Can Obama Assassinate Americans? - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Can Obama Assassinate Americans?

  1. #21
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    If a person actively participates in terrorist activities (i.e. bombings, assassinations, etc.) then by all means. They have chosen to become enemies of their own country and deserve to be treated as any other terrorist. If all that was done was speaking out against the government then no, this is a Constitutionally protected right. Yes there may sometimes be a thin line between an "active" terrorist and a protester. In this case let the courts decide, after looking at the evidence, whether to deem them as terrorists. This may have to be done in absentia, however, similar things have been done in the past.
    If an American acts against US Forces ON THE BATTLEFIELD, they are a hostile combatant and should either be shot or captured for military trial. If they are not actively participating in these activities, but are suspected of them, they should be arrested and made to stand trial. If captured overseas, it should be a military trial. Do not let anger at terrorists be a reason for surrendering our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    If an American acts against US Forces ON THE BATTLEFIELD, they are a hostile combatant and should either be shot or captured for military trial. If they are not actively participating in these activities, but are suspected of them, they should be arrested and made to stand trial. If captured overseas, it should be a military trial. Do not let anger at terrorists be a reason for surrendering our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

    And that is what I am afraid is going on here. If Big Brother can scare the citizens into thinking their safety depends on surrendering their rights that is exactly what they want.

    Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear ó kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor ó with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil ó to gobble us up if we would not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exuberant funds demanded. Yet in retrospect, those disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

    -General McArthur, 1957
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    If an American acts against US Forces ON THE BATTLEFIELD, they are a hostile combatant and should either be shot or captured for military trial. If they are not actively participating in these activities, but are suspected of them, they should be arrested and made to stand trial. If captured overseas, it should be a military trial. Do not let anger at terrorists be a reason for surrendering our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
    That's basically what I said. The only difference I stated was trial in absentia. If an attempted arrest is made and they resist they're most likely going to be shot. If they're in a terrorist stronghold, and known to support terrorist activities, they become a target along with the rest. This stands on foreign soil only. Mainly because if you're there you know the danger. On U.S. soil all efforts should be made to apprehend and place the individual on trial.

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    If an American acts against US Forces ON THE BATTLEFIELD, they are a hostile combatant and should either be shot or captured for military trial. If they are not actively participating in these activities, but are suspected of them, they should be arrested and made to stand trial. If captured overseas, it should be a military trial. Do not let anger at terrorists be a reason for surrendering our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
    mmm... lets think about that a little harder before committing to that sentiment...

    Leaves an awful lot subject to interpretation...

    What IF an American acts against U.S. Forces on the battlefield of say Phoenix, Arizona because U.S. forces have been ordered to go disarm otherwise law-abiding U.S. Citizens?

    Who defines a hostile combatant? Obama & Company? Elena Kagan? Sonya Sotomayor? Ruth Ginsburg? Eric Holder? Janet Napolitano? BATFE? DHS?

    Suspected? IS that not one of the many problems we have with the so-called Patriot Act?

    Suspects can be held indefinitely & not charged just because they are suspected...

    Unfortunately the only truly Constitutional way to deal with so-called terrorists is when they have actually committed an act of terrorism; specifically taken the life/lives of innocents OR have taken innocents hostage...

    You cannot, must not arrest/imprison someone because you think they might do something, even if they have the means to do so...

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. " - James Madison

    "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Elbridge Gerry

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government

    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  6. #25
    wolfhunter Guest
    Actually Bohemian, there is that little thing about Probable Cause, and that other one about a speedy and public trial. Holding suspects indefinitely is part and parcel of us giving up rights in return for a sense of security or an act of anger. Allowing this is equivalent to giving up our right to own full-auto weapons.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    Actually Bohemian, there is that little thing about Probable Cause, and that other one about a speedy and public trial. Holding suspects indefinitely is part and parcel of us giving up rights in return for a sense of security or an act of anger. Allowing this is equivalent to giving up our right to own full-auto weapons.
    my point exactly.

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    226
    Maybe we need to go over who and who is considered "terrorism or Terrorist" in the year of our Lord 2010.

