Fuck ron paul ---al awikidickhead is dead

[Total Head]

The US Constitution and specifically amendments 5 and 6 already trump your law and GUARANTEE to every PERSON (not just citizen) accused of a crime the right to a trial by jury. You can have a trial and have 1 person be a witness to the treasonous act and even if the Jury returns a verdict of guilty of treason he CANNOT be convicted for it, because you need 2 Witnesses. The law is difficult to understand since it is written in legalese and jargon most don't understand.

Merriam Webster dictionary defines a citizen as “a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state.”

Black’s Law dictionary defines a citizen as “a person who owes allegiance to, and may claim reciprocal protection from, a government.”

You have to be a Citizen.

you do realize that non-citizens can be convicted of treason, right? mirriam webster did not write the law. legal residents who are not citizens can commit traitorous acts and be convicted just the same. again, treason is NOT protected by the bill of rights because it's FUCKING TREASON.

 

[NoDrama]

you do realize that non-citizens can be convicted of treason, right? mirriam webster did not write the law. legal residents who are not citizens can commit traitorous acts and be convicted just the same. again, treason is NOT protected by the bill of rights because it's FUCKING TREASON.

Webster didn't write the legal definitions, but Black sure did. Every person accused of any Crime known to man is protected by the bill of rights, ALL OF THEM!!! Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the parent nation."

 

[VTXDave]

Interesting counter to that is that there was already tension, and attempted coups geared towards guzman's predecessor for the same reason that prompted the CIA to act.

Guatemalan military officers, who viewed his government as inefficient, corrupt, and heavily influenced by Communists. At least 25 coup attempts took place during his presidency, mostly led by wealthy conservative military officers.[23][24] During the 1944 revolution, Arana had demanded that he be appointed as the Chief of Staff, in exchange for loyalty to the Arévalo government. However, Arévalo did not trust Arana, and installed Árbenz as the minister of defense, to act as a check on Arana. Over time, tensions rose between Arana and Arévalo, peaking when Arana was mysteriously killed in a Guatemala City gun battle on July 18, 1949, ultimately leading to a failed revolt that was put down by troops led by Árbenz.[

You may call it an interesting counter, but I disagree. Of course there was "tension". Guzman had the support of "the people" (the very same people you say who have an obligation to exercise their rights). The wealthy (United Fruit included)did not support him.

Tension or no, United Fruit acted by getting Congress to authorize covert operations to protect their "bottom line"...and the promise of cheap bananas for Americans.

Your logic supports these operations. I do not. I believe in fair trade. I believe in a strong America...but not borne on the backs of peasants in other nations or by supporting despots.

It's foreign policy such as this that creates men like OBL and Che....And I can understand why people rally to men such as Che.

 

[Total Head]

Webster didn't write the legal definitions, but Black sure did. Every person accused of any Crime known to man is protected by the bill of rights, ALL OF THEM!!! Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the parent nation."

treason has nothing to do with citizenship or rights. it's about the united states protecting itself from known enemies. the guy was on the internet professing his allegience to a known enemy of the united states during wartime. if he did it during peacetime none of this would be going on, and the "trial argument" would have merit. he's the enemy. joined the dark side during a war. worked his way up the ranks of an enemy militia-thing and plotted to cause deaths of innocent americans . and now he's dead. i, for one, am crushed.

 

[beardo]

the guy was on the internet professing his allegience to a known enemy of the united states during wartime..

What about RIU?
And the War on drugs?

 

[NoDrama]

treason has nothing to do with citizenship or rights. it's about the united states protecting itself from known enemies. the guy was on the internet professing his allegience to a known enemy of the united states during wartime. if he did it during peacetime none of this would be going on, and the "trial argument" would have merit. he's the enemy. joined the dark side during a war. worked his way up the ranks of an enemy militia-thing and plotted to cause deaths of innocent americans . and now he's dead. i, for one, am crushed.

Oh yes it most certainly does. Do you think the USA can just go around calling anyone in the world who would plot against the USA as a traitor and then that classification strips that person of all rights and so then they can be executed with no trial?

Clearly when you read the law you did not notice the part about 2 witnesses having to give testimony to the overt action. Did you know that testimony can only be given during a trial? Anything else is called interrogatories and the reply to those interrogatories is called an answer, not testimony, since it does not occur in a trial.

