells what must occur for a legitimate charge of "treason" to leveled against any American.

                  That never happened.  Even though I'd like to call Bush a traitor, it's not valid until two or more people swear in open court.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:35:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  treason was online for all to see? (0+ / 0-)

                  I can decide he is a traitor via my interpretation of his words (seen online) but my opinion of his online comments does not legally establish him as a traitor. I believe the Constitution has some particulars about how you legally establish someone is a traitor. The particulars written in the Constitution need to be followed in establishing whether or not someone is a traitor, otherwise the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land.

                  If we're going to use "what's online for all to see" as the legal method of establishing whether or not someone is a traitor, I can't wait for what will happen the first time a Republican is in the White House. Freepers and RedStaters sending in our words and saying "They're traitors! It was online for all to see!"

                  if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:14:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site