    THE DEFINITION OF “DOMESTIC TERRORISM”
    Yesterday I mentioned a brochure someone sent me from the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is a brochure handed out to law enforcement officers in the Phoenix area to help them identify potential “domestic terrorists.”

    The brochure starts out with “If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The brochure then proceeds to set forth certain things that the law enforcement officers need to look for. They include ….


    Someone who defends the US Constitution against the federal government and the United Nations.
    Someone who asks the law enforcement officer to cite his authority for making a stop.
    Someone who makes numerous references to the U.S. Constitution.
    Someone who says that driving is a “right,” and not a “privilege.”
    Someone who attempts to “police the police.”
    Pretty good stuff, huh? Let’s say you’re stopped by the cops and they want to search your car. You cite your Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and ask the cop why he stopped you and what he is looking for. Suddenly your name is reported to a terrorism task force.

    Is any of this beginning to sound just a little frightening to you?

    Well .. let’s read some more from the brochure:

    “The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is attempting to identify criminal activities with domestic terrorists. In this regard, the purpose of this information sheet is to assist uniformed patrol officers in identifying potential domestic terrorists.
    ”Domestic terrorism is defined as: Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.”

    Do you need to read that again? Go ahead, I’ll wait.

    Break this down. Any individual who violates a law in an attempt to influence the government or other people in an attempt to produce some political or social change is a domestic terrorist. Some examples:

    You make an illegal campaign contribution
    You trespass on private property while engaged in a demonstration
    You remove campaign yard signs erected by a politician you don’t support
    You illegally place campaign signs in the highway right-of-way
    You withhold a percentage of your income taxes to protest military spending
    All of the above actions fit easily into the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force definition and thus make you a “domestic terrorist” according to this brochure.

    If you aren’t starting to get a little concerned about our civil liberties at this point, you’re either a leftist or you’re asleep.

    PRO-LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH
    TO HIM THEREFORE WHO KNOWETH TO DO GOOD AND DOETH IT NOT, TO HIM IT IS SIN. HOLY BIBLE]

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by KathleenElsie View Post
    Maybe we need to go over who and who is considered "terrorism or Terrorist"...
    The people responsible for killing them are doing that all the time. And trust me, they have alot more credible intelligence resources at their disposal than a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists on an Internet web site.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    If an American acts against US Forces ON THE BATTLEFIELD, they are a hostile combatant and should either be shot or captured for military trial. If they are not actively participating in these activities, but are suspected of them, they should be arrested and made to stand trial. If captured overseas, it should be a military trial. Do not let anger at terrorists be a reason for surrendering our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
    AMEN.
    If there is an American that is inciting violence against this country then we need if at all possible to bring him/her into our country (kidnapping by special forces would work for me) for an OPEN and PUBLIC trial. If this is not possible then let them be TRIED by the Military Tribunals. I am not willing to surrender any of my rights to
    "FEEL SAFE". I want to be safe.

    PRO-LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH
    TO HIM THEREFORE WHO KNOWETH TO DO GOOD AND DOETH IT NOT, TO HIM IT IS SIN. HOLY BIBLE]

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    The people responsible for killing them are doing that all the time. And trust me, they have alot more credible intelligence resources at their disposal than a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists on an Internet web site.
    Believe me I know both kinds. The ones that make me uneasy are those that believe the propaganda (mostly the untrained locals that believe what the Justice Department send out in their Bulletins. The well train ones I would never hesitate to place my safety in their hands. Remember Ruby Ridge and WACO they were both the FEDS working in the name of the USA.

    PRO-LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH
    TO HIM THEREFORE WHO KNOWETH TO DO GOOD AND DOETH IT NOT, TO HIM IT IS SIN. HOLY BIBLE]

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme court case pending???
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 09:03 PM
  2. E-mail I received concerning Orly Taitz
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 06:02 PM
  3. Is Obama A Racist?
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 02:51 PM
  4. Wikipedia says Obama born in Kenya
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2009, 01:17 AM
  5. Donít Believe Obama!
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 04:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast