The governments argument for deploying troops in the U.S.

I read this Blog that argues the deployment of troops In the U.S. Although, this is a post from 08’ I found it for the most part  to be ridiculous! But, I do have to say some of what they said does raise an eyebrow.  Ive heard this rumor before. Was the 9/11 attack an attack by our own Government to provoke a war in Iraqu?

I don’t think so. Although I do have my own issues with our government I don’t believe that they would kill hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens  just so they could go to war. They already had plenty of excuses to do so.

But, like I said this blog did raise an eyebrow. One of a few different subjects brought up was, when we were attacked why wasn’t our boarders shut down. Is that not one of the first things you would do if you were being attacked? Neither Mexico, nor Canada boarders were shut down. It was business as usual.

Also I don’t understand why innocent citizens were being harassed   because of their beliefs. Is this not a freedom of speech nation?

He also argues that “the Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks, many of them simple and inexpensive to implement, but the Bush administration has failed to do so” Some argue that placing soldiers at out boarders and in on our street corners to increase our national security would have been ideal. This would have caused only another problem by violating our constitutional rights.

I do think we are doing the best that we can with our national security as to not violate our rights as a nation. I look at it as…Damned if you do..Damned if you don’t.  

Justify a ‘hit list’

I would have to tend to agree with this argument. I don’t find it constitutional that the government is able to Justify a "hit list  on a United States citizen without going through the courts. We have to go through the court system when one is put on trial for a crime and go through the process to convict and serve punishment so why would this be any different. This is a touchy subject though. Being that Anwar Awlaki who is an agent for Al Qaeda makes him our enemy. And with our soldiers at war we don’t have to go through the courts to shoot and kill the enemy. So my question is, do we have to go through the same court process if they are not a U.S. citizen and are on U.S soil?

“Awlaki's father asks the court to rule that his son can't be killed outside armed conflict "unless he is found to present a concrete, specific and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat."

I do believe as is stated that the case will be thrown out because in my opinion his father has no legal right to even submit such a thing when his Son, who is a U.S.citizen and is of age, has access to our courts.

We know he’s a threat and is in bed with the enemy but, the fact is he is a U.S citizen just as all the rapist and murderers are and we still have to go through the same judicial process with them.