Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[BasicGreatGuy]

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

Apparently, their definition of "due process" is whatever they want it to be. It seems the Constitution got in the way of the President. He signed a super secret writ supposedly making the killing of an American citizen legal.

Do you really want to support the President having power to kill an American citizen at will?

What is to prevent the government from killing another U.S. citizen they deem a threat, without due process? Slap a label on you because they don't like what you are saying or doing, put you on a "hit" list, which, you may not even have the liberty of knowing about, and one day you are no more.

There is a reason why Treason is strictly defined in the Constitution.

 

[Si modo]

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...

Well, of course there wasn't. They indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced without challenge. The execution was done by others.

Pretty scary power in a single branch.

 

[Valerie]

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?

That man died on his own terms...

 

[bripat9643]

Anwar al-Aulaqi wasn't a U.S. citizen.

End of story.

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

 

[bripat9643]

That man died on his own terms...

Unfortunately, his death didn't comport with the Constitution of the United States. Who gives a damn what "his terms" were?

 

[Valerie]

That man died on his own terms...

Unfortunately, his death didn't comport with the Constitution of the United States. Who gives a damn what "his terms" were?

So says you.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Anwar al-Aulaqi wasn't a U.S. citizen.

End of story.

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

If you believe he wasn't a U.S. citizen, then the government did not violate his right of due process.

 

[Si modo]

That man died on his own terms...

Unfortunately, his death didn't comport with the Constitution of the United States. Who gives a damn what "his terms" were?

So says you.

Actually, so says the Constitution.

 

[Valerie]

Anwar al-Aulaqi wasn't a U.S. citizen.

End of story.

That's who we are talking about... The legal spelling of his name.



Awlaki = Aulaqi

 

[Valerie]

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...

Well, of course there wasn't. They indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced without challenge. The execution was done by others.

Pretty scary power in a single branch.

There were enough competent authoritative individuals in the executive branch to challenge each other and ultimately the evidence stood up to all legal scrutiny across the administration...



SO without your ideal judicial branch review, a review thus far rejected by the supreme court as primary authority over executive branch review in such matters, without such you imagine we have transformed into blood thirsty terrorists, do you...?

 

[Si modo]

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

Well, of course there wasn't. They indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced without challenge. The execution was done by others.

Pretty scary power in a single branch.

There were enough competent authoritative individuals in the executive branch to challenge each other and ultimately the evidence stood up to all legal scrutiny across the administration...

....

As was there for WMD in Iraq. At least that went beyond the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch.

 

[flacaltenn]

So NYCarb says the Gitmo detainees were different because "they were/are prisoners" and I guess that implies we should sweat every legal minutae about their treatment and legal rights. But somehow covert CIA/DOD missions in any country to pulverize folks on a "list" is just fine. Only problem is -- Bush was a "war criminal" for even LABELING these folks "enemy combatants" and Obama is a flaming hero for just splattering their guts from 2000 ft in a foreign desert.. Strange ain't it?

Al Alahki fled the US because he KNEW he was probably gonna be indicted. He didn't go to Yemen completely voluntarily. NOT on a foreign battlefield. He was in a country that understood his religion statements. We had tried to grab him once already in the states. If Yemen greenlighted the airstrikes, why couldn't they capture him and extradite him? Are we killing just to cover for another two-faced Mid East regime that doesn't want to pizz off their religious nutjobs by looking like a US flunky? Too many unanswered questions. And the WORLD will also question our process.

Suppose he had gotten into Syria? Do the rules of engagement allow for a drone to seek him out there? How about Barbados? If you knew the DOJ, FBI, CIA were labeling you a threat -- would YOU stay?

And how many thousand drones will we need to WIN this war? How big is "the list"? What about the Taliban in Pakistan? How many strikes before we screw up and take out a Paki Intelligience officer?
We are playing with technology that makes constant "war" almost acceptable. And we are using that technology in seemingly arbitrary ways. We better damn well put it under control of the governed and not at the whims of our current regime. You may foolishly trust Obama to use it -- but I guarandamntee you -- you're not gonna like it when the next regime ups the ante on the lack of discipline and rules for it's use.. Because RIGHT NOW -- there aren't any reasonable restrictions...

