![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
So, in a war a citizen sides with the enemy, travels to one of their strongholds on foreign soil and is killed in an attack on the bunker by his own countrymen. I honestly don't see the problem with this.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
If in WWII an American had sided with the Nazi's and was killed while lending aid and comfort to the enemy would we even have thought twice about it?
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/5678674-medium110.gif)
Erik Kayo
i fully agree!
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
It just seems to me that you have an implicit relinquishment of citizenship on the day you join forces with the enemy in an armed conflict against your county.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/5678674-medium110.gif)
Erik Kayo
exactly!
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/8467670-medium10.gif)
Jakey
Kill them all...
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/3220449-medium1473994.gif)
(((Cajsa)))
Killed in combat against the enemy, not any trouble at all. I think the controversy is over a specific assassination order allowing a strike because of that person's presence. I still am not going to cry in my
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/3220449-medium1473994.gif)
(((Cajsa)))
beer, but it is troubling to simply order an individual's death without due process.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
I still have a hard time considering him a U.S. citizen. He gave that up and became and willingly became an enemy combatant against his country. He's owed no more due process than were an of the other
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
Al-Qaeda operatives killed in other strikes.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
I know that he didn't explicitly give up his citizenship but I think it's logical do assume that upon joining a group whose stated mission is the destruction of your country you're not interested in being a
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
citizen of that nation.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7164605-medium14.gif)
Merrick
I TOTALLY get what you're saying. BUT (<-- you knew that was coming) let me put this hypothetical to you: One day, a gov't decides to arrest all the queer citizens. A neighboring gov't says, "fuck no way!" ….
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7164605-medium14.gif)
Merrick
.. and declares war on the anti-queer gov't and they go to war. Is it reason for the queers of the anti-queer gov't to join and fight with the neighboring army?
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7164605-medium14.gif)
Merrick
treason*
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7164605-medium14.gif)
Merrick
I only put it this way, because i think each case has to be seen individually.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
Yes, in the eyes of their home country they are traitors. I am not claiming that there may not be what most would see as a legitimate reason to turn on your country.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7164605-medium14.gif)
Merrick
That's cool. I wanted to see if you considered that there were "legitimate reasons" for turning on one's country.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7783947-medium34.gif)
Liq
Isnt siding with enemy combatants treason?
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7783947-medium34.gif)
Liq
Im sure in almost any government if you side with the enemy of the state you are either a rebel or traitor.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
It really all hinges on the citizenship question and I don't think there is legal precedent for it, but I feel like there can be an implicit renouncement of citizenship.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7783947-medium34.gif)
Liq
(Or revolutionary, depends on what perspective you take lol)
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
Once you become an enemy combatant against your country, regardless of your reasons, you really have to be aware that your former government might kill you.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7783947-medium34.gif)
Liq
Well for citizens that are initially foreign to be sworn as a citizen they pledge allegiance etc etc. Isnt that implied and revoked for anyone once they break their side of the bargain
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7164605-medium14.gif)
Merrick
I agree. Thomas Jefferson would agree, too.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/8467670-medium10.gif)
Jakey
If they join the enemy and help attack/plan to attack this country, they are traitors and should be killed..
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7783947-medium34.gif)
Liq
I think theres a difference between sympathiser and active turncoat combatant though.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
Liq
: Definitely! We have the right to oppose the actions of our country through speech and peaceful protest but becoming an armed combatant is something altogether different.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out but I have a hard time feeling that all the rights of citizenship should be afforded to an armed traitor on the field of battle.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/3220449-medium1473994.gif)
(((Cajsa)))
I think the issue is what is "field of battle"
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/3220449-medium1473994.gif)
(((Cajsa)))
The war on terror has made the entire world a "field of battle" and that makes me uncomfortable. But, my concern is not so much for the traitors who take up arms against us, but concern about the errors and
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
(((Cajsa)))
: Yes, it's another as of yet defined part of modern warfare where it's not nation against nation. That's another interesting twist in this debate.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/3220449-medium1473994.gif)
(((Cajsa)))
mistakes that happen.
![](https://avatars.plurk.com/7415926-medium38.gif)
Le Rಠuge
For myself, I feel that anywhere Al-Qaeda sets up a base of operation they have established a valid military target/battlefield, but that's just one man's opinion.