Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

I consider most liberals my enemy, let's just cut the bullshit out and aiir this fucking shit right now.

 

[Ravi]

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

I consider most liberals my enemy, let's just cut the bullshit out and aiir this fucking shit right now.

LOL! Are you threatening me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

I consider most liberals my enemy, let's just cut the bullshit out and aiir this fucking shit right now.

LOL! Are you threatening me?

Take it anyway you want to I really don't give a shit.

 

[Ravi]

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

 

[Valerie]

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

These guys have gone totally through the looking glass with this...



I'd like to ask those of you with the "We The People" avatars crying over the Bill of Rights... You think it's so damn easy to just WISH a bad guy had been caught instead of killed...? How's that gonna work out when it's "We The DEAD People" ...hmm???


The US Constitution is not a suicide pact!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

Contrary to the views of the President and many others, the Constitution was not written for the entire world. It does not apply to the entire world. The Constitution was written to and for the American people. The federal government "may" grant certain rights to foreigners at certain times, due to Treaties it has in effect, that directly affect pertinent foreign citizens, or it "may" grant certain rights to foreign citizens for political pandering reasons. The Constitution does not give us our rights. It enumerates what powers the federal government is allowed to have, as it relates to the respective states, and the citizens therein.

Had Awlaki not been deemed an American citizen by our government, the U.S. government was not legally bound (save any applicable international law it is a party to) to give said individual due process.

We are not at war with any particular country. We are not fighting a uniformed enemy. As such, The Geneva Convention would not have applied to him. Had he been killed without being a citizen of the U.S., he would have been collateral damage, and I wouldn't be taking the time to make the points I have been making.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

These guys have gone totally through the looking glass with this...



I'd like to ask those of you with the "We The People" avatars crying over the Bill of Rights... You think it's so damn easy to just WISH a bad guy had been caught instead of killed...? How's that gonna work out when it's "We The DEAD People" ...hmm???


The US Constitution is not a suicide pact!

So, there are times when it is more convenient and justified to ignore the Constitution for the preservation of the Republic?

Do you realize, that the statement you just made, is the same kind of thinking the President, and a lot of other members in Congress use to justify the rationalization of their socialist, redistribution of wealth ideology? What do you think Obamacare is all about? In their mind, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And in spite of the Constitution, various and sundry legislation needs to become law, so that "We The People" can be saved.

 

[Valerie]

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

These guys have gone totally through the looking glass with this...



I'd like to ask those of you with the "We The People" avatars crying over the Bill of Rights... You think it's so damn easy to just WISH a bad guy had been caught instead of killed...? How's that gonna work out when it's "We The DEAD People" ...hmm???


The US Constitution is not a suicide pact!

So, there are times when it is more convenient and justified to ignore the Constitution for the preservation of the Republic?

Do you realize, that the statement you just made, is the same kind of thinking the President, and a lot of other members in Congress use to justify the rationalization of their socialist, redistribution of wealth ideology? What do you think Obamacare is all about? In their mind, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And in spite of the Constitution, various and sundry legislation needs to become law, so that "We The People" can be saved.

The US Government is of the people by the people and we do not disagree on that...We have the right of self defense, however. The rest of what you said is for another thread at another time.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

These guys have gone totally through the looking glass with this...



I'd like to ask those of you with the "We The People" avatars crying over the Bill of Rights... You think it's so damn easy to just WISH a bad guy had been caught instead of killed...? How's that gonna work out when it's "We The DEAD People" ...hmm???


The US Constitution is not a suicide pact!

So, there are times when it is more convenient and justified to ignore the Constitution for the preservation of the Republic?

Do you realize, that the statement you just made, is the same kind of thinking the President, and a lot of other members in Congress use to justify the rationalization of their socialist, redistribution of wealth ideology? What do you think Obamacare is all about? In their mind, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And in spite of the Constitution, various and sundry legislation needs to become law, so that "We The People" can be saved.

The US Government is of the people by the people and we do not disagree on that...We have the right of self defense, however. The rest of what you said is for another thread at another time.

I agree with your statement, that the U.S. has a right to self-defense. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution makes that very clear. That is not and has not been the point of my contention on this particular issue.

The only way an American citizen can be stripped of his citizenship, is through due process of the law.

The Constitution does not stipulate, that Treason only applies to American soil. An American citizen can be charged with Treason whether they are on American soil, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else.

The federal government could not legally strip Awlaki of his citizenship, as he did not meet one of the seven requirements. Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives. I do not agree with dispensing with the Constitution, in order to potentially save American lives from some abstract "might happen down the road" mentality.

 

[Valerie]

So, there are times when it is more convenient and justified to ignore the Constitution for the preservation of the Republic?

Do you realize, that the statement you just made, is the same kind of thinking the President, and a lot of other members in Congress use to justify the rationalization of their socialist, redistribution of wealth ideology? What do you think Obamacare is all about? In their mind, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. And in spite of the Constitution, various and sundry legislation needs to become law, so that "We The People" can be saved.

The US Government is of the people by the people and we do not disagree on that...We have the right of self defense, however. The rest of what you said is for another thread at another time.

I agree with your statement, that the U.S. has a right to self-defense. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution makes that very clear. That is not and has not been the point of my contention on this particular issue.

