Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Valerie]

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.

Always such a hater...

 

[Si modo]

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!

Your faux rage is showing.

 

[Valerie]

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?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

As ugly as it may be, he was a U.S. citizen. The government cannot arbitrarily strip one's citizenship. There are very specific requirements for stripping one of his or her citizenship. The legal staff at the White House seriously considered doing so, but, they admitted, that they had no legal grounds to do so, under current law.

Article III, Section 3, Clauses 1 & 2 of the Constitution states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

If what the government said about him was true, why did they not charge him with Treason? It doesn't appear that we are going to know the truth on this matter, as the President has seen fit to essentially say through his mouthpiece, that he is not going to talk about the issue as it relates to due process of an American citizen.

I find it troubling, that only after a lawsuit was filed, did the administration "consider" filing charges against Awlaki. No formal charges were made against him. No attempt to charge him with Treason. Instead, the President, and the powers that be under him, slapped the label of "specially designated global terrorist" on him two weeks after the lawsuit was filed. When they did that, it was illegal for him to have legal counsel of U.S. attorneys, even if it was pro-bono, without a special license being granted by the same entity that placed the label on him. The ACLU etc. filed a petition for a special license. Almost two weeks go by without a word from the White House. And wouldn't you know, there is no time frame in the law, that stipulates when the government has to act on the petition. The government can ignore and deflect all it wants. And, in my opinion, that is exactly what they did, because the ball was already in motion, as far as they were concerned, and they weren't about to be told no.

The end justifies the means. That sums up the philosophy of our President, as far as I am concerned. And that philosophy is dangerous to a Republican form of government.

President Bush tried the same thing with Padilla. Slapped the label of enemy combatant on him, sent him to Gitmo, deprived him of legal counsel in any way, for a long time. By the time the government was forced to allow him legal counsel and due process as an American citizen, his competency to stand trail became a real concern, after being at Gitmo.

I don't believe people realize the monster they welcomed with open arms with the Patriot Act. In my opinion, it is a hellish piece of legislation.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No, just U.S. citizens. You know, the people protected by the Bill of Rights?

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

Don't we? Did Napalitano claim TEA partiers were terrorists?

 

[Si modo]

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?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

Of course it's not allowed to take up arms against the government.

Where is the evidence that he did so?

Rhetoric is not arms.

That's simply fucking scary if it is, now.

 

[bripat9643]

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

And they are.

So the military can kill you so long as someone doesn't arrest you first?

American citizens are entitled to due process all the time.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The GWB Administration didn't execute any Americans without a trial, so the same shit didn't happen then.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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

And they are.

So the military can kill you so long as someone doesn't arrest you first?

American citizens are entitled to due process all the time.

If the military had gone after him, in an attempt to apprehend him, and he opens fire on them, or puts their lives in danger, they (the military) have every right to defend themselves, in my opinion. In that regard, there are valid exceptions to the due process issue. It is not absolute, when the aforementioned scenario occurs.

However, the administration put a U.S. citizen on a "hit" list. And instead of trying to apprehend him when they were given information as to his whereabouts, they used a drone attack against him. And for that, the President wants the American people to rejoice over the fact that a bad guy was killed and we are safer for it.

A pathetic excuse for a human being was killed. But, at what expense? The Constitution took another death blow, in my opinion.

I think the President should be impeached for what he did.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Obviously, not in countries where we don't even have troops stationed. If no American troops have been fired on in hte immediate vincinity, then it isn't a battlefield.

What do think is the proper "battlefield" in our war against Al Queda?

 

[Si modo]

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.

The GWB Administration didn't execute any Americans without a trial, so the same shit didn't happen then.

Too true. This administration has elevated egregious constitutional violations to an entirely new level.

 

[bripat9643]

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????

Can we kill your family in a war?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He was a known traitor, even flaunted it publicly...

Most Successful Drone Strike Ever: Were Three Al Qaeda Leaders Killed?
Oct. 1, 2011 - The CIA drone strike that killed Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and chief propagandist Samir Khan may also have taken out the terror organization's top bombmaker.

Reports say that Ibrahim al-Asiri, who is believed to have constructed both the "underwear" bomb used in the attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253 and the bombs in last year's parcel bomb plot, may have been with Awlaki and Khan when missiles from a U.S. drone struck their vehicle in Yemen Friday. However, there has been no confirmation yet of al-Asiri's death from officials. Asiri's fingerprint was found on the bomb allegedly packed into the underwear of Umar Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to bring Northwest 253 on Christmas 2009 over Detroit. The chief target, radical American-born cleric Awlaki, was a major al Qaeda figure who U.S. officials say inspired numerous terror plots against the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issued a joint bulletin warning of the potential for retribution by jihadis. "We assess US and Western-based sympathizers may attempt to exploit [Awlaki's] death due to his popularity as a violent extremist whose speeches and writings are widely available on the Internet. While there is currently no information suggesting retaliatory US-based activities in response to [Awlaki's] death, we are concerned about the possibility that autonomous extremists may react violently. A senior U.S. official told ABC News the U.S. had been tracking the high-profile jihadist for some time and had just been waiting for the perfect moment to strike.

