Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Quantum Windbag]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The military is exempt from due process during time of war or public danger.

Anyway, due process doesn't apply in this case as he was never held to answer for a crime.

No they are not. People in the military are not entitled to due process when actively serving in time of war or public danger. This, theoretically, gives a commander on the battlefield the power to summarily execute a subordinate for disobeying a lawful order. In practice, it does not actually happen, and you would probably scream to high heaven if it did.

Nice try though, it shows you are willing to twist the law to support your position and makes you into a real hack, just like Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

If we accept your interpretation of this law what is to stop Obama, or any future president, from declaring Ron Paul a terrorist because he is calling for impeaching Obama for killing a person without regard to due process? this obviously aids terrorism, and gives the president the authority to use all necessary force to prevent it, and the only way to shut a person like Paul up is to kill him.

Is that really the kind of power you want to give the government?

 

[Ravi]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The military is exempt from due process during time of war or public danger.

Anyway, due process doesn't apply in this case as he was never held to answer for a crime.

No they are not. People in the military are not entitled to due process when actively serving in time of war or public danger. This, theoretically, gives a commander on the battlefield the power to summarily execute a subordinate for disobeying a lawful order. In practice, it does not actually happen, and you would probably scream to high heaven if it did.

Nice try though, it shows you are willing to twist the law to support your position and makes you into a real hack, just like Obama.

Another idiot that thinks we have to arrest and put on trial anyone that fights against America or the military.

 

[Valerie]

When did we go to war in Yemen? What qualifies any square yard of Earth as a "battlefield" other than the fact that the U.S. government decides to kill you there?

We have every right to seek and destroy those who engage in terror against us.



Al Qaeda in Yemen has taken a hit with the loss of US-born al Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, but the leaders left behind are equally committed to attacking the U.S. mainland, and far more skilled than al-Awlaki, according to a new report by a top Army counterterrorism center.

"Removing these leaders from the battlefield ... would rapidly bring about the group's defeat," according to the study, which took a year of fieldwork inside Yemen, well before the strike that killed al-Awlaki and fellow U.S.-born propagandist Samir Khan. The strike by CIA drones occurred Friday with Yemeni permission, in concert with U.S. military counterterrorist forces.

Report: Al Qaeda in Yemen still a large threat - CBS News

According to the government a battlefield is wherever anyone they consider an enemy happens to be.

Do you support that definition?

What, now you want to play word games...?






As it relates to this topic, here's what I support:



Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/ter...res23.enr.html

 

[Amelia]

"necessary and appropriate" is far from carte blanche.

 

[Si modo]

The military is exempt from due process during time of war or public danger.

Anyway, due process doesn't apply in this case as he was never held to answer for a crime.

No they are not. People in the military are not entitled to due process when actively serving in time of war or public danger. This, theoretically, gives a commander on the battlefield the power to summarily execute a subordinate for disobeying a lawful order. In practice, it does not actually happen, and you would probably scream to high heaven if it did.

Nice try though, it shows you are willing to twist the law to support your position and makes you into a real hack, just like Obama.

Another idiot that thinks we have to arrest and put on trial anyone that fights against America or the military.

Like Obama.

 

[Ravi]

"necessary and appropriate" is far from carte blanche.

Bingo. That's why you don't have to pee your pants in fear that the military is going to launch a drone up your ass.

 

[Ravi]

No they are not. People in the military are not entitled to due process when actively serving in time of war or public danger. This, theoretically, gives a commander on the battlefield the power to summarily execute a subordinate for disobeying a lawful order. In practice, it does not actually happen, and you would probably scream to high heaven if it did.

Nice try though, it shows you are willing to twist the law to support your position and makes you into a real hack, just like Obama.

Another idiot that thinks we have to arrest and put on trial anyone that fights against America or the military.

Like Obama.

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

And they are.

 

[Si modo]

Another idiot that thinks we have to arrest and put on trial anyone that fights against America or the military.

Like Obama.

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

And they are.

Law enforcement arrested them, eh?

 

[Amelia]

"necessary and appropriate" is far from carte blanche.

Bingo. That's why you don't have to pee your pants in fear that the military is going to launch a drone up your ass.

That's why we do have to worry. Because you guys think that is it appropriate to assassinate someone that the gov't doesn't have enough evidence to bring charges on.

If you think that's appropriate now, there is no telling what you will think is appropriate in the future.

 

[Valerie]

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

If we accept your interpretation of this law what is to stop Obama, or any future president, from declaring Ron Paul a terrorist because he is calling for impeaching Obama for killing a person without regard to due process? this obviously aids terrorism, and gives the president the authority to use all necessary force to prevent it, and the only way to shut a person like Paul up is to kill him.

