WorldWatcher
Gold Member
So none of it was a crime? no terrorist acts are criminal? So the president can with a stroke of a PEN DEEM A PERSON A TERRORIST USING THE WAR POWER ACT. Without any trial. Maybe next wek you will be on obama's terrorist hit list.
And maybe this Christmas when you fly out to see relatives you will arrive safely instead of having your plane exploded in mid-air or highjacked and flown into skyscraper.
See I can make silly "what ifs" also.
Your appeal to emotion characterizations are just that, trying to jerk a tear in support of a terrorist scum bag because it's the fun "anti-government" of the day.
The fact remains that Congress authorized the use of force in protecting this country and Obama (as much as I dislike the current President) exercised that Constitutional authorized force through military action in a foreign land.
>>>>
You're full of shit and you know it. for the last 10 years the government has called terrorist acts a crime.
Tyranny no matter what it's used for is still tyranny. Why are you so eager for obama to start taking the action of a dictator? Do you have some status with the government? Have you been promised some kind authority in a puppet status?
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD
Question
Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?
Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
and
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
And if over the years Al-Awlaki had (a) returned to the United States or (b) peacefully presented himself at a United States Embassy for detention and arrest he would have been returned to the States and been able to avail himself to judicial due process.
He didn't he decided to stay hidden in a country without the possibility of arrest and extradition and to continue in his leadership position of an organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans.
He had an opportunity for Judicial Due Process and declined it.
>>>>