Should we make supporting and aligning with ISIS and alQaeda treason?

“Supporting and aligning” has everything to do with beliefs, like in the recent case in Orlando the form of Islam believed in is important, because we are at WAR with an "Islam."

Waiting for Islamifascist sympathizers (especially citizens like that "security guard" in Orlando) to go from motive to opportunity is a loser’s game for us.

 

The government doesn't need to charge U.S. citizens with treason because they can already be held without trial in their prison at Guantanamo Bay or assassinated via drone strike (Anwar Al-Alwaki).

 

It has to do with actions, try again.

 

We've had two very recent examples of people aligned with Islamic terror groups gunning down large groups of Americans. Aren't those people who support easy access to the types of weapons used in those mass shootings supporting and aligning themselves with ISIS and al Qaeda just as surely as the guy handing out those weapons from the trunk of a car? It seems to me the killers PREFER the legal route to obtaining their weapons of choice. Why do they need support that we are not already giving them?

 

The 2 NO voters are likely Liberals.

 

I wouldn't got for option B. The US can't win this 'war' because of its trans-national nature.

I think for option A, as I write this, I would be more inclined to imprison Clinton for revealing classified information (to ISIS?) and endangering lives negligently.

Your ideas sound very Trumpian, but he is transparently out of his depth, having absolutely no political acumen at all.

 

Has nothing to do with Trump. Has to do with American citizens giving aid and comfort to terrorist groups pledged to engage in war against us.

 

No, they did it so it would be used CAREFULLY, and in a very specific way.

The historical background is that the Crown would frequently say that just anything was treason and then go arrest people. They had a whole section of the government that did just that and circumvented laws and due process that way. Look up Star Chamber.

If what the guy did does fit the Constitutional definition of treason then prosecute him under that, by all means.

What the rightists want here is an Authoritarian's Delight, a "Get Thrown in Jail and Probably Executed for Any Reason" law, which also subverts and suborns due process.

 

And there is no conflict with that and what I proposed.

Which is why the founding fathers spelled out what was required in the Constitution, they did not prohibit charges of treason.

DUH no one has said any different.

Tell you what why not let us "rightist" tell you what we want instead of you telling us what we want else I'll sit back and watch your debate yourself.

 

The process of “Supporting and aligning” such that we know about it usually requires an action.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/action

If you are going to wait for the action of pulling a trigger, there is no need for charging with treason as a means of preventing the action, the actor has acted.

Flying a flag is an action, putting on a patch is an action, declaring support for and alignment with is an action too.

Jihad defines neither a geographic context or our presumed enemies, what they mean by “Jihad” does:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

“It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.”

“Rape is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the selective breeding of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigview Brznutski, Obama supporter)
(Terrorized by 'War on Rape' - Washingtonpurplethrobbingpost) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

 

It should be an automatic death sentence.