Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Amelia,
So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?
The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.
>>>>
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that they had plenty of time to indict him and get a conviction. And they should have sought it.
No more lives were saved by killing him last week without due process than would have been saved by killing him last week with due process.
There would have been nothing wrong with killing him in a normal military maneuver if events on the ground dictated it. But that could have been done without putting him specifically on a kill list.
What you said was, and I quote "an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country".
There is no need for an indictment during times of war for enemy combatants, whether they be US Citizens or not when they are acting as the head (or operative) an an organization that has declared war on us.
>>>>
Amelia,
So you are saying we have to wait for a terrorist to come to this country, as in 'an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country" before we can do something. So as long as someone stays overseas they can plan terrorist actions, recruit terrorists that they will then send to this country in their stead, they can teach people how to build bombs, they can provide funds, papers, resources, safe houses, etc. - and there is not going to be anything we can do?
The lives are uncountable that can be saved by being able to target a General then by waiting for a Private. Privates are canon fodder, Generals are the brains and the resource provider.
>>>>
A non American terrorist does not have the U.S. Constitution An American terrorist does. Let's keep the two seperate.
Not need to keep them separate when Constitutional requirements are met such an Congress authorizing the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which they did under their "Authorization for use of Military Force" issued on September 18, 2001 which authorized the President of the United States to act with "all necessary force" against terrorist organizations.
>>>>
As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land... The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been... WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him? Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric... He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents. You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.
Rules of engagement my ass! You don't even use terms correctly. You have no clue what you are even parroting. The SCOTUS has consistently held that terrorists are criminals. And that they are entitled to due process. Where is the law that says 'violent rhetoric' is a capital offense? Miss know it all!
I'm not parroting anything...
I'm sure YOU know it all so much better than all the top legal scholars...
Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.
"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Anderson said.
In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.
"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.
Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.
The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.
Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?
No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.
Prove it.
Post these laws which directly contradict the 5th ammendment.
No, YOU need to prove the US Government abused it's authority by killing a KNOWN terrorist leader who was KNOWN to preach Jihad against the USA.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that they had plenty of time to indict him and get a conviction. And they should have sought it.
No more lives were saved by killing him last week without due process than would have been saved by killing him last week with due process.
There would have been nothing wrong with killing him in a normal military maneuver if events on the ground dictated it. But that could have been done without putting him specifically on a kill list.
What you said was, and I quote "an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country".
There is no need for an indictment during times of war for enemy combatants, whether they be US Citizens or not when they are acting as the head (or operative) an an organization that has declared war on us.
>>>>
Yes I said, "such as" and gave one example. You gave an overgeneralization which amounted to a misrepresentation of my position. I corrected the overgeneralization.
And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
What you said was, and I quote "an immediate threat such as transporting explosives into our country".
There is no need for an indictment during times of war for enemy combatants, whether they be US Citizens or not when they are acting as the head (or operative) an an organization that has declared war on us.
>>>>
Yes I said, "such as" and gave one example. You gave an overgeneralization which amounted to a misrepresentation of my position. I corrected the overgeneralization.
And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
And yet the Constitution contains the very authorization for Congress to authorize the use of the Military against it's citizen when they are in a state of insurrection (i.e. revolt). When you are a citizen in a state of insurrection and commit acts of war against the United States, then you are no longer eligible for due process and it's protections which apply protections under criminal prosecution.
>>>>
Congress can authorize war against another nation, not make hit lists to kill people that are US citizens from
A non American terrorist does not have the U.S. Constitution An American terrorist does. Let's keep the two seperate.
Not need to keep them separate when Constitutional requirements are met such an Congress authorizing the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which they did under their "Authorization for use of Military Force" issued on September 18, 2001 which authorized the President of the United States to act with "all necessary force" against terrorist organizations.
>>>>
If one part of the constitution is no good then non of the Constitution is no good, you can't have it both ways.
And the Superme Court already ruled hat even though an American citizen has been deemed a enemy combatant they still have due process of the law.
Yes I said, "such as" and gave one example. You gave an overgeneralization which amounted to a misrepresentation of my position. I corrected the overgeneralization.
And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
And yet the Constitution contains the very authorization for Congress to authorize the use of the Military against it's citizen when they are in a state of insurrection (i.e. revolt). When you are a citizen in a state of insurrection and commit acts of war against the United States, then you are no longer eligible for due process and it's protections which apply protections under criminal prosecution.