Is that really the kind of power you want to give the government?

I've posted this several times now and not one person has bothered to acknowledge the truth of it... Over two years ago, a federal judge heard evidence of this case in a failed attempt to stop the executive order. The federal court threw the case out and, in so doing, reiterated it's deference to the authority of the executive branch.





The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and 'the ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

 

[Amelia]

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

If we accept your interpretation of this law what is to stop Obama, or any future president, from declaring Ron Paul a terrorist because he is calling for impeaching Obama for killing a person without regard to due process? this obviously aids terrorism, and gives the president the authority to use all necessary force to prevent it, and the only way to shut a person like Paul up is to kill him.

Is that really the kind of power you want to give the government?

I've posted this several times now and not one person has bothered to acknowledge the truth of it... Over two years ago, a federal judge heard evidence of this case in a failed attempt to stop the executive order. The federal court threw the case out and, in so doing, reiterated it's deference to the authority of the executive branch.





The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and 'the ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

Over two years?



We've acknowledged the case. And disputed your interpretation.


The judge did not decide on the merits of the case. He said the father did not have standing. And then he kicked the can into the bushes.

 

[Amelia]

The judge ordered a man the U.S. said it was going to kill to come in out of hiding and turn himself over before he could dispute the death order. If they would condemn him to death without warrant how could he expect a fair trial?

That is such a mockery. That's all kinds of wrong. If you have been unfairly condemned to death you walk unprotected into the den of the people who condemned you?


YES, I personally believe this particular guy was atrocious. But that doesn't make the scenario any less frightening. If the gov't can put one citizen into that kind of Catch-22. -- ordering his assassination without showing they had enough evidence to even put him in jail -- then the gov't can do that to other citizens.



They can put anyone to death without due process for stirring up trouble. For protesting war. For organizing themselves for their own self-defense. For almost anything which a majority of Americans agree they will look the other way for.

People who object to wire taps and object to waterboarding but don't object to ordering an assassination without presenting evidence to justify it .... ?????



Okay, I'm about worn out from this subject. Probably going to wind down now.


I'm hoping to heaven that people like the ACLU will keep their pitbulls on it and make the administration answer to why they killed someone they couldn't charge.

I reserve the right to come and bash my head on this brick wall some more later but I'm not seeing a lot of point in continuing now.

 

[Si modo]

The judge ordered a man the U.S. said it was going to kill to come in out of hiding and turn himself over before he could dispute the death order. If they would condemn him to death without warrant how could he expect a fair trial?

That is such a mockery. That's all kinds of wrong. If you have been unfairly condemned to death you walk unprotected into the den of the people who condemned you?


YES, I personally believe this particular guy was atrocious. But that doesn't make the scenario any less frightening. If the gov't can put one citizen into that kind of Catch-22. -- ordering his assassination without showing they had enough evidence to even put him in jail -- then the gov't can do that to other citizens.



They can put anyone to death without due process for stirring up trouble. For protesting war. For organizing themselves for their own self-defense. For almost anything which a majority of Americans agree they will look the other way for.

People who object to wire taps and object to waterboarding but don't object to ordering an assassination without presenting evidence to justify it .... ?????



Okay, I'm about worn out from this subject. Probably going to wind down now.


I'm hoping to heaven that people like the ACLU will keep their pitbulls on it and make the administration answer to why they killed someone they couldn't charge.

I reserve the right to come and bash my head on this brick wall some more later but I'm not seeing a lot of point in continuing now.

What is stunning is that partisanship allows for denial of inherent rights.

The same shit happened when GWB was in office. As long as 'my team' is stomping on inherent rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, it's OK to turn a blind eye to it.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I've been reading most of these threads and would say the divide is not partisan as much as constitutionalist. IMHO

 

[Valerie]

If we accept your interpretation of this law what is to stop Obama, or any future president, from declaring Ron Paul a terrorist because he is calling for impeaching Obama for killing a person without regard to due process? this obviously aids terrorism, and gives the president the authority to use all necessary force to prevent it, and the only way to shut a person like Paul up is to kill him.

Is that really the kind of power you want to give the government?

I've posted this several times now and not one person has bothered to acknowledge the truth of it... Over two years ago, a federal judge heard evidence of this case in a failed attempt to stop the executive order. The federal court threw the case out and, in so doing, reiterated it's deference to the authority of the executive branch.





The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and 'the ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "


Judge: Terror 'Kill Target' Can't Sue U.S. From Hide-out in Yemen

Over two years?



We've acknowledge the case. And disputed your interpretation.


The judge did not decide on the merits of the case. He said the father did not have standing. And then he kicked the can into the bushes.

