Obama authorizes assasination of U.S. citizen

WinterBorn said:
Apparently there is a statute that allows citizenship to be stripped. This is what I found so far:

"A federal statute says that a citizen loses his citizenship by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" but only if he does so "with the intention of relinquishing United States [citizenship].""

So apparently serving against us must be accompanied by the intent to relinguish citizenship.
Click to expand...


I don't know that this particular statute would apply given that the particular American citizen that has been targeted for assassination is not even suspected of serving in the armed forces of a "foreign state," let alone with an intent to extinguish his citizenship.

This policy sucked when Bush did it and sucks now.
 
southern man thinks any president has the right to kill a couple of American citizens of his choice, hell maybe more than a couple.
 
Southern Man said:
The Southern Man was crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Obviously not. I am not attacking you. I am trying to engage you in a debate.

Do you advocate assasinating US Citizens? Do you think their citizenship should be stripped before the order is given?

What should be the criteria for authorizing the assasination of one of our people?
 
Southern Man said:
My position is clear.
Click to expand...

Obviously not.

But since you refuse to engage in a debate, lets review what you have said.



1) "Amazing, this president attempts to do one thing right."

2) "Yes. It would prevent a lot of wars. Just think if we had removed Saddam, or Hitler. Or if we could remove Ahmajinedad."

3) "We didn't put Hitler or Ahmajinedadin power."

4) "You're the one giving a non-factual reply."

5) "We have the right to remove a "clear and present danger".

6) "Desh has no clue what The Southern Man thinks."

7) "The Southern Man was crystal clear."

8) "My position is clear."


1) Is on topic but vague.

2) Is irrelevant since the topic is about assasinating a US citizen.

3) Still irrelevant.

4) Doesn't clarify anything.

5) Better, but still not much detail. What constitutes a "clear & present danger"? Who determines whether it is a clear & present danger? ect ect

6) Avoiding the discussion rather than participating.

7) More avoidance.

8) Still more avoidance.




So let me ask you again, do you advocate the president authorizing the assasination of a US citizen? You say it was this president attempting to do one right thing, but it seems a horrible precedent to set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top