>>>>
When was martial law envoked?
Or the suspension of habeas corpus
Not need to keep them separate when Constitutional requirements are met such an Congress authorizing the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution which they did under their "Authorization for use of Military Force" issued on September 18, 2001 which authorized the President of the United States to act with "all necessary force" against terrorist organizations.
>>>>
If one part of the constitution is no good then non of the Constitution is no good, you can't have it both ways.
There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.
And the Superme Court already ruled hat even though an American citizen has been deemed a enemy combatant they still have due process of the law.
Of course if you are captured by law enforcement and are to be tried in court, then you have due process. However as an enemy combatant outside the bounds of law enforcement hiding in another country where they can't reach you, then Congress can authorize the use of military force.
Pretty simple really.
>>>>
There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.
The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.
And yet the Constitution contains the very authorization for Congress to authorize the use of the Military against it's citizen when they are in a state of insurrection (i.e. revolt). When you are a citizen in a state of insurrection and commit acts of war against the United States, then you are no longer eligible for due process and it's protections which apply protections under criminal prosecution.
>>>>
When was martial law envoked?
Show me in the constitution where martial law must be declared for Congress to exercise it's Article I Section 8 empowerment.
We'll wait.
Or the suspension of habeas corpus
Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process. If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.
Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.
All that counts is that the Missile didn't miss.
>>>>
Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process. If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.
Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.
When was martial law envoked?
Show me in the constitution where martial law must be declared for Congress to exercise it's Article I Section 8 empowerment.
We'll wait.
Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process. If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.
Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.
All that counts is that the Missile didn't miss.
>>>>
You don't think congress would put down an insurrection without issuieing Martial law do you?
Habeas corpus is a legal action as part of a judicial process. If he had been arrested and imprisoned he would have been able to use habeas corpus as a part of a legal pleading.
Since he was killed in a military action ordered National Command Authority upon an specific authorization by Congress for the application of "all force necessary", then habeas corpus does not apply.
What were his charges? and when did we invade Yemen?
If one part of the constitution is no good then non of the Constitution is no good, you can't have it both ways.
There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.
Of course if you are captured by law enforcement and are to be tried in court, then you have due process. However as an enemy combatant outside the bounds of law enforcement hiding in another country where they can't reach you, then Congress can authorize the use of military force.
Pretty simple really.
>>>>
There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.
What was the charges aginst the American Citizen?
And I continue to disagree with your position. U.S. citizens have special rights under the constitution. It is too dangerous to let one man determine which citizens don't deserve the rights anymore without those citizens being invited to defend themselves against the decision.
[The requirement of due process is not] offset by the circumstances of war or the accusation of treasonous behavior, for t is clear that commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection, Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 361 (1983) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted), and at this stage in the Mathews calculus, we consider the interest of the erroneously detained individual. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978) (Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property); see also id., at 266 (noting the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, and emphasizing that the right to procedural due process is absolute in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimants substantive assertions). Indeed, as amicus briefs from media and relief organizations emphasize, the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizens liberty in the absence of sufficient process here is very real.
([The Founders] knewthe history of the world told themthe nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen). Because we live in a society in which [m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a persons physical liberty, OConnor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 575 (1975), our analysis is unaltered by the allegations surrounding the particular detainee or the organizations with which he is alleged to have associated. We reaffirm today the fundamental nature of a citizens right to be free from involuntary confinement by his own government without due process of law, and we weigh the opposing governmental interests against the curtailment of liberty that such confinement entails.
There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.
Of course if you are captured by law enforcement and are to be tried in court, then you have due process. However as an enemy combatant outside the bounds of law enforcement hiding in another country where they can't reach you, then Congress can authorize the use of military force.
Pretty simple really.
>>>>
There is no conflict, if you are charged with a crime you have a right to due process under the 5th amendment. If you are an enemy combatant and are hiding outside the bounds of law enforcement in another country, then the Congress can authorize military force because your actions place you in a state of insurrection.
What was the charges aginst the American Citizen?
Military actions authorized by Congress do not have "charges" those are for courts of law if the individual turns themselves in or is arrested.
Not the case here, has an enemy combatant he was killed in a foreign land based on intelligence gathered.
>>>>
Not the case here, has an enemy combatant he was killed in a foreign land based on intelligence gathered.