Anyone given the power to arbitrarily call anyone on the planet a traitor is a tyrant King John would be proud of.

 

[beardo]

Do you think the USA can just go around calling anyone in the world who would plot against the USA as a traitor and then that classification strips that person of all rights and so then they can be executed with no trial?

I used to think the answer was yes, now I know the answer is yes.

 

[NoDrama]

I used to think the answer was yes, now I know the answer is yes.

You have mistaken Traitor and Enemy Combatant for each other.

 

[beardo]

You have mistaken Traitor and Enemy Combatant for each other.

Who makes the determination ? Are there any set definitions?
[youtube]Htrjz6cFz1c[/youtube]

 

[Total Head]

Oh yes it most certainly does. Do you think the USA can just go around calling anyone in the world who would plot against the USA as a traitor and then that classification strips that person of all rights and so then they can be executed with no trial?

Clearly when you read the law you did not notice the part about 2 witnesses having to give testimony to the overt action. Did you know that testimony can only be given during a trial? Anything else is called interrogatories and the reply to those interrogatories is called an answer, not testimony, since it does not occur in a trial.

Anyone given the power to arbitrarily call anyone on the planet a traitor is a tyrant King John would be proud of.

for a non citizen to be convicted of treason they must be in a position to owe allegiance to the united states (legal resident). so no, we can't call ANY non citizen a traitor, just people who have "pledged their allegiance". "testimony can only be given at trial in court"...i don't even know what to say about that. ever heard of a depositon?

all this nonsense aside, the guy was put on the kill or capture list because he committed murderous treason in a very public way, and publicly declared jihad on us. the guy was a war criminal and an enemy combatant, and i'm only entertaining the "he was an american" nonsense because it seems to be such an issue for some. treason is the only crime and punishment specifically spelled out in the constitution. not murder, not rape. treason. it's the one thing you can do to to the united states (as a person owing allegience) that will make us say "fuck you. no, FOR REAL. fuck you." they didn't write murder, rape or crop salting into the constitution, but they did treason. that should tell you something.

 

[hyperducer]

If its not RON PAUL, then who else has answers we can all understand, are based upon many years of public service, Armed forces Service, health care issues,etc.? He is the only candidate that always has an important document from the countries past, or real facts behind his answers. He doesn't think we should be world police, and does think America can be economically sound again.....AND restore or freedom that's been taken from us like we were children. Our govt. is a fat, nasty jabba the hut lookin thing and we need to put it on a diet!!! 1000000 people have top security clearance now!

 

[NoDrama]

for a non citizen to be convicted of treason they must be in a position to owe allegiance to the united states (legal resident). so no, we can't call ANY non citizen a traitor, just people who have "pledged their allegiance". "testimony can only be given at trial in court"...i don't even know what to say about that. ever heard of a depositon?

.

A deposition is the process by which interrogatories are done.
A deposition does not give Testimony, it gives answers. During the course of a trial it will be called testimony only because you have authorized it's use and have verified the authenticity of such and the court has entered it into evidence. No one gives testimony unless there is a trial.

As far as your comment about him being a traitor. If a traitor can be anyone who has sworn allegiance to the USA and doesn't necessarily mean a citizen, then doesn't the declaration of war negate that pledge? In other words you can't be a traitor if you no longer swear allegiance.

Enemy Combatant is entirely different from traitor.

 

[deprave]

Which terrorist will they kill next?

[video=youtube;bFLFihL6JNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFLFihL6JNk[/video]


[video=youtube;AVQnbNspHsk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVQnbNspHsk[/video]

 

[dukeanthony]

Which Terrorist will they Kill next?

Probably the next one that plots to attack the USA like your buddy Alawickidickhead

 

[Jack Fate]

I don't think Ron Paul is going to gain any converts on this point.

 

[Total Head]

A deposition is the process by which interrogatories are done.
A deposition does not give Testimony, it gives answers. During the course of a trial it will be called testimony only because you have authorized it's use and have verified the authenticity of such and the court has entered it into evidence. No one gives testimony unless there is a trial.

As far as your comment about him being a traitor. If a traitor can be anyone who has sworn allegiance to the USA and doesn't necessarily mean a citizen, then doesn't the declaration of war negate that pledge? In other words you can't be a traitor if you no longer swear allegiance.

