Does the POTUS have the right, as Pres & CinC, to violate the law & Bill of Rights?

[Intense]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

In criminal matters, that's absolutely correct.

In matters of war and acts of war, what you just said is not nearly so accurate.

And the question is always "what process is due?"

In the latter case, the process is not what some people seem to believe it is or "has to be."

Here's the twist, we need to distinguish between Someone being labeled a Combatant, Anyone, and the Evidence that supports it.

 

[Liability]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution?

REGARDLESS of one's views on this topic, this thread has led to a discussion that is interesting and even kind of mature and sophisticated. Folks are addressing the various important concerns in a manner I consider "above the rim."

Kudos to Mustang and kudos to the folks discussing the matters of importance on this topic for the manner of the debate so far.

 

[Liability]

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

In criminal matters, that's absolutely correct.

In matters of war and acts of war, what you just said is not nearly so accurate.

And the question is always "what process is due?"

In the latter case, the process is not what some people seem to believe it is or "has to be."

Here's the twist, we need to distinguish between Someone being labeled a Combatant, Anyone, and the Evidence that supports it.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that the dividing line (between being an accused criminal versus being an accused combatant) does NOT negate all of the rights of an accused combatant.

This is why the topic is thorny as hell and also of obvious and crucial importance. It's difficult, but that's no reason not to have the debate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

In criminal matters, that's absolutely correct.

In matters of war and acts of war, what you just said is not nearly so accurate.

And the question is always "what process is due?"

In the latter case, the process is not what some people seem to believe it is or "has to be."

Here's the twist, we need to distinguish between Someone being labeled a Combatant, Anyone, and the Evidence that supports it.

if they have a gun in their hand and shouting at people they are an enemy combatant. Even those gangbaggers in LA can now be detained.

 

[Intense]

I think when granting new powers, that there should be more forethought towards both the advantages and disadvantages of it, and whether oversight , checks and balances, oversight, and due process even accountability, even apply, and how. Are there limits, restrictions, is there even a litmus test? When does it borderline Tyranny?

 

[ba1614]

Ask the Americans of Japanese descent who could do what during world war 2.

 

[Mustang]

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

What's 'fair' versus 'unfair is subjective. What's 'legal' versus 'illegal' is not subjective.

Maybe you need to focus on Moral Absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. I'm more into Moral Absolutism, applied to circumstance, where , no matter who's in charge, Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong. Moral Relativism is about convenience for who is in charge, condemning principle, on the grounds of inconvenience. Subjective, sometimes, is nothing more than presenting the part of the picture you want people to see, to support your agenda, while conveniently leaving out the parts that might be witness against you. Better to provide the most complete picture.

I know what moral relativism is. (I took a class in moral philosophy in college).

But it may interest you to know that the law recognizes that certain criminal acts are more morally objectionable than others. That's why the penalties for premeditated murder are more harsh than say, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

But that argument is not germane to whether or not any president makes decisions and orders subordinates to follow orders that are clearly illegal and/or in violation of Americans' constitutional rights.

Like I stated earlier, in the aftermath of 9-11, FISA laws were updated at the urging of the Bush administration in order to make wiretapping (especially, roving wiretapping) of suspected terrorist easier under existing law. So, the question remains, why did the president decide to authorize illegal wiretapping on Americans without a FISA court warrant? That question has never been answered.

Additionally, it may interest you to know that between 1978 when FISA was put into law, and 2001 when FISA was modified in the aftermath of 9-11, the FISA court authorized over 13,000 warrants while rejecting zero gov't requests for warrants. So, there was no history of the court rejecting a gov't request for a warrant to wiretap any suspects' communications. So, again the question is why did the president see a need to circumvent a court warrant process that had never rejected any previous request for a warrant?

 

[bripat9643]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

No, that is not correct. The BoR is not a roving shield that protects citizens everywhere under every circumstance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576603114226847494.html

It does protect you from the U.S. government no matter where you go and no matter what the circumstance.

The government does not have the authority to intentionally mark any U.S. citizen for assassination as Obama did, no matter where that citizen resides.

 

[bripat9643]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

In criminal matters, that's absolutely correct.

In matters of war and acts of war, what you just said is not nearly so accurate.

And the question is always "what process is due?"

In the latter case, the process is not what some people seem to believe it is or "has to be."

If the military accidentally kills or injures Americans in some military operation, that's one thing. On the other hand, if it intentionally assassinates an American, that's entirely different. The C-in-C has no authority to be the judge and jury for any American, no matter where in the world he happens to be.

Due process for Americans overseas is the same as due-process for Americans within our borders. You don't cease being an American because you leave the country.

 

[saveliberty]

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

No, that is not correct. The BoR is not a roving shield that protects citizens everywhere under every circumstance.
John Yoo: From Gettysburg to Anwar al-Awlaki - WSJ.com

It does protect you from the U.S. government no matter where you go and no matter what the circumstance.

The government does not have the authority to intentionally mark any U.S. citizen for assassination as Obama did, no matter where that citizen resides.

I agree with bripat. The only way you could do what Obama did, is try the person in absentia, convict and sentence them to death. At that point it is just a matter of where and when we catch up to them.

 

[bripat9643]

In fairness, in times of Emergency, like Fire or Police Scenes, Accident Scenes, Riots, Natural Disaster, Constitutional Rights can be Suspended.

I disagree. Where does the Constitution make these exceptions?

