Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

[Si modo]

OK, change Germany in WWII with North Korea during the Korean War.

You keep bringing up combat operations. Sure, take him out.

Again, what combat was this guy and the two other Americans engaged in? What combat ops were we engaged in there?

And, why is the Obama admin not releasing dick about this?

I do not trust, nor will I ever trust (as out Founding Fathers already knew) a single branch taking such powers upon themselves alone to kill US Citizens. So they say he was a bad guy. OK. Maybe he was. But, we have another branch to figure that part out.

This is an example of absolute power, something I never thought I would see from the USA in my lifetime.

So you believe operations against jihadi terrorists are not combat operations?
What combat was Osama bin Laden involved in when he was killed (rightly so)?

OBL is not nor was he ever a US Citizen.

We don't KNOW what operations these three citizens were engaged in. All we have is Obama's word that they were bad guys.

As I said, maybe they were. I DON'T KNOW. And, I sure as hell don't find Obama to be a trustworthy and upright fellow.

I find absolute power beyond distasteful and so did our Founders.

 

[Si modo]

The Constitution doesn't matter to Obama nor does it matter to his Bots.

That's really funny

I don't think so at all. Nor do I think violation of the Constitution is funny. And, I never think suspension of habeus corpus is funny.

 

[Indofred]

The sixth amendment deals with criminal prosecution, not with overseas warfare.

What war with Pakistan is that?
I missed the declaration. Perhaps you could link to it.

It applies to American citizens.

So non Americans are fair game to kill without trial. That's OK then.

So the jihadi war against the US isn't really happening?

That's the case.
The war was started by the US so it's a US war against various other nations/groups.
Perhaps you could name a war, since WWII, where the US went to war because of a first strike against it by a foreign power.
Perhaps Vietnam or Korea.
I think you'll have trouble because there hasn't been one.

I know you'll cite the twin towers but no country did that, a single Saudi operator did, but the US attacked Afghanistan instead. Probably because George Bush senior had just had dinner with Osama's brother.

 

[Artevelde]

You keep bringing up combat operations. Sure, take him out.

Again, what combat was this guy and the two other Americans engaged in? What combat ops were we engaged in there?

And, why is the Obama admin not releasing dick about this?

I do not trust, nor will I ever trust (as out Founding Fathers already knew) a single branch taking such powers upon themselves alone to kill US Citizens. So they say he was a bad guy. OK. Maybe he was. But, we have another branch to figure that part out.

This is an example of absolute power, something I never thought I would see from the USA in my lifetime.

So you believe operations against jihadi terrorists are not combat operations?
What combat was Osama bin Laden involved in when he was killed (rightly so)?

OBL is not nor was he ever a US Citizen.

We don't KNOW what operations these three citizens were engaged in. All we have is Obama's word that they were bad guys.

As I said, maybe they were. I DON'T KNOW. And, I sure as hell don't find Obama to be a trustworthy and upright fellow.

I find absolute power beyond distasteful and so did our Founders.

I disagree that this is a use of absolute power. Unless you feel that a US citizen engaging in terrorist activities against the US should somehow be immune from attack by US forces until he is actually shooting at them.

 

[Artevelde]

The sixth amendment deals with criminal prosecution, not with overseas warfare.

What war with Pakistan is that?
I missed the declaration. Perhaps you could link to it.

It applies to American citizens.

So non Americans are fair game to kill without trial. That's OK then.

So the jihadi war against the US isn't really happening?

That's the case.
The war was started by the US so it's a US war against various other nations/groups.
Perhaps you could name a war, since WWII, where the US went to war because of a first strike against it by a foreign power.
Perhaps Vietnam or Korea.
I think you'll have trouble because there hasn't been one.

I know you'll cite the twin towers but no country did that, a single Saudi operator did, but the US attacked Afghanistan instead. Probably because George Bush senior had just had dinner with Osama's brother.

You're just another stupid nutcase.

 

[DGS49]

To some extent this is a rehash of the issues that were raised about indefinite detentions (without trials) of captured terrorists at GITMO.

Clearly,

(a) The United States is not required to give enemy combatants the same rights that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (e.g., rights under the 6th Amendment) would get in U.S. criminal trials;

(b) Prisoners of War are typically and legally detained until the cessation of hostilities. They are not tried for their "offenses," because they are detained because of what they ARE, not what they HAVE DONE. A POW may never have fired a shot at an American, but can still be detained.

(c) The question of whether these captured terrorists are enemy combatants is one on which Democrats and Republicans generally disagree. It depends on whether we are "at war" with them, or their country or organization. The Dems tend to want to treat them as criminals, deserving of a trial, sentencing, and so forth. The Reps want to treat them as POW's, subject to interrogation and to be held until the cessation of hostilities (or whenever we are OK with releasing them). It is noteworthy that POTUS, when running for office, "promised" to close GITMO and bring its detainees to trial. So much for that promise, eh?