Enemy Combatant is entirely different from traitor.

if you no longer swear allegiance and ALSO assist the enemy you are just another enemy combatant threatening our security. as many have already pointed out the guy did not formally end his citizenship, so he certainly does fit the description of a traitor. i don't understand your assertion that traitors and enemy combatants cannot be the same person, since he fits both descriptions. also, since you are so big on dictionary definitions you should be aware that the definition of testimony has nothing to do with a court of law and everything to do providing a formal statement under oath. anyone who has ever taken a public office is "under oath". it's not just about courtrooms. my point is that once you make the leap to "enemy combatant" you are just another peice on the battle field that needs to be eliminated.

so when someone is on a college campus shooting the place up (example) why doesn't HE get a trial? the police just shoot his ass on sight. where's all the picketers then? to suggest we capture and try enemy combatants who are publicly targeting and killing americans with millions of witnesses is absurd. if you put yourself in the crosshairs you get shot. simple.

 

[The Ruiner]

You may call it an interesting counter, but I disagree. Of course there was "tension". Guzman had the support of "the people" (the very same people you say who have an obligation to exercise their rights). The wealthy (United Fruit included)did not support him.

Tension or no, United Fruit acted by getting Congress to authorize covert operations to protect their "bottom line"...and the promise of cheap bananas for Americans.

Your logic supports these operations. I do not. I believe in fair trade. I believe in a strong America...but not borne on the backs of peasants in other nations or by supporting despots.

It's foreign policy such as this that creates men like OBL and Che....And I can understand why people rally to men such as Che.

Reducing the issue to "cheap bananas" is well, cheap bananas. What I mean is that post WWII, the dynamic shifted. Two-worlds powers played global chinese checkers with players and pieces of land called "countries." We had a very real reason to pursue something like the Monroe Doctrine, and a serious threat to consider in every decision.

It's well and good to state truisms, but another to state the truth in terms not exactly favorable, but clinical.

Remember how Che died...not exactly awe-inspiring in terms of leadership. At least Fidel settled in, played the game and held on to gains made. Don't start with condemning me for picking out Fidel, that would be very disingenuous to the "roots" of your argument/position...(I made a funny).

 

[VTXDave]

Reducing the issue to "cheap bananas" is well, cheap bananas. What I mean is that post WWII, the dynamic shifted. Two-worlds powers played global chinese checkers with players and pieces of land called "countries." We had a very real reason to pursue something like the Monroe Doctrine, and a serious threat to consider in every decision.

It's well and good to state truisms, but another to state the truth in terms not exactly favorable, but clinical.

Remember how Che died...not exactly awe-inspiring in terms of leadership. At least Fidel settled in, played the game and held on to gains made. Don't start with condemning me for picking out Fidel, that would be very disingenuous to the "roots" of your argument/position...(I made a funny).

Yes, yes....We all know about the Monroe Doctrine and American Imperialism. The fact is clear...Guzman was elected by the people of Guatemala. What does this mean? The people wanted him as their leader (mostly the commoners. The wealthy did not). The "people" wanted him and voted him into office...period. There is no debate here. And what did we do? We proceeded with covert operations to depose him and put in place a government of our own choosing that would maintain the "status quo"...A government sympathetic to Us corporate interests. Whether Guzman was a socialist or a communist is immaterial...He was elected by the people who wanted him.

Yes it is about cheap bananas. Chalmers Johnson has written a very good book regarding this subject called "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire"...an excellent read and quite thorough.

 

[VTXDave]

Remember how Che died...not exactly awe-inspiring in terms of leadership. At least Fidel settled in, played the game and held on to gains made. Don't start with condemning me for picking out Fidel, that would be very disingenuous to the "roots" of your argument/position...(I made a funny).

Not sure where this is coming from. Condemn you? Do you wish to be adversarial? I wasn't referring to Che as a leader. I was pointing out that men like Che and OBL are "created" by oppressive governments. I know how Che died, but I don't see how his death is relevant to the discussion.

 

[dukeanthony]

Not sure where this is coming from. Condemn you? Do you wish to be adversarial? I wasn't referring to Che as a leader. I was pointing out that men like Che and OBL are "created" by oppressive governments. I know how Che died, but I don't see how his death is relevant to the discussion.

Right and Wrong
Che Was shaped by the Misery around him
OBL is a religous FREAK
He didnt try to make things better where he went
He Tried to make People submit to his Brand of Tyranny