Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Liability]

That is why we draw a bright line and hold people accountable for crossing it even when it doesn't seem too serious.

To stop people from getting careless and tempted and feeling immune from consequence. Most people don't start out wanting to be Orwellian and Machiavellian - those who would start out that way would probably be sifted out by our various vetting processes - but people can turn if we don't keep them on their toes.

So we need to keep them on their toes. But right now we're looking the other way.

Don't let the U.S. government seem to be a place where people with those temptations can hide out and do their dirty work with impunity.



I hope the ACLU will stay on the case and use their resources to make a loud noise.

So, we hold the government officials who break the law accountable? Except, of course, when we don't.

there's a pretty bright line about paying your taxes, too. The failure to do that didn't seem to hamper the Obama Administration from getting Timmy Giethner a job as the HEAD of the fucking Department that includes the very tax collectors we're talking about.

The POINT is that if the government official or agency is bent of snuffing some poor slob for other than the legitimate reasons, then having checks and balances in place that require lawful "reporting" to the other branch will not present a whole lot of deterrence to such conduct.

And if you INSIST that the other Branch(es) must have such oversight (for purposes of checks and balances) you are really just putting faith in the process anyway. Does it make a LOT of sense to say, "We don't trust you to use valid judgment as to whom may be placed on a Kill or Capture list since you might behave kind of criminally; but we DO trust you to honestly report your decision making process and factors to Congress of a Judge?" Why? Because the fear of committing perjury is more devastating than the fear of committing murder?

We have to keep trying. We have to stay vigilant.

Too much looking the other way.




Less looking the other way than there was two years ago.



But still too much.



We have to keep trying.

I have less than no problem at all with the notion of having to keep on trying. I fully agree that we need to be vigilant.

I have not the vaguest notion of what you're talking about with that bit about "looking the other way."

I am a devotee of checks and balances. But it is not a magical (AND MAGICALLY EFFECTIVE) mechanism or incantation. I can't help but note that you duck the hard part.

So, being a bit of a contrarian, I'll just restate it:

Checks and balances are designed to make sure that a rogue executive officer or agency (for this example) does not trangress his authority or the law. Good idea.

But if he is hell bent on snuffing some guy for the wrong reasons (like a partisan political disagreement that has become a murderous obsession) I am curious how a system of checks and balances is going to prevent the guy or the agency from snuffing that target? He can kill but he can't lie or fabricate "intel?" He's got moral qualms about LYING or PERJURY, but no such qualms about MURDER?

Even WITH a warrant requirement, it is possible for a federal investigator to engage in wiretapping on a criminal investigation without going before a neutral magistrate first. It's illegal, but still possible. In THAT context, when it gets discovered that he got the intercepts without a warrant, the evidence is lost.

But what if the investigator phonies up some "probable cause" to present to a judge ahead of time? He then GETS the warrant from the duped judge. And nobody ever discovers that the investigator lied. The evidence does not get tossed out. It is used at trial. The person accused then gets convicted. Guess what? checks and balances will have failed. It really aint magic.

We'd like to all hope and believe that no law enforcement officer would EVER do that shit. But the system is run by human beings for human beings so perfection is not really attainable. And there ARE cases where breaching secrecy to get a judicial okey-dokey would endanger lives or the national welfare. At some point, we have to trust our officials even if we must also do what we can to keep a wary eye on them.

 

[geauxtohell]

Yes. It was all so different and sparkly when your guy was in office and we were fighting ground wars in Asia to kill Al Queda.

Love him or hate him, Obama's made it dangerous to be a member of Al Queda.

They aren't laughing at our impotence anymore.

It's stunning to watch the same people who whined about Abu Graib, wire taps and Guantanamo gloating about the government executing an American citizen without so much as a hearing.

Not really. Some of can delineate what should happen to a person who is detained by us versus the killing of a combatent on the battlefield.

If Awlaki turned himself in and was denied due process, I'd be bitching about it as much as I am sure you guys weren't bitching about GITMO. As for Abu Gherub, are you saying you supported that?

