Presidential power to have "enemies of the State" eliminated

[gallantwarrior]

Eric Holder, one of Obama's right-hand henchmen, has openly addressed the legality, the Constitutionality, of having killed al Awlaki, an American citizen.

"The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be "deprived of life" without due process of law. But that due process, Holder said, doesn't necessarily come from a court.
"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," the attorney general said."

While I fully agree that some serious charges could have been made against al Awalaki due to his anti-American, terrorist activities, I do not believe that due process was executed. Now Holder, as an extension of the Obama administration, is suing to grant the president the power to secretly declare any American citizen an enemy of the state and order their extrajudicial killing. Does conveying this type of power to any one person scare any of you?

U.S. News - Holder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups

Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

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.

However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We need to have the ability to respond to terrorism no matter where or who it is from. BUT never actually charging someone with a crime is going abit far. We claim we do not do assassinations but that is exactly what was done.

He should have been charged with a crime.

 

[gallantwarrior]

We need to have the ability to respond to terrorism no matter where or who it is from. BUT never actually charging someone with a crime is going abit far. We claim we do not do assassinations but that is exactly what was done.

He should have been charged with a crime.

Charged and tried in absentia, if that's what would address due process in a case like this. As it stands, Obama and his cronies decided unilaterally that the man was guilty and ordered his assassination.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who knew that due process meant that the President gets to be judge, jury, and executioner? Of course we should feel good about this considering it will only be used against "imminent threats" to the U.S., right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," the attorney general said.

True, they’re not one in the same, but the latter must be allowed to ensure the former was provided and adhered to correctly.

The ACLU is suing the Obama administration, seeking to have documents regarding the targeted killing program made public.

And what those documents are would be the legal underpinnings and justification for the Administration’s policy concerning extra-judicial killings. There must first be an open review and discussion of the existing case law, a review no administration – democratic or republican – is willing to allow.

Holder said it makes no legal difference that a U.S. citizen is targeted away from a traditional battlefield. "We are at war with a stateless enemy," he said.

Case in point: the above was taken directly from the GWB playbook.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," the attorney general said.

True, they’re not one in the same, but the latter must be allowed to ensure the former was provided and adhered to correctly.

The ACLU is suing the Obama administration, seeking to have documents regarding the targeted killing program made public.

And what those documents are would be the legal underpinnings and justification for the Administration’s policy concerning extra-judicial killings. There must first be an open review and discussion of the existing case law, a review no administration – democratic or republican – is willing to allow.

Holder said it makes no legal difference that a U.S. citizen is targeted away from a traditional battlefield. "We are at war with a stateless enemy," he said.

Case in point: the above was taken directly from the GWB playbook.

2 Americans were killed under Bush, one that happened to be in a vehicle with the actual target and a second that had actually been charged and stated he would plead guilty before fleeing. I have no evidence either were the primary target.

Obama ordered a hit on 2 Americans, neither of whom were ever charged with ANY crime. The 5th Amendment does not say one can ignore it when inconvenient.

At the very least charges should be leveled at the person with the intent to bring them to justice. If unable to apprehend them because of being in a foreign land and conducting operations against the US THEN an attack may be warranted. But to simply decide on his own as President is Unconstitutional and illegal.

And I did not miss the fact you just tried to justify the assassinations with a " But BOOOSH did it"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Glenn Greenwald has the best analysis of Holder's speech I've read yet.

Attorney General Holder defends execution without charges - Salon.com