Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[AugustWest]

I wouldn't have a problem with an airstrike to take out a radio facility that Tokyo Rose just happened to be broadcasting from.

she's driving to the radio station. the station itself is not damaged at all.

I'm not trying to be a dick. just trying to make it a true apples to apples comparison.

[Jungle Rat]

Dude deserved to die. Fuck him.

[AugustWest]

agreed. however when it comes down to it the man was killed for speaking his mind.

[Professor Tiger]

she's driving to the radio station. the station itself is not damaged at all.

Okay, so General LeMay randomly picked out that nondescript rickshaw to get carpet bombed, and coincidentally Tokyo Rose happened to be riding in it at the time. Accidents happen. There was something about that rickshaw that just pissed Curt off.

[AlabamAlum]

Tokyo Rose doesn't do it, either. Most of the Taliban talking heads are also involved in Operations. They may not all carry an AK, but they have roles in training or planning or both. That wasn't the case with Tokyo Rose.

[10ac]

And besides, fuck arabs.

[Jungle Rat]

[Professor Tiger]

Tokyo Rose doesn't do it, either. Most of the Taliban talking heads are also involved in Operations. They may not all carry an AK, but they have roles in training or planning or both. That wasn't the case with Tokyo Rose.

Good point. Josef Goebbels didn't carry a mauser either, but he certainly deserved to get off'd. If he had been a US citizen, that wouldn't have changed a thing.

Sorta like this guy:

[AugustWest]

the question is did the US government have the authority to kill them in the manner in which they did without any due process at all? if the government wanted to kill them all they had to do was revoke citizenship, try in absentia etc. all I'm saying is that this is becoming a very slippery slope.

[AlabamAlum]

I believe they did. I posted a link a few months back at TGP.

[AugustWest]

I know they said they did. they claim a lot of power they shouldnt have.

[AlabamAlum]

No, I posted a link to the law from 1940.

[AugustWest]

ok, I'll find your link.

[AlabamAlum]

Here's the post:

There is a process through the Department of State by which a person is deprived of their citizenship, and this process is defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940 (8 USC § 1481), along with specific conditions that are said to denote a person’s willingness to no longer be a citizen of the United States:

-obtaining naturalization in a foreign state

-taking an oath or affirmation of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision therein

-serving in a foreign military actively engaged in hostilities against the United States, or at any time accepting a commission in any foreign military

-obtaining employment in a foreign government, if you’ve obtained nationality of that nation or if the post requires an oath or affirmation of allegiance

-formally renouncing your citizenship before a United States consular officer in a foreign country, in a manner prescribed by the State Department

-committing an act of treason against the United States (as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution), or attempting to overthrow the United States or take up arms against her

[Professor Tiger]

That pretty much settles it unless the law has been radically changed recently.

[AugustWest]

formally renouncing your citizenship before a United States consular officer in a foreign country, in a manner prescribed by the State Department

if going on video and renouncing your citizenship is a manner prescribed by the State Dept then it's a fair cop.

[AlabamAlum]

I also think these could work as well:

-serving in a foreign military actively engaged in hostilities against the United States, or at any time accepting a commission in any foreign military

-obtaining employment in a foreign government, if you’ve obtained nationality of that nation or if the post requires an oath or affirmation of allegiance

-committing an act of treason against the United States (as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution), or attempting to overthrow the United States or take up arms against her

[Professor Tiger]

+1

[AugustWest]

-serving in a foreign military actively engaged in hostilities against the United States, or at any time accepting a commission in any foreign military

neither American killed fired a weapon or engaged in military operations against America. not sure Al-Quaida gives out "commissions".

-obtaining employment in a foreign government, if you’ve obtained nationality of that nation or if the post requires an oath or affirmation of allegiance

are you calling AL-quaida a foreign government? otherwise neither did this.

-committing an act of treason against the United States (as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution), or attempting to overthrow the United States or take up arms against her

see my post above. the renouncing citizenship by video is all that would apply.

article 3 section three

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

again, does a video recorded in a basement meet this standard?

[It's me Karen]

lmao@the Segway.