You partisian meatheads on BOTH sides are gonna destroy the integrity of this country.. Shame on both sides.

 

[Valerie]

So NYCarb says the Gitmo detainees were different because "they were/are prisoners" and I guess that implies we should sweat every legal minutae about their treatment and legal rights. But somehow covert CIA/DOD missions in any country to pulverize folks on a "list" is just fine. Only problem is -- Bush was a "war criminal" for even LABELING these folks "enemy combatants" and Obama is a flaming hero for just splattering their guts from 2000 ft in a foreign desert.. Strange ain't it?

Al Alahki fled the US because he KNEW he was probably gonna be indicted. He didn't go to Yemen completely voluntarily. NOT on a foreign battlefield. He was in a country that understood his religion statements. We had tried to grab him once already in the states. If Yemen greenlighted the airstrikes, why couldn't they capture him and extradite him? Are we killing just to cover for another two-faced Mid East regime that doesn't want to pizz off their religious nutjobs by looking like a US flunky? Too many unanswered questions. And the WORLD will also question our process.

Suppose he had gotten into Syria? Do the rules of engagement allow for a drone to seek him out there? How about Barbados? If you knew the DOJ, FBI, CIA were labeling you a threat -- would YOU stay?

And how many thousand drones will we need to WIN this war? How big is "the list"? What about the Taliban in Pakistan? How many strikes before we screw up and take out a Paki Intelligience officer?
We are playing with technology that makes constant "war" almost acceptable. And we are using that technology in seemingly arbitrary ways. We better damn well put it under control of the governed and not at the whims of our current regime. You may foolishly trust Obama to use it -- but I guarandamntee you -- you're not gonna like it when the next regime ups the ante on the lack of discipline and rules for it's use.. Because RIGHT NOW -- there aren't any reasonable restrictions...

You partisian meatheads on BOTH sides are gonna destroy the integrity of this country.. Shame on both sides.

Did you know he had dual citizenship in Yemin and chose to take up with AQ there...? That is a fact, not a secret.

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي* Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 22, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was a Yemeni-American[9] imam who was an engineer and educator by training.[10][11] According to U.S. federal government officials, he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.[2][7][12][13][14][15] His sermons are alleged to have helped motivate at least three attacks inside the United States,[16] and was the first U.S. citizen to be added to a list of persons approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency.[17][18][19] With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, he had been described as the "bin Laden of the Internet".[20][21] U.S. President Barack Obama alleged that Awlaki was "the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula".[22]

Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

According to U.S. officials, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.[4][29] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[30][31] In April 2010, American President Obama approved Al-Awlaki's targeted killing,[17][18][19] an action unsuccessfully challenged by al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups.[32]

Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[33] The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[33][34] The U.S. deployed Remotely Piloted Aircraft in Yemen to search for and kill him,[35] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[36] before he was killed in a drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[37]

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

That makes me fell better, a bunch of government lawyers got together and managed to justify killing someone without a trial. At least they didn't want to torture him, I should be glad about that. At least we no longer waterboard people who we have no evidence on.

 

[flacaltenn]

Valerie:

I'm not gonna get into guilt or allegations. And yes I know about his dual citizenship.. It's what got him into legal trouble in the first place when he frauduently applied for a Soc Sec card to show his "foreign status" as a student to obtain a loan.

But in the Wiki references you run into crap like this..

Orr: It's actually frightening, Harry. U.S. officials now, almost to a man, are becoming increasingly more convinced that Anwar Al-Awlaki is more than a radical cleric. The sources we've talked to say he's a coordinator, even a facilitator, or talent recruiter if you will, for al Qaeda and all of its franchises.

The FBI will not say if Anwar al-Awlaki and the suspect in the Detroit case, Abdulmutallab, ever met face-to-face in Yemen, but in the months prior to the attempted bombing … the two men were communicating. Sources say at a minimum, Awlaki was providing spiritual support and now investigators are pressing hard to know if he played a bigger role in perhaps introducing the suspect to terrorists.

With intelligience on this man going back 10 years -- they were just "pressing hard" in 2009 when they could have him off the streets in 2005? And what does "providing spiritual support" mean in terms of a capital offense? I'm just saying -- if you're PROUD of this level of certain intelligience based on speculation and hearsay -- pop a cork..

