TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:<SNIP> As Yoda said, "he chose poorly."

Chas.

I thought it was this guy who said that.

Purplehood wrote:

bnc wrote:So how do we go about ensuring that it is fairly applied?

The government has already stated that right wing, Christian, gun owning, Constitution supporting males, especially veterans, are possible domestic terrorists. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of members of this board fit into this description on nearly all accounts.

Terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber at least received due process. Even the Nazis were put on trial. The Norway shooter is facing legal proceedings.

Have we lost so much faith in our legal system that we can not trust it to deliver justice to the worst of the worst?

If so, how can any of us trust that we will be set free when wrongly accused?

I tend to agree with the assertion that setting precedents like this can lead to other "undesirables" suffering similar fates (RKBA, Abortion-protestors, etc.).

On the other hand, I look at this American Citizen as an enemy-combatant. I tend to shoot at them and ask questions later. (Did I hit him center-mass?).

I agree. He wasn't a "mastermind" behind his desk in a NY mosque (where he should have been taken and tried), he was on foreign soil training directly with Al Qaeda and planning future attacks on U.S. soil. This makes him no different than if we saw Goebels or Goering driving down a road in WWII and we had cross hairs on them. Or bombing a known location where the German High Command was known to be meeting. He removed himself from conspirator to active enemy combatant. There's a difference between that and any other person(s) they want to "target".

Put another way, if your neighbor decides to come after you or your family, which of us would hesitate to stop the threat? I wouldn't; but where's HIS due process? Immediate threats require immediate actions.