Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.’

 

[Sunshine]

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.’

Well the 'fearful establishment' is going to lead us all into bondage if we aren't careful!

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[Xchel]

Charles....
was he shooting at soldiers? I somehow doubt it since we aren't at war with Yemen..there is no battlefield there.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[Xchel]

I don't know if he was or wasn't after all he has never been tried in a court and convicted...all we have is what a politician said..and we know how honest they are....snark...

there was no immediate danger..immediate danger is a plane flying toward the White House...and a president ordering it shot down...

 

[Sunshine]

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.

And every bit of that is a matter for the courts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 Nation’s 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 Government’s 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 Government’s 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.

It does not matter if he wanted them. By arbitrarily taking them away from him the government is demonstrating that they have the power to take them away from anyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

We can prove it, but we won't.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo]Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney on President Killing U.S. Citizens. - YouTube[/ame]

Makes sense to someone.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?

Case closed.

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.

More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[geauxtohell]

I think the larger questions here, are: When will Obama be tried as a war criminal? And what will HIS punishment be?

LMAO.

Good luck with that one.

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

Because the concept of "battlefield" and combatent has changed in the past 50 years.

Have you been asleep for the last decade?

 

[Valerie]

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 Nation’s 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 Government’s 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 Government’s 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.

Yes, instead HE CHOSE to remain an unlawful combatant...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Same way you give it to everyone else, you indict him and get an arrest warrant. Obama issued a kill order on him, and did not try to arrest him. Unlike that drug dealer, Awlaki was not in a firefight with anyone, and the government is saying they do not have to prove they had any evidence that he even did anything.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

NO...


Like milk at 4.95 a gallon?



Hell got milk at 4.95 a gallon?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?

Case closed.

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.

More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do I have to try to fit my argument into your misinterpretation of applicable law?

Obama issued a kill order on Awlaki last year. That is not an illegal search and seizure, that is depriving a person of their life at the whim of one man, with no chance of appeal, and no trial. Obama just successfully set himself, and every president in the future, up as judge, jury, and executioner. Why doesn't that bother you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

It has changed? How, exactly? What is the exact definition of battlefield now? Enlighten me since I have apparently been asleep my entire life, and think that battlefield still implies actual battle, and that a combatant means someone actually has to have a weapon in their hand.

Silly me.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

The guy only posted Anti-American bullshit for a decade .... It's all in his lit, er online postings...

The guy at minimum was facing a potential death sentence for being a traitor. Not to mention his blatant acts....

Apparently progressives have no idea who this guy is - cant say I'm shocked....

I've only been reading his bullshit for nearly a decade...

The guy was a terrorist...