 

[geauxtohell]

So you think the government should have the authority to execute American citizens on any square yard of territory on the face of the Earth?

The definition of "the battlefield" is obviously the entire surface of the Earth. You would probably condone Predator attacks on American citizens in South Florida. In fact, you already have.

Sorry, no.

If you want to be intentionally obtuse, then by all means. However, I never said anything even remotely resembling that.

 

[geauxtohell]

Obviously, not in countries where we don't even have troops stationed. If no American troops have been fired on in hte immediate vincinity, then it isn't a battlefield.

What do think is the proper "battlefield" in our war against Al Queda?

Oh, so we need to start invading a bunch of countries before we can start hitting AQ targets there?

I guess we need to go into Pakistan now.

I am glad you aren't in charge of shit in this world. You'd get a lot of people killed for stupidity.

We already invaded Pakistan.

 

[Valerie]

February 2010


WASHINGTON - Counterterror chiefs fear Al Qaeda in Yemen may soon be sending American jihadis recruited by a radical cleric to attack the U.S., the Daily News has learned.

America's most senior intelligence officials told senators on Tuesday an attempted strike by terrorists within six months is "certain."

"There was nothing specific any of them were alluding to," a senior counterterror official told The News. "But we certainly have indications that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has a variety of plans to strike the United States."

Anyone who thinks underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was "the only one trained to execute a plan would be incredibly naive," the official said.



Radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American, is now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration, The News has confirmed.

Asked by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) Wednesday about the "hypothetical" targeted killing of an American "cleric" overseas, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair explained why they'd draw a bull's-eye on someone like Awlaki.

"We don't target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans," Blair told the House Intelligence Committee.

"If we think direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Blair added.

Experts: Al Qaeda in Yemen may send American jihadis, recruited by Anwar al-Awlaki, to attack U.S.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, I support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.

Why is this so acceptable to do to people that are not US citizens but the minute that a citizen does it suddenly it is unacceptable?

What's to stop someone like Alex Jones (nutty that he is) from being declared such an "enemy of the state" and summarily executed?

The "reasonable person standard". That and Alex Jones doesn't belong to a group that has been singled out by our Congress and three presidents for two decades.

Do you guys only do slippery slopes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, he thinks once they are arrested they are entitled to due process.

And they are.

Actually, he thinks they are entitled to due process even before that, unless he decides that they don't.

Why do you always feel the need to lie?

What was the lie? Obama wants to try terrorists in the courts, but has said that he would not let them go even if they were found not guilty. That is not due process, even you think it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.



The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.



Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence

Apparently, their definition of "due process" is whatever they want it to be. It seems the Constitution got in the way of the President. He signed a super secret writ supposedly making the killing of an American citizen legal.

Do you really want to support the President having power to kill an American citizen at will?

What is to prevent the government from killing another U.S. citizen they deem a threat, without due process? Slap a label on you because they don't like what you are saying or doing, put you on a "hit" list, which, you may not even have the liberty of knowing about, and one day you are no more.

There is a reason why Treason is strictly defined in the Constitution.

It wasn't secret, it was reported in the news when it happened.

And no one cared at the time. Odd, that.

It was not reported at the time. When it came out there were a few who cared. You, as usual, were not paying attention.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ends-targeted-killing-in-terrorism-fight.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anwar al-Aulaqi wasn't a U.S. citizen.

End of story.

If you believe he wasn't a U.S. citizen, then the government did not violate his right of due process.

Due process applies to everyone, not just US citizens.

Not according to Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.



The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.



Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence

Apparently, their definition of "due process" is whatever they want it to be. It seems the Constitution got in the way of the President. He signed a super secret writ supposedly making the killing of an American citizen legal.

Do you really want to support the President having power to kill an American citizen at will?

What is to prevent the government from killing another U.S. citizen they deem a threat, without due process? Slap a label on you because they don't like what you are saying or doing, put you on a "hit" list, which, you may not even have the liberty of knowing about, and one day you are no more.

There is a reason why Treason is strictly defined in the Constitution.

No, I support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.

Why is this so acceptable to do to people that are not US citizens but the minute that a citizen does it suddenly it is unacceptable?

