Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Si modo]

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.’

Excellent post, especially what I bolded.

 

[Valerie]

What's to prevent a president from simply declaring Americans he doesn't like for whatever reason "enemy combatants" and having them murdered? The same thing that prevents him from launching nuclear weapons, launching military attacks, and otherwise abusing the incredible power that comes with that office: the system, such as it is.

First, and perhaps most importantly, the road to the Oval Office goes through the American people. The grueling two-year campaign cycle serves as a powerful vetting tool, weeding out candidates without the character, judgment, and temperament to sit in the big chair. It's not a perfect safeguard, of course, and there's room to quibble over the quality of a few who made it through.

Second, we have a system of checks and balances. Congress has the power to force its way into the decision-making process in cases like this one, where action is planned over months and even years. In the Awlaki case in particular, Capitol Hill has had plenty of time to insist that the Obama administration lay out its case for action. Either they've done that (behind closed doors in the appropriate national security committees) and been satisfied or they've abrogated their responsibility. Further, lacking such advance warning, Congress can certainly exercise its oversight powers after the fact, calling the administration on to the carpet. Its members have enormous power in this regard, up to and including the ability to impeach the president.

Additionally, the courts also have a significant role to play in safeguarding the Constitution. While they've historically been deferential to elected policy-makers on matters of national security policy, they have, as seen in Hamden, Boumediene, and several other cases, been willing to limit their prerogatives, even when applied to unsympathetic defendants, in order to defend larger principles.

Ultimately, there's far less reason to be concerned about the prospect of rogue presidents ordering Americans killed willy-nilly than that Americans will stop questioning actions taken by their leaders in the name of national security.

The Thorniest Question: When Can a President Order an American Killed? - James Joyner - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[flacaltenn]

Valerie:

When it comes to the use of the military to conduct bombing raids in a non-hostile country -- I don't want to sort it "after action" by impeaching the Prez.. I want a clear definition of the War on Al Queada and CONGRESS to take responsibility for directing and coordinating the action. This war is now over 14 years old.. There is no excuse for all this ad hoc reasoning and grasping for authority..

If we are gonna defend this country from EVERY Muslim who has sworn to get revenge on the Great Satan -- we're gonna need a MUCH bigger drone force. Maybe Congress should decide what the rules will be sorting thru the MILLIONS of Arabs that wish America harm...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not at all, if he is caught firing a weapon at somebody feel free to put him down. What I object to is you misrepresenting the Constitution in order to justify something you think is a good idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

How is pointing out the absurdity of your position playing word games?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, he thinks they are entitled to due process even before that, unless he decides that they don't.

 

[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?

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

What do you think that proves? Once you tell me that I will be glad to point out why it doesn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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????

Because we are not at war?

Obama administration to end use of term 'war on terror' | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[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????

Because we are not at war?

Obama administration to end use of term 'war on terror' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.’

Then most of the Iraq war was a simply a huge collection of war crimes.

 

[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

What do you think that proves? Once you tell me that I will be glad to point out why it doesn't.

I'm not out to prove anything. My opinion is that this target was justified.


The info I've posted is nothing more than relevant facts and opinions.


What are you trying to prove? That America is eevil?

I beg to differ and have more faith in our processes and our people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

How many Confederate soldiers did Lincoln assassinate in the Civil War? How many were Americans? How many got a trial before they were shot?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Gitmo detainees were/are PRISONERS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.’

This guy we just killed was 'serving the war effort' for Al Qaeda.

 

[Si modo]

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.

How many Confederate soldiers did Lincoln assassinate in the Civil War? How many were Americans? How many got a trial before they were shot?

Pulling out the Lincoln card when it comes to the Constitution isn't that compelling.

 

[Valerie]

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.

How many Confederate soldiers did Lincoln assassinate in the Civil War? How many were Americans? How many got a trial before they were shot?

Pulling out the Lincoln card when it comes to the Constitution isn't that compelling.

Compelling enough for you to respond, however...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone remember the first hours of Shock and Awe? Remember the talked about big target?

A bunker that they thought Saddam might be in? According to people here now, that was an assassination attempt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What do you think that proves? Once you tell me that I will be glad to point out why it doesn't.

I'm not out to prove anything. My opinion is that this target was justified.


The info I've posted is nothing more than relevant facts and opinions.


What are you trying to prove? That America is eevil?

I beg to differ and have more faith in our processes and our people.

I am trying to prove we are better than that.

What do you think you are proving by pointing out stuff that is actually irrelevant in response to me?

 

[Si modo]

How many Confederate soldiers did Lincoln assassinate in the Civil War? How many were Americans? How many got a trial before they were shot?

Pulling out the Lincoln card when it comes to the Constitution isn't that compelling.

Compelling enough for you to respond, however...

Compelling in pointing out its idiocy, of course.

 

[Valerie]

What do you think that proves? Once you tell me that I will be glad to point out why it doesn't.

I'm not out to prove anything. My opinion is that this target was justified.


The info I've posted is nothing more than relevant facts and opinions.


What are you trying to prove? That America is eevil?

I beg to differ and have more faith in our processes and our people.

I am trying to prove we are better than that.

What do you think you are proving by pointing out stuff that is actually irrelevant in response to me?

Oh, I'm sorry... Don't let the facts get in the way of your faux rage!