Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[WorldWatcher]

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 one’s 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] knew–the history of the world told them–the 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 person’s physical liberty,” O’Connor 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 citizen’s 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.

He was captured by forces that opposed the Taliban and turned over the US forces. He was not killed which is the situation under discussion.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Sure, al Awlaki was a traitor and insurrectionist hiding in another country to maintain himself outside the abiliity of conventional law enforcement agencies of the United States to arrest him. He could have turned himself in, but he didn't.

So as a terrorist,(an American citizen) leader(an American citizen) in a terrorist organization, and a citizen in a state of insurrection the Congress the use of "all necessary" which included the use of Military force in a foreign country. Since the action was not in the United States there was no need to "martial law" to be declared here.

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?

I don't believe criminal charges had been made, miliatary actions in time of war are not based on criminal charges in court.

As far as I know we haven't invaded Yemen, although we probably did violate their air space with a drone and a maverick missile.



>>>>

Admitted obama over steped his authority Because no matter what the person did and no matter where they went they are still American citizens and protected by the constitution period.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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 one’s 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:




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.


>>>

in other words obama fucked up so I'll dance around the issue and play fucking word games?

You usually do, the issue is the use of military force against enemy combatants. You keep trying to apply criminal due process when the individual was hiding in a country outside the ability of conventional law enforcement to arrest or detain him.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

You don't think congress would put down an insurrection without issuieing Martial law do you?

Sure, al Awlaki was a traitor and insurrectionist hiding in another country to maintain himself outside the abiliity of conventional law enforcement agencies of the United States to arrest him. He could have turned himself in, but he didn't.

So as a terrorist,(an American citizen) leader(an American citizen) in a terrorist organization, and a citizen in a state of insurrection the Congress the use of "all necessary" which included the use of Military force in a foreign country. Since the action was not in the United States there was no need to "martial law" to be declared here.

What were his charges? and when did we invade Yemen?

I don't believe criminal charges had been made, miliatary actions in time of war are not based on criminal charges in court.

As far as I know we haven't invaded Yemen, although we probably did violate their air space with a drone and a maverick missile.



>>>>

Admitted obama over steped his authority Because no matter what the person did and no matter where they went they are still American citizens and protected by the constitution period.

Not when they are an enemy combatant and Congress declares war and authorizes the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the constitution.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yeah, good point. I was so old when I got my JD that I decided not to practice. But it has still served me well in my current profession. Now, as sick as I am, the decision not to reinvent myself was a good one.

There are always discussion boards! LOL.

On this thread or another, you made the comment something to the effect of 'check your patriotism at the door.' I would think the MOST patriotic of all would be the ones who want to see our system of justice preserved. I am always flabberghasted at how few that sometimes turns out to be.

Ding dong Bigreb calling. I don't care who you are and what you have done if you are an American citizens all rights are reserved and cannot be taken away no matter what some penicel whipping rubber stamping president may say.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, al Awlaki was a traitor and insurrectionist hiding in another country to maintain himself outside the abiliity of conventional law enforcement agencies of the United States to arrest him. He could have turned himself in, but he didn't.

So as a terrorist,(an American citizen) leader(an American citizen) in a terrorist organization, and a citizen in a state of insurrection the Congress the use of "all necessary" which included the use of Military force in a foreign country. Since the action was not in the United States there was no need to "martial law" to be declared here.





I don't believe criminal charges had been made, miliatary actions in time of war are not based on criminal charges in court.

As far as I know we haven't invaded Yemen, although we probably did violate their air space with a drone and a maverick missile.



>>>>

Admitted obama over steped his authority Because no matter what the person did and no matter where they went they are still American citizens and protected by the constitution period.

Not when they are an enemy combatant and Congress declares war and authorizes the use of military force under Article I Section 8 of the constitution.


>>>>

The superme court disagrees with you

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.


>>>

in other words obama fucked up so I'll dance around the issue and play fucking word games?

You usually do, the issue is the use of military force against enemy combatants. You keep trying to apply criminal due process when the individual was hiding in a country outside the ability of conventional law enforcement to arrest or detain him.


>>>>

I was speaking for you because I read your mind. Yes I can do that when it's so obvious. One thing you keep forgetting terrorist are considered criminals

 

[WorldWatcher]

in other words obama fucked up so I'll dance around the issue and play fucking word games?

You usually do, the issue is the use of military force against enemy combatants. You keep trying to apply criminal due process when the individual was hiding in a country outside the ability of conventional law enforcement to arrest or detain him.


>>>>

I was speaking for you because I read your mind. Yes I can do that when it's so obvious.

I thought the Great Kreskin was dead. Glad to know you are still around.

One thing you keep forgetting terrorist are considered criminals

Not when they're dead.



>>>>

 

[Paulie]

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

Thanks, but I've decided that it is pointless to argue with these morons. The difference has been explained to them repeatedly and they just stick their fingers in their ears.

I'd prefer such a memo not be "secret".

If this citizen's constitutional rights are/were potentially at stake here, I'd like to know the details and the explanations from the administration and anyone who was part of the information dissemination. I believe it's our business as well, as fellow citizens.

