Props to the Military, CIA and, yes, to Obama

of course its irrelevant but thats not the point. just answer his question or not. maybe hes just wondering if we let known terrorists hang out on US soil for years before killing them. since they have citizenship and all.

 

of course. citizenship is not relevant at all

which is exactly what i have been saying. maybe my mistake was assuming you guys know what a war is.

 

but he wasnt on US soil he was in yemen. the kill order came after he left.

if he had returned he would have been detained immediately (OH NO EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A CITZEN! WAHHH)

 

I never said he was. dont assume why hes asking.

and of course it was great to kill this lunatic.

 

you should pay closer attention to the news.

no.

yes, to the extent they harbor terrorists and have power in failed states that allow terrorists.

yep. getting better though, maybe.

yep, kinda bad.

not anmore, they are good, bush ****ed them up and now they are spearheading a massive change that will be great for everyone.

some of them, yes.

a little bit, yes.

yes many saudi individuals, but not the govt as much.

havent heard that yet but i suspect the tea party death squads are coming. also ron paul is a terrorist and so is fiat currency and blowback

 

again, its like if you have a grandpa with no legs who is blind and lives alone in the desert. you could revoke his driver's license if you want, because he cant pass the eye test, but also it really doesnt matter at all. he doesnt even have a car. or legs.

you dont need to bother revoking a dude's citizenship. he isnt gonna vote in the next election. he isnt gonna take advantage of free government cheese. he is about to be killed. his citizenship doesnt protect him from anything, its not an issue.

 

people dont ask about things because they agree with you that:

he asks because he thinks it is relevant. thats what i am explaining. its a logical trap that idiots get involved with. he has assumed that the evidence must not be sufficient to revoke citizenship. but that isnt true. thats why his position is dihonest. he is not asking a question he is accusing the situation of being "suspicious". it isnt suspicious. it isnt suspsicious because revoking citizenship is not at all an issue when it comes to enemy combatants in war.

again, its like if you ask why a football team wears a certain color when i am explaining to you why they will win. your asking this question is another way of saying that you do not understand the issue and are fixated on something that does not matter in attempt to involve something irrelevant in your point.

 

i understand this. I didnt need your 100s of examples to know what was going on.

but I was telling you to simply answer his questions anyhow. which of course, you wont.

 

of course i answered. the reason they havent revoked his citizenship is because it wasnt necessary or relevant at all.

you ddnt seem to understand my grandfather in the desert example. the reason they dont bother to revokse his license is that he has no legs. he will not be taking advantage of the rights given to him by the license. like i said, alwaki dude is not gonna vote. he isnt gonna get govt benefits. he isnt gonna be protected from bombings. so the question is not why revoke his citizenship, but why bother?

apparently you need thousands.


he isnt really asking a question. he making a point. again, like when i ask you why you love children. thats creepy, loving children. why do you love children when you know that is suspicious?

understand?

 

Dude, I'm not one of the " you guys that don't know what war is" group here. I found constitutional law professors writings on why it isn't necessary for citizenship to be revoked before a traitor that takes up arms aginst the US is targeted.
Another example is the civil war. When the south went to war aginst the US it wasn't necessary for each confederate soilder's citizenship to be annulled before they could be shot. It didn't matter if they were on the battlefield or not, they were shot where they were found.
In the world wars, American citizens found on the battlefield while fighting for the enemy were killed without trial. They weren't arrested.

The question here is when and what constitutes acceptable targeting. For example, when Jane Fonda was sitting on a north Vietnamese anti aircraft gun during the Vietnam war, could she have been targeted by the US government. Could she have had her citizenship revoked? I think she should have been convicted of treason and shot by a firing squad, but I'm an evil republican.

I think how it is understood is if you actively are participating in acts that threaten the wellbeing of us citizens while allying yourself with enemies of the US that are planing or have killed US citizens, you forfeit your rights and become a target. Since you are going aginst your own countrymen, you should become the primary target. Any and all US citizens that take up arms aginst the US should be assumed to have forfeited their citizenship and be killed without trial or mercy.