I do not think it is ever acceptable for the government to arbitrarily change definitions in a way that allows them to claim anyone is an enemy on a battlefield simply because it is easier than apprehending them.

 

[Oddball]

No, I support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.

Why is this so acceptable to do to people that are not US citizens but the minute that a citizen does it suddenly it is unacceptable?

What's to stop someone like Alex Jones (nutty that he is) from being declared such an "enemy of the state" and summarily executed?

The "reasonable person standard". That and Alex Jones doesn't belong to a group that has been singled out by our Congress and three presidents for two decades.

Do you guys only do slippery slopes?

"Reasonable standard" is nebulous bullshit, just dying to be "interpreted" the way any given tyrant sees fit.

Need we discuss how the commerce clause and "general welfare" have been debauched and perverted beyond all recognition?

 

[Liability]

Apparently, their definition of "due process" is whatever they want it to be. It seems the Constitution got in the way of the President. He signed a super secret writ supposedly making the killing of an American citizen legal.

Do you really want to support the President having power to kill an American citizen at will?

What is to prevent the government from killing another U.S. citizen they deem a threat, without due process? Slap a label on you because they don't like what you are saying or doing, put you on a "hit" list, which, you may not even have the liberty of knowing about, and one day you are no more.

There is a reason why Treason is strictly defined in the Constitution.

No, I support the president in using the military to destroy military targets to include high level officials in the foreign enemies employ. That would include this individual.

Why is this so acceptable to do to people that are not US citizens but the minute that a citizen does it suddenly it is unacceptable?

I do not think it is ever acceptable for the government to arbitrarily change definitions in a way that allows them to claim anyone is an enemy on a battlefield simply because it is easier than apprehending them.

It isn't just a matter of easier. And it isn't a matter of changing definitions. It is a matter of the defense of this nation from her enemies in time of war.

And killing the enemy and/or certain leaders of that enemy in time of war is not an improper or even particularly questionable use of government power.

The fact that one particular enemy leader happens (effectively by mere coincidence) to BE a U.S. citizen doesn't fundamentally change the equation. Nor should it.

 

[Oddball]

You, as always, ask very good questions.

This is why I have tried to make it as plain as possible that I really do "get" where you are coming from.

Your concern is a fundamental one.

But I suppose my answer (at least in part) is that if we have reached a point where any President and/or any collective bunch of CIA officials are so indifferent to the validity of the concerns about who belongs on such lists, then we have much bigger problems.

If "they" were to put some mere asshole (but not a true terrorist or enemy leader) on such a "list" with no valid basis for doing so, then even WITH Congressional or Judicial "oversight" we'd never be safe from such people, anyway. For, in the latter event, what would prevent such creatures from just presenting fictionalized "intel" to the Congressional oversight committees or to the Courts?

I believe that at some point we have to have some faith in the people we have placed in positions of trust and authority.

Fuck that shit.

You want the same assholes who have perpetrated Waco, Ruby Ridge, the arms-for-hostages-for-cocaine scam, fast and furious, ad nauseum, to now be trusted to deem who is suitable for summary execution and who is not?

I don't fucking think so....Don't even make me go Godwin.

Well, so much for rational discussion, I guess.



Still: if you are contending (as it seems you are) that because some government officials have acted atrociously (which I deem an irrefutable and incontestable FACT), that it necessarily follows that we can never trust any government officials without implementing an assortment of institutionalized checks and balances, I am in PARTIAL agreement.

However, there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that a rogue government agency bent of doing something Orwellian (as you have envisioned) could accomplish it without the checks and balances you want to put up in either of two ways: (1) they could simply ignore the checks and balances, DO the nefarious acts, then lie their asses off and cover up (on the theory that if you're gonna commit official murder, you aren't likely to be overly concerned with coverups and lying) or (2) they could present falsified "intel" to "justify" their conduct in advance (thereby getting the official stamp of approval from the Congressional oversight committee or the courts as the case may be).

If we have officials in office willing to commit official murder without valid justification, then neither one of those two options seems all that difficult for them to also contemplate and accomplish.