My concern is that we appear to be lulled into a stupor over this nifty "clean death from 2000 ft" deal. So much so -- that this nation is using this capability to routinely commit what would have been called acts of war just 10 years ago. Doing things that make the OLD CIA days look like college pranks. Whatever happened to the concept of keeping the CIA on a short leash? Who do think is doing the targeting on the ground in Yemen for these drone attacks? Where is the healthy skepticism about Govt Covert Ops? I miss the good old spy days.. But THIS looks like Kindergarten recess with a substitute teacher..

Having Ad Hoc rules for engagements and 'death lists' reviewed ONLY at the top levels of our POLITICAL regime and NOT thru Congress or the Judicial Branch is truly troubling to me. Excuse me -- based on unknown consent from the DOJ -- is truly troubling to me. Did they rule on the legality of having the CIA target an American? Or were there substantial charges against Awlaki in the memo? We will never know.. Because there is no Constitutionally legitimized process in play here.

Why doesn't the DOJ write US (you and me) an UNCLASSIFIED memo to assure US that there was adequate proof and deliberation? Or are you OK with the Executive running an endless Secret War?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Well, of course there wasn't. They indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced without challenge. The execution was done by others.

Pretty scary power in a single branch.

There were enough competent authoritative individuals in the executive branch to challenge each other and ultimately the evidence stood up to all legal scrutiny across the administration...



SO without your ideal judicial branch review, a review thus far rejected by the supreme court as primary authority over executive branch review in such matters, without such you imagine we have transformed into blood thirsty terrorists, do you...?

Did it. or did they simply search out all the Bush lawyers that justified it in the first place and ask them the same question? My experience is that if you ask 3 lawyers for a legal opinion you will end up with 4 answers. Why should I believe that a secret process that ended up with unanimous agreement and no dissent actually happened? If it is true why not release the memo and the evidence?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There were enough competent authoritative individuals in the executive branch to challenge each other and ultimately the evidence stood up to all legal scrutiny across the administration...

Hence the Framers’ intent to create a Republic subject only to the rule of law, not a dictatorship.

And what evidence do you have that WH lawyers advising the president were ‘competent enough’ to determine what is or is not legal? What process was used to detriment the legality of the action? Is the process transparent? Is there a record of the proceeding? If there’s no record of the process how do you know what was reviewed was subject to appropriate ‘legal scrutiny’? Did a neutral, impartial decision-maker objectively weight the evidence in the context of the law?

Too many questions, no answers – that was not the intent of the Framers, that is contrary to the Constitution, this is in violation of the rule of law.

 

[bripat9643]

Anwar al-Aulaqi wasn't a U.S. citizen.

End of story.

If you believe he wasn't a U.S. citizen, then the government did not violate his right of due process.

Ah, you spelled it differently. I thought you were referring to someone else.

You proved exactly nothing.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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?

Sure - unless they are part of a country or terrorist organization that has declared war on us AND they are in an environment that would make capture untenable. Then nope.

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.

If he were here and if he hadn't openly declared war on us as part of AQ, I would be as concerned for his rights as anyone's.

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.

Um yeah. It took us less than 50 weeks to begin making exceptions to that rule and 50 years to begin making major, regularly used exceptions.

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.

That's great but there is even debate on his dual-citizenship etc... But we executed traitors without trials as early as the Revolutionary War! After that followed all kinds of other exceptions: indians, Germans & Japanese during WWI & II and under other sets of extraordinary circumstances. Criminals who were never tried were "Wanted Dead or Alive" in the 1800's and so on.
As far as Awlaki, there is no doubt in my mind that if a Conservative had done this, the LibDems would be going through the roof about Civil Liberties and the Conservs sitting in disbelief that anyone would be whining about successfully taking out a member of Al Qaeda. But because it happened under Obama, Libs are now hawks and Conservatives have suddenly become card-carrying members of the ACLU for this great American.... al-Awlaki.
Please. The smell of hypocrisy from both sides is overwhelming nowadays.

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

Oh, so we need to start invading a bunch of countries before we can start hitting AQ targets there?

I guess we need to go into Pakistan now.

I am glad you aren't in charge of shit in this world. You'd get a lot of people killed for stupidity.