The only way an American citizen can be stripped of his citizenship, is through due process of the law.

The Constitution does not stipulate, that Treason only applies to American soil. An American citizen can be charged with Treason whether they are on American soil, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else.

The federal government could not legally strip Awlaki of his citizenship, as he did not meet one of the seven requirements. Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives. I do not agree with dispensing with the Constitution, in order to potentially save American lives from some abstract "might happen down the road" mentality.

We didn't strip him of his citizenship.


The US is legally prosecuting a war. The international community has been thoroughly threatened by AQ with REAL lives lost not POTENTIAL lives.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The US Government is of the people by the people and we do not disagree on that...We have the right of self defense, however. The rest of what you said is for another thread at another time.

I agree with your statement, that the U.S. has a right to self-defense. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution makes that very clear. That is not and has not been the point of my contention on this particular issue.

The only way an American citizen can be stripped of his citizenship, is through due process of the law.

The Constitution does not stipulate, that Treason only applies to American soil. An American citizen can be charged with Treason whether they are on American soil, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else.

The federal government could not legally strip Awlaki of his citizenship, as he did not meet one of the seven requirements. Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives. I do not agree with dispensing with the Constitution, in order to potentially save American lives from some abstract "might happen down the road" mentality.

We didn't strip him of his citizenship.


The US is legally prosecuting a war. The international community has been thoroughly threatened by AQ with REAL lives lost not POTENTIAL lives.

Read my post again. I didn't say the government had stripped him. They wanted to, but legally speaking, they could not.

I care about America. Let Afghanistan, Iraq, and the other sandbox countries fight their own battles.

 

[Valerie]

I agree with your statement, that the U.S. has a right to self-defense. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution makes that very clear. That is not and has not been the point of my contention on this particular issue.

The only way an American citizen can be stripped of his citizenship, is through due process of the law.

The Constitution does not stipulate, that Treason only applies to American soil. An American citizen can be charged with Treason whether they are on American soil, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else.

The federal government could not legally strip Awlaki of his citizenship, as he did not meet one of the seven requirements. Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives. I do not agree with dispensing with the Constitution, in order to potentially save American lives from some abstract "might happen down the road" mentality.

We didn't strip him of his citizenship.


The US is legally prosecuting a war. The international community has been thoroughly threatened by AQ with REAL lives lost not POTENTIAL lives.

Read my post again. I didn't say the government had stripped him. They wanted to, but legally speaking, they could not.

I care about America. Let Afghanistan, Iraq, and the other sandbox countries fight their own battles.

Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives.



CONVENIENT...........? I think you are way too dismissive of what it takes to get things done when people are trying to blow things up around you...........?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

We didn't strip him of his citizenship.


The US is legally prosecuting a war. The international community has been thoroughly threatened by AQ with REAL lives lost not POTENTIAL lives.

Read my post again. I didn't say the government had stripped him. They wanted to, but legally speaking, they could not.

I care about America. Let Afghanistan, Iraq, and the other sandbox countries fight their own battles.

Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives.



CONVENIENT...........? I think you are way too dismissive of what it takes to get things done when people are trying to blow things up around you...........?

If what the government said about him was true, why wasn't he charged with Treason?

 

[Valerie]

Read my post again. I didn't say the government had stripped him. They wanted to, but legally speaking, they could not.

I care about America. Let Afghanistan, Iraq, and the other sandbox countries fight their own battles.

Instead, they placed a convenient label on him, whereby they could (in their mind) dispense with that issue, as well as the direct issue at hand, and justify killing him without due process, in order to save American lives.



CONVENIENT...........? I think you are way too dismissive of what it takes to get things done when people are trying to blow things up around you...........?

If what the government said about him was true,






why wasn't he charged with Treason?

You want to make something up or do you have an answer......?








Because they didn't need to........?

 

[Liability]

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.

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Wrong. It is perfectly okay to kill the enemy in time of war, including the leaders of the enemy.

It so happens that we shouldn't kill the political leaders of the NATIONS with whom we may be at war (for reasons having to do with reciprocity and treaty obligations). However, al qaeda is not a nation. It's leaders are perfectly legitimate targets.

So, let's not pretend that you "agree" with me.

We disagree.

And that's fine. I disagree with some other people I respect on this topic, too. Certainly, if I disagree with a guy like Oddball, then you can disagree with me.

 

[Liability]

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!

The Tuskegee experiment were objectively wrong and the "patients" who were the subjects of the experiments were not asked for their consent. There is no analog in your would be analogy on that one, which kind of defeats the purpose of an analogy.

And whenever the government treats its own people like that, like giving LSD to people who do not consent and don't even know that they've been dosed, that government is engaged in not just immoral but criminal behavior. So, again, there is no analog for your analogy.

Targeting a leader of the enemy in time of war is within the legitimate power of the government. That constitutes a rather important distinction. It guts your analogy, in fact.

 

[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.

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.

Bright line rules like that in a complicated real world are not workable.

For however much YOU may dislike it, I and lots of other folks don't disapprove of authorizing the government to target the leaders of terrorist groups at war with us.

I'd go further. It is, practically speaking, ALWAYS ok to do that.