We should apply the same standards to gang members waging war against Americans. Some of them aren't even US citizens, so there's no question they're foreign invaders and combatants that can be legally killed by any American in the name of homeland security. We should also send the military against them. Those foreign enemies have infiltrated our cities and are a bigger threat than men living in caves in Afghanistan.atticus wrote:I don't think we have to re-invent the wheel on this one. I understand that Abraham Lincoln was faced with similar arguments during the War Between the States, and that Americans who chose to serve under the Confederate flag were determined NOT to be entitled to criminal court proceedings. They, like Anwar Not-so-lucky, had U. S. citizenship, but chose to fight against the U. S. Note that, when they were captured alive and if then charged with a crime, they were tried before military tribunals. But they were all fair targets of war when on the battlefield. After the war, President Johnson cleared the decks by ordering a general amnesty to those who had fought against the U. S. Even Robert E. Lee had to worry about charges of treason. But that's all post-war stuff. During the war, it's pretty clear that Americans, albeit Confederates, who were combatants against the U. S., did not have a right to a civil trial for their participation in the war. To me it means that the claims that we assassinated a U. S. citizen, and violated Anwar's rights, are meritless. He chose to take the field of battle against the country of his birth. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