I'm not apt to just accept the WORD of any administration or its lawyers, no matter what the political affiliation of any of them. I'm getting a bit tired of all of these extreme measures that are being undertaken by our government where the only justification we're given is "memos" at best, and "sorry, it's a secret" at worst.

Where is the transparency?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

Thanks, but I've decided that it is pointless to argue with these morons. The difference has been explained to them repeatedly and they just stick their fingers in their ears.

I'd prefer such a memo not be "secret".

If this citizen's constitutional rights are/were potentially at stake here, I'd like to know the details and the explanations from the administration and anyone who was part of the information dissemination. I believe it's our business as well, as fellow citizens.

I'm not apt to just accept the WORD of any administration or its lawyers, no matter what the political affiliation of any of them. I'm getting a bit tired of all of these extreme measures that are being undertaken by our government where the only justification we're given is "memos" at best, and "sorry, it's a secret" at worst.

Where is the transparency?

 

[Ravi]

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

Thanks, but I've decided that it is pointless to argue with these morons. The difference has been explained to them repeatedly and they just stick their fingers in their ears.

I'd prefer such a memo not be "secret".

If this citizen's constitutional rights are/were potentially at stake here, I'd like to know the details and the explanations from the administration and anyone who was part of the information dissemination. I believe it's our business as well, as fellow citizens.

I'm not apt to just accept the WORD of any administration or its lawyers, no matter what the political affiliation of any of them. I'm getting a bit tired of all of these extreme measures that are being undertaken by our government where the only justification we're given is "memos" at best, and "sorry, it's a secret" at worst.

Where is the transparency?

There was no secret that this guy was marked as a war target.

 

[Amelia]

Sept. 14, 2010:

U.S. eyes terror charges for Yemeni cleric - USATODAY.com

The Obama administration is considering filing the first criminal charges against radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in case the CIA fails to kill him and he is captured alive in Yemen.

Shortly after the failed Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner, which officials believe al-Awlaki had a hand in planning, the White House took the unprecedented step of authorizing the CIA to kill or capture him. A decision on criminal charges is expected in the next several weeks, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations.

Another option, given al-Awlaki's increasingly violent sermons and his collaboration with al-Qaeda's propaganda efforts, would be charging him with supporting terrorism. But that charge carries only a 15-year prison sentence, leaving the administration open to questions about how the president can authorize the CIA to essentially impose the death penalty for such a crime.

If the Justice Department decides to charge al-Awlaki, it's likely he would not be indicted. Rather, charges are more likely to take the form of an FBI complaint. That's because an indicted suspect automatically gets the right to an attorney if he is captured, making it harder for authorities to question him.

Lots of stuff packed into that article. Probably some bits you'd choose as more important than the parts I quoted.

Foregoing further comment on it for the moment.

 

[Valerie]

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.

Translation: You don't have a clue what you are talking about! But then we knew that!

I know exactly what I'm talking about as I have read and comprehended in entirety every single article I posted including the view of every legal scholar as well as all of the posts in this thread. What do you have to offer besides snark?

 

[Valerie]

It doesn't really matter.

Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week. There will be no accountability. Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.

And then people will be asking, why didn't someone do something about it back then, when the precedent was set.

And it will be too late.

It is already probably too late.

Why would it make you feel so much better if the judicial branch had authority over military actions instead of the executive branch...? Are they not equally corruptible but unequally accountable such that our processes are already properly balanced to provide for certain special circumstances in times of war...?



The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

I must have missed your reply to this post from earlier....?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't really matter.

Most of the people who care now will not be thinking about this next week. There will be no accountability. Just the sleeper precedent which will come up and bite us sometime down in the road.

And then people will be asking, why didn't someone do something about it back then, when the precedent was set.

And it will be too late.

It is already probably too late.

Why would it make you feel so much better if the judicial branch had authority over military actions instead of the executive branch...? Are they not equally corruptible but unequally accountable such that our processes are already properly balanced to provide for certain special circumstances in times of war...?



The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

I must have missed your reply to this post from earlier....?

That's ok I covered it.

 

[Valerie]

Why would it make you feel so much better if the judicial branch had authority over military actions instead of the executive branch...? Are they not equally corruptible but unequally accountable such that our processes are already properly balanced to provide for certain special circumstances in times of war...?



The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and '[t]he ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

I must have missed your reply to this post from earlier....?

That's ok I covered it.

You did not.

 

[Valerie]

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 one’s 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] knew–the history of the world told them–the 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 person’s physical liberty,” O’Connor 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 citizen’s 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.

Har har. What makes you think it hasn't been read and addressed already in this thread? Are you capable of disagreeing without being dishonest...?


It has been previously pointed out that this case relates to procedure for DETAINEES.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 one’s 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:




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.

Har har. What makes you think it hasn't been read and addressed already in this thread? Are you capable of disagreeing without being dishonest...?


It has been previously pointed out that this case relates to procedure for DETAINEES.

Because it hasn't, only your deflections.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I must have missed your reply to this post from earlier....?

That's ok I covered it.

You did not.

Yes I did

 

[Jos]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7-2CP_o9Jk&feature=player_embedded]The Rule of law Has Been Abolished - YouTube[/ame]