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

The examples I pointed to are exactly such egregious instances of ignoring checks and balances (i.e. jurisdiction) and of congressional "investigations" that work to bury the turds, rather than find the facts and punish the malefactors.

Sorry, pal...No sale here.

 

[Liability]

Fuck that shit.

You want the same assholes who have perpetrated Waco, Ruby Ridge, the arms-for-hostages-for-cocaine scam, fast and furious, ad nauseum, to now be trusted to deem who is suitable for summary execution and who is not?

I don't fucking think so....Don't even make me go Godwin.

Well, so much for rational discussion, I guess.



Still: if you are contending (as it seems you are) that because some government officials have acted atrociously (which I deem an irrefutable and incontestable FACT), that it necessarily follows that we can never trust any government officials without implementing an assortment of institutionalized checks and balances, I am in PARTIAL agreement.

However, there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that a rogue government agency bent of doing something Orwellian (as you have envisioned) could accomplish it without the checks and balances you want to put up in either of two ways: (1) they could simply ignore the checks and balances, DO the nefarious acts, then lie their asses off and cover up (on the theory that if you're gonna commit official murder, you aren't likely to be overly concerned with coverups and lying) or (2) they could present falsified "intel" to "justify" their conduct in advance (thereby getting the official stamp of approval from the Congressional oversight committee or the courts as the case may be).

If we have officials in office willing to commit official murder without valid justification, then neither one of those two options seems all that difficult for them to also contemplate and accomplish.

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

The examples I pointed to are exactly such egregious instances of ignoring checks and balances (i.e. jurisdiction) and of congressional "investigations" that work to bury the turds, rather than find the facts and punish the malefactors.

Sorry, pal...No sale here.

No. Your examples serve more to illustrate my point. Checks and balances do not always serve to stop an executive official or agency or department from transgressing its proper limits.

And I agree. I am not, in fact, sold on your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Abu Ghraib, wire taps and Git-mo didn't do a whole lot. During all that time, did I see OBL taken out? Nope. Did I see Al-Rahman taken out? Nope. al-Awlaki? Nope. WTF?
Now I see a president with a REALLY BAD domestic policy. Can I give him credit for blasting the shot out of AQ? Yup.
But you can't. Party before country...

You really don't sound like you're a country before party person. Because if you were you would put the Constitutional process ahead of everything else.

Simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... and are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that Civil Liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly Liberal-minded Conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the USC which have exceptions?

Legal remedies do not do much good for the fact that we just broke the Constitution, do they? Not to mention the guy you just wiped off the planet because you did not like his politics.

 

[Oddball]

No. Your examples serve more to illustrate my point. Checks and balances do not always serve to stop an executive official or agency or department from transgressing its proper limits.

And I agree. I am not, in fact, sold on your position.

Do the Tuskeegee experiment and the Air Force LSD experiments ring a bell?

Let's just hand over the decisions over who lives and who dies over to human debris like that!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what happens when innocent civilians are killed and members of the team that went in to apprehend him are killed because you refused to let the military use the proper tool for the job?

I have stated before and I will state it again, if he was in a place where capture was a reasonable possibility then we would have captured him. In this case, it was not. So we killed a member of a foreign entity that we were at war with. Exactly as we should be doing. This case is no different than the hundreds of other people we have killed in this war. His citizenship gives him no special protections when he is acting against us in a war.

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

Judge Mohsen Allwan ordered police to find al-Awlaki after the American-born cleric failed to appear at his trial for his role in killing a Frenchman.

The country was under pressure to crack down on its Al Qaeda offshoot, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, since the group took responsibility Friday for a failed attempt to send bombs to U.S. addresses.
Anwar al-Awlaki, radical Muslim cleric, wanted 'dead or alive' in Yemen after judge's order




A notorious Al Qaeda explosives expert who turned his own brother into a human bomb was among those killed in a successful U.S. terrorist strike in Yemen.

Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri - whose fingerprints were found on the deadly device concocted for the 2009 "Underwear Bomber" - was the key bombmaker for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

The 29-year-old native of Saudi Arabia was riding Friday in a convoy with firebrand Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Al Qaeda propaganda chief Samir Khan when U.S. forces killed all three.

Al-Asiri was involved in a pair of bomb plots against the U.S. - the attempt to take down a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day 2009, and the shipment of two explosive-laden printers last year from Yemen to U.S. addresses.
Al Qaeda loses merciless bombmaker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri in U.S. attack in Yemen

Same old argument, still wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You, as always, ask very good questions.

This is why I have tried to make it as plain as possible that I really do "get" where you are coming from.

Your concern is a fundamental one.

But I suppose my answer (at least in part) is that if we have reached a point where any President and/or any collective bunch of CIA officials are so indifferent to the validity of the concerns about who belongs on such lists, then we have much bigger problems.

If "they" were to put some mere asshole (but not a true terrorist or enemy leader) on such a "list" with no valid basis for doing so, then even WITH Congressional or Judicial "oversight" we'd never be safe from such people, anyway. For, in the latter event, what would prevent such creatures from just presenting fictionalized "intel" to the Congressional oversight committees or to the Courts?

I believe that at some point we have to have some faith in the people we have placed in positions of trust and authority.

Fuck that shit.

You want the same assholes who have perpetrated Waco, Ruby Ridge, the arms-for-hostages-for-cocaine scam, fast and furious, ad nauseum, to now be trusted to deem who is suitable for summary execution and who is not?

I don't fucking think so....Don't even make me go Godwin.

Well, so much for rational discussion, I guess.



Still: if you are contending (as it seems you are) that because some government officials have acted atrociously (which I deem an irrefutable and incontestable FACT), that it necessarily follows that we can never trust any government officials without implementing an assortment of institutionalized checks and balances, I am in PARTIAL agreement.

However, there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that a rogue government agency bent of doing something Orwellian (as you have envisioned) could accomplish it without the checks and balances you want to put up in either of two ways: (1) they could simply ignore the checks and balances, DO the nefarious acts, then lie their asses off and cover up (on the theory that if you're gonna commit official murder, you aren't likely to be overly concerned with coverups and lying) or (2) they could present falsified "intel" to "justify" their conduct in advance (thereby getting the official stamp of approval from the Congressional oversight committee or the courts as the case may be).

If we have officials in office willing to commit official murder without valid justification, then neither one of those two options seems all that difficult for them to also contemplate and accomplish.

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

That is a problem, which is why I refuse to allow the government to get away with anything, even if they have valid reasons. If we simply draw a line saying this type of thing is always wrong then no one will ever be able to lie about it and fool me into thinking they had a good reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Reasonable standard" is nebulous bullshit, just dying to be "interpreted" the way any given tyrant sees fit.

Need we discuss how the commerce clause and "general welfare" have been debauched and perverted beyond all recognition?

The important difference here being the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause were interpreted in the appropriate context of judicial review and the rule of law through the appellate process, where the final appellate court, the Supreme Court, made its rulings.

It’s understood that you and other radical rightists disagree with the outcomes of cases involving those clauses, but you can’t disagree with the process used to make those determinations.

That’s not the case with the Executive unilaterally deciding whether or not due process applies to enemy combatants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... And are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that civil liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly liberal-minded conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the usc which have exceptions?

no no no no and no fucking no.

Um yeah. Exactly the level of independent thought and reasoning, I might have expected from the mind-controlled.

So let's just go with the last "f-ing no".

There is never an exception to freedom of speech?
Right to bear arms?
How about that religious freedom? YOur position is that Sharia law should take precedent over US Law? Didn't think so. Me either.
How about citizenship? You're all for anchor-babies?
Hey how about that kiddie porn as freedom of the press! You love that idea?

Your assertation that there are never exceptions to rights guaranteed by the USC displays willing ignorance of the obvious, when it doesn't support your political agenda.
Not surprising.

There are no exceptions to any of our rights. There are numerous rationalizations where the government has arbitrarily decided they need the power to ignore them to make it easier for them to control us. People like you accept that, people like me fight it.