A Yemeni official said al-Awlaki was killed along with an unknown number of al Qaeda confederates. "They were waiting for the right opportunity to get him away from any civilians," a senior administration official told ABC News. President Obama said in an announcement Friday that al-Awlaki's death was a "major blow" to al Qaeda's most operational affiliate, the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and that the successful operation against him was a tribute to the intelligence community and to Yemen.

Born in New Mexico and educated in Colorado, al-Awlaki rose to prominence among extremists as a member AQAP and was a vocal preacher of jihad. His online teachings have been cited as part of the motivation behind several attacks on the U.S. homeland -- from the Fort Hood Massacre to the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the Times Square bomb plot. In 2010, al-Awlaki was declared a "specially designated global terrorist" and became the first U.S. citizen ever to be placed on a White House-approved list for targeted killing. He nearly met his fate shortly after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in early May when a drone strike hit the convoy he was traveling but barely missed him. Earlier this year, America's chief counter-terrorism official Michael Leiter called him and AQAP "probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland."

MORE

See also:

NATO captures senior Haqqani leader in Afghanistan
1 Oct.`11 – NATO captured a senior leader of the al-Qaeda- and Taliban-allied Haqqani network active inside Afghanistan, the alliance said Saturday, describing it as a "significant milestone" in disrupting the terror group's operations.

NATO said Haji Mali Khan was seized Tuesday during an operation in eastern Paktia province's Jani Khel district, which borders Pakistan. It was the most significant capture of a Haqqani leader in Afghanistan, and could dent the group's ability to operate along the porous border with Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. Shortly after NATO's announcement, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied in a message to Afghan media that Khan had been arrested but provided no evidence that he was free. NATO described Khan as an uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani, two of the son's of the network's aging leader Jalaludin Haqqani. However, in a recent report on the Haqqani's by the Institute for the Study of War, Khan appears as a brother in-law to Jalaludin Haqqani.

The Pakistan-based Haqqani network is affiliated with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda and has been described as the top security threat in Afghanistan. The group has been blamed for hundreds of attacks, including a 20-hour siege of the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters last month. Last week, U.S. officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqanis in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan — the most serious allegation yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war. The United States and other members of the international community have in the past blamed Pakistan for allowing the Taliban, and the Haqqanis in particular, to retain safe havens in the country's tribal areas along the Afghan border — particularly in North Waziristan.

"He was one of the highest ranking members of the Haqqani network and a revered elder of the Haqqani clan," NATO said of Khan, adding that he "worked directly under Siraj Haqqani, and managed bases and had oversight of operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Khan also moved forces from Pakistan to Afghanistan to conduct terrorist activity, NATO said. "Jalaluddin Haqqani consistently placed Mali Khan in positions of high importance." NATO also said that Khan had in the past year established a militant camp in Paktia and "coordinated the transfer of money for insurgents operations, and facilitated the acquisition of supplies."

During the operation Tuesday, Khan surrendered without resistance and NATO forces also arrested his deputy and bodyguard, along with a number of other insurgents, the alliance said. "The Haqqani network and its safe havens remain a top priority for Afghan and coalition forces," NATO concluded. The NATO statement said security forces have conducted more than 500 operations so far in 2011 in an effort to disrupt the Haqqani network leadership, resulting in the deaths of 20 operatives and the capture of nearly 300 insurgent leaders and 1,300 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Source

So let's take everyone who has voiced their opinion against the government out back and shoot every damn one of them.

 

[Valerie]

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

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

Of course it's not allowed to take up arms against the government.

Where is the evidence that he did so?

Rhetoric is not arms.

That's simply fucking scary if it is, now.

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.



The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.



Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence

 

[Si modo]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

Of course it's not allowed to take up arms against the government.

Where is the evidence that he did so?

Rhetoric is not arms.

That's simply fucking scary if it is, now.

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.



The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.



Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence

My question was where is the evidence that he took up arms against the government.

And, the DoJ is right; there was no dissent in the court about killing Awlaki because the case wasn't heard in a court.

 

[bripat9643]

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

All that does is incriminate Abraham Lincoln, not absolve Obama.

 

[bripat9643]

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

When did that give the government the authority to execute American citizens without a trial?

 

[Valerie]

Of course it's not allowed to take up arms against the government.

Where is the evidence that he did so?

Rhetoric is not arms.

That's simply fucking scary if it is, now.

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.



The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.



Secret DoJ Memo Authorized Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki | Public Intelligence

My question was where is the evidence that he took up arms against the government.

And, the DoJ is right; there was no dissent in the court about killing Awlaki because the case wasn't heard in a court.

There was no dissent within the Department of Justice and senior lawyers from across the administration...

 

[bripat9643]

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

Using Lincoln doesn't support their case. Lincoln was a war criminal who utterly trashed the Constitution.