C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
I think the larger questions here, are: When will Obama be tried as a war criminal? And what will HIS punishment be?
The political establishment would never allow that, fearful of Americans demanding security.
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.
I think the larger questions here, are: When will Obama be tried as a war criminal? And what will HIS punishment be?
I think the larger questions here, are: When will Obama be tried as a war criminal? And what will HIS punishment be?
The political establishment would never allow that, fearful of Americans demanding security.
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.
Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.
The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.
The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Charles....
was he shooting at soldiers? I somehow doubt it since we aren't at war with Yemen..there is no battlefield there.
Charles....
was he shooting at soldiers? I somehow doubt it since we aren't at war with Yemen..there is no battlefield there.
Was he not planning, and carrying out Terrorist attacks? Would there not have been a fire fight had we attempted to take him alive? Really?
You people need to grow up. The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate. Had he ventured some where that we could have arrested him we would have. Instead he hide out in Yemen, where he knows we get very little cooperation from the Local Government, and would basically have no choice but to send Military Units in there, risking an International Incident, to try and get him.
He chose to be an Enemy Combatant, and he was dealt with as such. End of story.
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.
Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.
The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.
The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.
I guess you could argue that this was an "illegal search and seizure", with killing being the ultimate form of seizure, but it's kind of hard to argue that a smoking carcass in Yeman was denied his right to trial.
The Supreme Court does. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to due process rights:Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
Prior to that ruling, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Court held that an American accused of being an enemy combatant was entitled to due process rights:
Clearly the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki denied him a fair opportunity to rebut the Governments factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker that he was indeed an enemy of the state.But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nations commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad
We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Governments factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.
[A] court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved.
Consequently the arguments by some that al-Awlaki forfeited his due process rights or rights as an American citizen because he advocated the destruction of America, joined al-Qaeda, or otherwise declared himself a terrorist has no factual basis in Constitutional case law.
If he wanted his "due process" rights, he should have surrendered to whatever legal authority was nearest and requested extradition to the US.
Jake Tapper is sharp. Jay Carney doesn't even sound like he's in on the conversation. About 4 minutes long. Worth a listen if you haven't heard it yet:
Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney on President Killing U.S. Citizens
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.
So the "battlefield" is wherever the U.S. government decides to kill you?
It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?
Case closed.
I think the larger questions here, are: When will Obama be tried as a war criminal? And what will HIS punishment be?
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.
Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.
The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.
The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.
I guess you could argue that this was an "illegal search and seizure", with killing being the ultimate form of seizure, but it's kind of hard to argue that a smoking carcass in Yeman was denied his right to trial.
Why do people keep saying battlefield? Were there soldiers in a firefight? Was Awlaki armed and shooting at someone? Was the pickup he was riding in actually a camouflaged tank?
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
The Supreme Court does. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to due process rights:
Prior to that ruling, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Court held that an American accused of being an enemy combatant was entitled to due process rights:
But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nations commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad
We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Governments factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.
[A] court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved.
Clearly the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki denied him a fair opportunity to rebut the Governments factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker that he was indeed an enemy of the state.
Consequently the arguments by some that al-Awlaki forfeited his due process rights or rights as an American citizen because he advocated the destruction of America, joined al-Qaeda, or otherwise declared himself a terrorist has no factual basis in Constitutional case law.
If he wanted his "due process" rights, he should have surrendered to whatever legal authority was nearest and requested extradition to the US.
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.
Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.
The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.
The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Exactly how do you give Due Process to someone who has left the country, and is at war with you?
He was not deprived Due Process anymore than the Drug dealer killed in a gun fight with Police was.
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.
Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.
The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.
The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Charles....
was he shooting at soldiers? I somehow doubt it since we aren't at war with Yemen..there is no battlefield there.
Was he not planning, and carrying out Terrorist attacks? Would there not have been a fire fight had we attempted to take him alive? Really?
You people need to grow up. The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate. Had he ventured some where that we could have arrested him we would have. Instead he hide out in Yemen, where he knows we get very little cooperation from the Local Government, and would basically have no choice but to send Military Units in there, risking an International Incident, to try and get him.
He chose to be an Enemy Combatant, and he was dealt with as such. End of story.
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.
So the "battlefield" is wherever the U.S. government decides to kill you?
Obviously not.
He was never detained. This isn't a habius corpus issue. You can argue that this was an illegal "seizure", but he wasn't detained and denied his right to a trial. The Hamdi case and all the other ones don't adequately address this issue.It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?
Case closed.
More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:
Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.
I guess you could argue that this was an "illegal search and seizure", with killing being the ultimate form of seizure, but it's kind of hard to argue that a smoking carcass in Yeman was denied his right to trial.
Why do people keep saying battlefield? Were there soldiers in a firefight? Was Awlaki armed and shooting at someone? Was the pickup he was riding in actually a camouflaged tank?
Because the concept of "battlefield" and combatent has changed in the past 50 years.
Have you been asleep for the last decade?
Charles....
was he shooting at soldiers? I somehow doubt it since we aren't at war with Yemen..there is no battlefield there.
Was he not planning, and carrying out Terrorist attacks? Would there not have been a fire fight had we attempted to take him alive? Really?
You people need to grow up. The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate. Had he ventured some where that we could have arrested him we would have. Instead he hide out in Yemen, where he knows we get very little cooperation from the Local Government, and would basically have no choice but to send Military Units in there, risking an International Incident, to try and get him.
He chose to be an Enemy Combatant, and he was dealt with as such. End of story.
Was he? Where is the proof?