You can't walk away with Material Evidence, You may not be able to leave or enter, you may be forced to leave. You may be searched. Shit happens.

None of these things may be done without due process. "Shit happens" is not any kind of a credible argument.

 

[Liability]

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

In criminal matters, that's absolutely correct.

In matters of war and acts of war, what you just said is not nearly so accurate.

And the question is always "what process is due?"

In the latter case, the process is not what some people seem to believe it is or "has to be."

If the military accidentally kills or injures Americans in some military operation, that's one thing. On the other hand, if it intentionally assassinates an American, that's entirely different. The C-in-C has no authority to be the judge and jury for any American, no matter where in the world he happens to be.

Due process for Americans overseas is the same as due-process for Americans within our borders. You don't cease being an American because you leave the country.

While I appreciate your passion AS WELL AS YOUR motivation, I disagree with you.

When one shoots an enemy in war, one does not first take pains to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the enemy is a real enemy and acting with the intent to commit acts of war against you or your country or your allies. One encounters the enemy and one engages in battle.

The concept to which YOU allude, here, is that of judge and jury. And that concept is CLEARLY one associated with mere criminality.

Acts of war in time of war do not get treated to that level of deference.

Sorry.

They just don't.

 

[bripat9643]

While I appreciate your passion AS WELL AS YOUR motivation, I disagree with you.

When one shoots an enemy in war, one does not first take pains to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the enemy is a real enemy and acting with the intent to commit acts of war against you or your country or your allies. One encounters the enemy and one engages in battle.

That's true, so long as the "enemy" is actually in the act of making war on you, or is part of some larger force that makes identify him as an American problematic.

However, what Obama did was target an American citizen for execution. This didn't occur in any battlefield situation. That's something entirely different.

The concept to which YOU allude, here, is that of judge and jury. And that concept is CLEARLY one associated with mere criminality.

Acts of war in time of war do not get treated to that level of deference.

Sorry.

They just don't.

If they occur on a battlefield, that's true. But the man assassinated was not on a battlefield. He wasn't involved in any "acts of war" when Obama killed him. Whether he was guilty of treason is for a jury to decide, not Obama.

 

[Mustang]

No, that is not correct. The BoR is not a roving shield that protects citizens everywhere under every circumstance.
John Yoo: From Gettysburg to Anwar al-Awlaki - WSJ.com

It does protect you from the U.S. government no matter where you go and no matter what the circumstance.

The government does not have the authority to intentionally mark any U.S. citizen for assassination as Obama did, no matter where that citizen resides.

I agree with bripat. The only way you could do what Obama did, is try the person in absentia, convict and sentence them to death. At that point it is just a matter of where and when we catch up to them.

Joe Lieberman had another idea in 2010 to prevent Americans from exercising their constitutional rights. He proposed stripping American suspects of their citizenship. How's that for an end run around the US Constitution?

“I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,” Lieberman said Tuesday.

Joe Lieberman bill would strip suspects' citizenship - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com

"Hey, we're not preventing you from exercising your constitutional rights because you don't have those rights anymore!"​

Talk about a slippery slope!

 

[Liability]

While I appreciate your passion AS WELL AS YOUR motivation, I disagree with you.

When one shoots an enemy in war, one does not first take pains to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the enemy is a real enemy and acting with the intent to commit acts of war against you or your country or your allies. One encounters the enemy and one engages in battle.

That's true, so long as the "enemy" is actually in the act of making war on you, or is part of some larger force that makes identify him as an American problematic.

However, what Obama did was target an American citizen for execution. This didn't occur in any battlefield situation. That's something entirely different.

The concept to which YOU allude, here, is that of judge and jury. And that concept is CLEARLY one associated with mere criminality.

Acts of war in time of war do not get treated to that level of deference.

Sorry.

They just don't.

If they occur on a battlefield, that's true. But the man assassinated was not on a battlefield. He wasn't involved in any "acts of war" when Obama killed him. Whether he was guilty of treason is for a jury to decide, not Obama.

Britpat:

Take this question in the manner in which it is offered, and think about it for a while, if you would:

In light of September 11, 2001, can we define "battlefield" in the same way we used to understand that term?

 

[pegwinn]

Ali-Whackjob was assassinated. That bugs me because it means that down the road it will happen again. The reasons will likely get thinner and thinner as well.

If the target of the strike had been a convoy or training camp that was selected with good tactical reasoning and ali-whack just happened to get his ticket punched due to the fog of war...... party bonus. But that isn't what happened.

 

[Mustang]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

No, that is not correct. The BoR is not a roving shield that protects citizens everywhere under every circumstance.
John Yoo: From Gettysburg to Anwar al-Awlaki - WSJ.com

John Yoo has probably almost single-handedly done more to undermine Americans' constitutional protections than any single person I can think of. His 'memos' were the so-called intellectual and legal basis for allowing both the torture of detainees (against both US and international law) and the imprisonment without due process to Jose Padilla, an American citizen. And before anyone has a fit about Jose Padilla's alleged guilt, how would any of us know about the merits of the Federal Government's case against him when he hasn't even been afforded the very same rights that we would all expect to have if we were accused of a crime?

Keep in mind that the UN Convention Against Torture was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the US Senate in 1994. That makes it a treaty to which our country is bound, and we're not even honoring it for our own citizens.

Once our gov't can and does throw Habeas corpus out the window for one citizen, should we be surprised if it happens again?