Tying these points to this thread, if we are at war with these self-proclaimed terrorists, then they can be targeted and killed with impunity. If we are not at war with "them" (whoever that is), then the drone strikes could be considered an act of war by the nation in whose territory they occur. Not much danger of that right now, but it could happen.

Not to be unduly ludicrous, but I can't see John Wayne killing our enemies in this pusilllanimous manner. Real Americans don't do things this way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

How does that sit with US drone attacks that invade a sovereign country's airspace to attack "Suspected militants"?
No trial, no evidence produced and no sign of a witness anywhere; just summery execution.

Would you guys like to see summery execution without trial in New York?

Due process rights do not apply to non-citizens outside of the United States, its territories, or areas so designated by the courts. See: Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

The extra-judicial killing of American citizens is another matter, however. A consistent application of inalienable rights doctrine would require due process regardless an American citizen’s jurisdiction.

The constitutionality of the practice is unknown, unfortunately, as it has never been subject to judicial review.

Consequently to state that Obama ‘hates’ the Constitution or is ‘violating’ the Constitution is ignorant partisan idiocy.

 

[Moonglow]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

How does that sit with US drone attacks that invade a sovereign country's airspace to attack "Suspected militants"?
No trial, no evidence produced and no sign of a witness anywhere; just summery execution.

Would you guys like to see summery execution without trial in New York?

The Shadow War does not apply to the Sixth Amendment or to militia or anyone committng acts of war against the US or it's allies.
Nor does any part of the Constitution deal with how war is waged. The people that live there are not US citizens.

 

[del]

it's pretty funny watching people justify things obama does that would have had them calling bush a hitlerite-like gitmo, signing statements, afghan war and killing us citizens without an indictment, much less a trial by their peers.

carry on

 

[oldernwiser]

What combat operations? He wasn't shooting at us. It was an extrajudicial trial and execution.

So the jihadi war against the US isn't really happening? The person involved was just sipping a pina colada on the beach?

I don't know what he was sipping at the time. But I do know he was not engaged in combat. I have little doubt he was a piece of shit assisting terrorism against the USA. However, the ONLY thing we had on him was he was using words. First Amendment.

And, he had a right to jurisprudence and habeus corpus.

It's the Constitution.

Let's see... was the drone aimed directly at this individual? Was he the target or simply collateral damage?

Jurisprudence and habeus corpus would only apply in the case this person was captured. The fact that a drone was served instead of a warrant says there was severe likelihood of our own soldier's death trying to serve a warrant.

The Constitution allows for the application of deadly force.

 

[Indofred]

You're just another stupid nutcase.

Good to know you've worked a theory out.
All good theories require evidence so you'd be well advised to find some or face an accusation of being capable of insults but not argument.

I assume from your tone. you believe Iraq had WMDs or invaded Hawaii or something.
Oh, hang on, the US invaded and occupied Hawaii so it can't have been Iraq.

 

[Indofred]

So you believe operations against jihadi terrorists are not combat operations?
What combat was Osama bin Laden involved in when he was killed (rightly so)?

Hang on. Who are the 'terrorists' attacking?
When you consider their attacks are against an invading and occupying army, you have to ask if they're terrorists or freedom fighters.

If terrorists, what does that make the American army of 1812?

 

[Artevelde]

So the jihadi war against the US isn't really happening? The person involved was just sipping a pina colada on the beach?

I don't know what he was sipping at the time. But I do know he was not engaged in combat. I have little doubt he was a piece of shit assisting terrorism against the USA. However, the ONLY thing we had on him was he was using words. First Amendment.

And, he had a right to jurisprudence and habeus corpus.

It's the Constitution.

Let's see... was the drone aimed directly at this individual? Was he the target or simply collateral damage?

Jurisprudence and habeus corpus would only apply in the case this person was captured. The fact that a drone was served instead of a warrant says there was severe likelihood of our own soldier's death trying to serve a warrant.

The Constitution allows for the application of deadly force.

I agree with you that it would be a totally different matter if the US citizen in question was captured. But that's not the issue here.

 

[oldernwiser]

I don't know what he was sipping at the time. But I do know he was not engaged in combat. I have little doubt he was a piece of shit assisting terrorism against the USA. However, the ONLY thing we had on him was he was using words. First Amendment.

And, he had a right to jurisprudence and habeus corpus.

It's the Constitution.

Let's see... was the drone aimed directly at this individual? Was he the target or simply collateral damage?

Jurisprudence and habeus corpus would only apply in the case this person was captured. The fact that a drone was served instead of a warrant says there was severe likelihood of our own soldier's death trying to serve a warrant.

The Constitution allows for the application of deadly force.

I agree with you that it would be a totally different matter if the US citizen in question was captured. But that's not the issue here.

In which case, habeus corpus was delivered in the form of an HE explosion.

Case closed.