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.
Awlaki is being tried in absentia in Yemen for his alleged role in the kidnapping and murder of a French national. On Saturday, Judge Moshen Allwan ordered him "arrested by force, dead or alive" when he failed to appear.
Read more: Cleric says American 'devils' must die - UPI.com
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/11/201011613102535305.htmlA Yemeni judge has issued an order that the US-born Muslim preacher Anwar al-Awlaki has to be caught dead or alive, for alleged links to al-Qaeda and involvement in the killing of foreigners.
Mohsen Alwan, in a ruling on Saturday, asked prosecutors "to forcibly arrest" al-Awlaki and his relative Othman al-Awlaki whom a court in Sanaa has charged with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."
The Yemeni arrest warrant was issued after the two failed to appear for a second time before the court that specialises in terrorism cases.
They had been charged in absentia on Tuesday and, under Yemeni law, suspects are given some time to appear for trial before an order is issued that they be captured by force.
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.
Correct.
The specter of the Executive passing sentence on an American absent due process is repugnant to free men everywhere. And that one is accused of declaring war on the United States or of being a traitor again neither mitigates nor suspends ones right to due process. Indeed, the right is predicated on the fact that without due process, one might be detained or in this case killed in error:
[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.
Further, the fact that one may be associated with voluntarily or not, it makes no difference a hated organization such as al Qaeda only makes more urgent the adherence to due process:
([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.
Source for the cited above:
HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
This does not mean, however, we sit and do nothing, or wait for the terrorists to come kill us.
Criminal suspects may be aggressively and proactively pursued, arrested, and if they offer resistance, killed.
But no president, no member of Congress, and no private citizen is above the rule of law.
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?
You're not at war with Yemen.
But that's where he was carrying out his operations from.
The strike was carried out with their agreement as I understand.
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.
Correct.
The specter of the Executive passing sentence on an American absent due process is repugnant to free men everywhere. And that one is accused of declaring war on the United States or of being a traitor again neither mitigates nor suspends ones right to due process. Indeed, the right is predicated on the fact that without due process, one might be detained or in this case killed in error:
Further, the fact that one may be associated with voluntarily or not, it makes no difference a hated organization such as al Qaeda only makes more urgent the adherence to due process:
([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.
Source for the cited above:
HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
This does not mean, however, we sit and do nothing, or wait for the terrorists to come kill us.
Criminal suspects may be aggressively and proactively pursued, arrested, and if they offer resistance, killed.
But no president, no member of Congress, and no private citizen is above the rule of law.
I posted the Hamdi case before. They didn't read it then. What makes you think they will read it now? LOL.
You don't think congress would put down an insurrection without issuieing Martial law do you?
What were his charges? and when did we invade Yemen?
You're not at war with Yemen.
But that's where he was carrying out his operations from.
The strike was carried out with their agreement as I understand.
So obama invaded another soverign nation? New Zealands next
Mr Alwaki thought it was a great idea.Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?
You're not at war with Yemen.
But that's where he was carrying out his operations from.
The strike was carried out with their agreement as I understand.
So obama invaded another soverign nation? New Zealands next
Where's the invasion?
I'll get back to you after I check out the 6pm news tonight in case I've missed something.
So obama invaded another soverign nation? New Zealands next
Where's the invasion?
I'll get back to you after I check out the 6pm news tonight in case I've missed something.
Invade
1.(of an armed force or its commander) Enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it
- it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland
- they would invade at dawn
2.Enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, esp. with intrusive effect
- demonstrators invaded the presidential palace
3.(of a parasite or disease) Spread into (an organism or bodily part)
4.(of a person or emotion) Encroach or intrude on
I posted the Hamdi case before. They didn't read it then. What makes you think they will read it now? LOL.
Where's the invasion?
I'll get back to you after I check out the 6pm news tonight in case I've missed something.
Invade
1.(of an armed force or its commander) Enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it
- it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland
- they would invade at dawn
2.Enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, esp. with intrusive effect
- demonstrators invaded the presidential palace
3.(of a parasite or disease) Spread into (an organism or bodily part)
4.(of a person or emotion) Encroach or intrude on
Is English your second language?
Re-read your highlighted section again, or get someone to translate for you.
Invade
1.(of an armed force or its commander) Enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it
- it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland
- they would invade at dawn
2.Enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, esp. with intrusive effect
- demonstrators invaded the presidential palace
3.(of a parasite or disease) Spread into (an organism or bodily part)
4.(of a person or emotion) Encroach or intrude on
Is English your second language?
Re-read your highlighted section again, or get someone to translate for you.
What is Encroach or intrude on for 1000 alex
to invade
Yet again, I don't disagree that due process would have been preferable.
However, the legal route was tried, and the warrant for his arrest was rescinded just before his eventual detention so that he had to be released - 'due process' simply failed allowing him to carry on causing mayhem.
I think this demonstrates the potential unevenness of the playing field.
Terrorists don't care about due process and human rights and they'll exploit their targets' adherence to these principles.
Eventually I believe that pragmatism needs to take precedence and the US (or any country) needs to take whatever action is necessary to protect its own citizens.
I posted the Hamdi case before. They didn't read it then. What makes you think they will read it now? LOL.
Note the thread views as opposed to the posts, you never know when someone with an open mind might wander into the thread.
It’s also for my own edification, as I read case law I find new to me nuances and subtleties; and I have my opponents to thank, compelling me to dig deeper. My opponents are often my most effective teachers.
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?
Obama couldn't even be bothered to secure a warrant for Awlaki's arrest.
Straight to kill list.
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.
Correct.
The specter of the Executive passing sentence on an American absent due process is repugnant to free men everywhere. And that one is accused of declaring war on the United States or of being a traitor again neither mitigates nor suspends ones right to due process. Indeed, the right is predicated on the fact that without due process, one might be detained or in this case killed in error:
[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.
Further, the fact that one may be associated with voluntarily or not, it makes no difference a hated organization such as al Qaeda only makes more urgent the adherence to due process:
([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.
Source for the cited above:
HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
This does not mean, however, we sit and do nothing, or wait for the terrorists to come kill us.
Criminal suspects may be aggressively and proactively pursued, arrested, and if they offer resistance, killed.
But no president, no member of Congress, and no private citizen is above the rule of law.
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.
Correct.
The specter of the Executive passing sentence on an American absent due process is repugnant to free men everywhere. And that one is accused of declaring war on the United States or of being a traitor again neither mitigates nor suspends ones right to due process. Indeed, the right is predicated on the fact that without due process, one might be detained or in this case killed in error:
Further, the fact that one may be associated with voluntarily or not, it makes no difference a hated organization such as al Qaeda only makes more urgent the adherence to due process:
([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.
Source for the cited above:
HAMDI V. RUMSFELD
This does not mean, however, we sit and do nothing, or wait for the terrorists to come kill us.
Criminal suspects may be aggressively and proactively pursued, arrested, and if they offer resistance, killed.
But no president, no member of Congress, and no private citizen is above the rule of law.
Your source is about a citizen fighting against the United States that was captured by Afgan forces opposed to the Taliban and turned over the US Forces.
Different situation then killing an enemy combatant in a military strike who happens to be an US Citizen.
>>>
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.
>>>>
Congress did not authorize this obama did. obama was the one who placed him on the hit list so what did obama charge the American citizen with that placed him on the hit list?
Not the case here, has an enemy combatant he was killed in a foreign land based on intelligence gathered.
Intell? so how well does America's intell work?
Have we found any WMD's in Iraq yet?