No, I've acknowledged all the facts, including the judgement that the father had no grounds, but also that the man failed to represent himself and could have, as the court offered no judgement on the man himself, but only on the nature of the case, which ultimately deferred to the authority of the executive branch as the judge closed by noting the Supreme Court precedent in such cases.


I asked you a specific question which you never acknowledged about the meaning of this final statement.................?



Why would it make you feel so much better if the judicial branch had authority over military actions instead of the executive branch...? Are they not equally corruptible but unequally accountable such that our processes are already properly balanced to provide for certain special circumstances in times of war...?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He wasn't on a battlefield.

The hell he wasn't.

When did we go to war in Yemen? What qualifies any square yard of Earth as a "battlefield" other than the fact that the U.S. government decides to kill you there?

OK, where is the proper 'battlefield' in our war against Al Qaeda?

 

[NYcarbineer]

he wasn't on a battlefield he was driving down the road in his car.

You can bomb a barracks full of sleeping soldiers in war. Or a mess hall full of soldiers having lunch.

Or a munitions factory employing civilians.

And we can't kill THIS guy in a war????

 

[flacaltenn]

I never thought that Clayton-jones would get a thank-you from me. But there it is..

The only thing MORE disgusting than neocon conservatives who don't understand that the military is NOT just an extension of a SWAT team -- are Lefties who were all pizzed off about Bush denying "due process" to Gitmo detainees and now want more blood. Evidently, "enhanced interrogation" is a Constitutional problem for some lefties -- but running covert bombing operations over a sovereign non-hostile country and splattering guts is not.

Now the NeoCons OUGHT to be ones suggesting that the CIA, FBI, DOD, Executive Branch all play by the rules when conducting bombing raids in foreign countries. I would EXPECT THEM to understand my demand that CONGRESS (which is the sole Constitutional Authority for EXTENDED military operations) would have clearly authorized these types of missions. They have not. The Clowns on Capitol Hill have taken a pass on their duties so that they don't have to explain it to their constitutients. That's NOT a benefit I want to give to them. I want them to CO-ORDINATE between CIA, FBI, DOD, and Prez so that NONE of those entities start making their own lists of permissable operations.

It's damn frustrating to run open loop and have posters come on here with unproved assertions about why we violated the sovereignty of another country to bomb them and take out a "fugitive". Especially since that fugitive SHOULD have been in our custody YEARS ago on warrants that the FBI mysteriously withdrew. And NO ONE on this board can assert a single act of violence that Alaki played a material role in... He is mentioned in the 9.11 Commission as a "point of contact", and aquaintance, maybe even an advocate of Al Queda. But "leader" or "combatant" are largely unproven charges.

I don't even care about that. What I care about is that CONGRESS is supposed to be in charge. NOT the FBI, NOT the CIA, NOT the Joint Chiefs, NOT even the Prez when it comes to a 12 year WAR on Al Queda. And I don't care if 3 FBI dudes said he was a threat. I want Congress to declare the mission to go after these creeps and to CLEARLY STATE the rules for engagement. Before we light off a conflict with a country like Pakistan who CAN defend itself and MIGHT just choose to shoot back...

Right now we are showing less organization, respect for the law, and integrity than Barney Fife in the Mayberry P.D.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Joint Resolution…

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Clearly a dangerous and unfortunate resolution. Passed in 2001, the resolution is also clearly in conflict with subsequent case law concerning due process rights of ‘enemy combatants’ and detainees, the latter not even considered by the resolution.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:

"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and 'the ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "

This is not at issue.

As another poster correctly noted in another thread, we haven’t been ‘at war’ since 1945. We are not ‘at war’ with al-Qaeda now. The Court has ruled with regard to the status of ‘enemy combatants,’ both citizen and non-citizen, determining that some basic level of due process is in order.

You can bomb a barracks full of sleeping soldiers in war. Or a mess hall full of soldiers having lunch.

Members of Al-Qaeda are not ‘soldiers,’ nor do they deserve being referred to as such. They are criminals, subject to due process in the context of criminal prosecution.

Or a munitions factory employing civilians.

Although practiced by the Allies with impunity during World War II, today this could be construed as a war crime, obviously depending on the circumstances. Also, it could be argued that Japanese or German munitions workers, although civilian, were serving the war effort of recognized nation- states and armed forces upon whom war had been officially declared, which is not the case with civilians in a criminal origination such as Al-Qaeda.

And to return to the basic troubling theme: the idea of investing in the Executive the sole authority to kill a criminal suspect without an objective review of the evidence (or if evidence indeed exists) is a dangerous precedent clearly in conflict with the Constitution and the original intent of the Framers.

Over the span of history many free people have lost their freedom because they believed ‘it can’t happen here.’