Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[bigrebnc1775]

Having raised these poignant questions, having teased the litigants and the rest of us, Judge Bates then stoically failed to answer them. He kicked the case out on jurisdictional grounds -- the matter was a non-justiciable "political question" the courts had no business answering, he said -- much in the same way that lower federal court judges in 2002 and 2003 kicked around the Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi cases before the Supreme Court intervened.


Judge Bates' ruling was a step backwards from the feisty and fair judicial review in terror law cases that began in 2004. He focused more on what al-Awlaki hadn't done than on what the feds had done and were clearly planning to do.

He ruled that al-Awlaki (or his family) couldn't ask the federal courts for protection from a deadly drone strike unless he surrendered himself to authorities first. Judge Bates wrote:


The Court's conclusion that Anwar Al-Aulaqi can access the U.S. judicial system by presenting himself in a peaceful manner implies no judgment as to Anwar Al-Aulaqi's status as a potential terrorist. All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade U.S. law enforcement authorities. Anwar Al-Aulaqi is thus faced with the same choice presented to all U.S. citizens.


Where Is the Judicial Branch on Targeted Killings? - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic

Attorney Jim Gronquist calls the targeted airstrike a violation of both national and international law.

He says, “We have become what the terrorists were."

The former ACLU attorney says regardless of affiliation or deed Awlaki & Khan were entitled to due process, “We're not doing anything differently than killing people off without giving them fair trial."
Charlotte Lawyer Calls US Airstrike in Yemen Illegal | Charlotte News | Weather | Carolina Panthers | Bobcats | FOX Charlotte | Local News

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_7W0U_BuVU]Ron Paul to Obama: Don't Assassinate American Citizens! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRexSyuQ7w]Ron Paul Attacks Institutionalized Assassination of US Citizens - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xf56nWU0E]Glenn Beck Judge Napolitano on Anwar Al Awlaki assassination and Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not my view***, it's the view of the United States Congress that authorized military action against terrorists.


*** Not that I disagree with killing terrorists hiding in a country where they cannot be arrested and extradited to the United States. If they are an American citizen and want due process I'm more then happy to give it to them, all you have to do turn yourself in at any United States Embassy. Something this enemy combatant had years of time to do.



>>>>

ONE MORE TIME
No president has the authority to supersede the Constitution by depriving an American citizen due process, like obama has done is a violation of constitution. No president has the authority to take out an American citizen. I really don't care what Congress did or does they have went over their constitutional authority.

ONE MORE TIME.

The Congress has the authority under Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution to authorize the use of the military to suppress insurrection and to deal with enemy combatants. Doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign nationals. Insurrection by the way is the act of revolting against civil authority or an established government (which said scum bag has done in assisting with terrorist acts against the United States and in his own video tape released to the public).

During a time of war the Congress issues an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (which they did) authorizing the President to use "all necessary force" (which they did). Doesn't matter if the Operational Leader of an enemy organization is a Citizen or not, if you make War on the United States the United States will make war on you and you will loose.

Due Process applies to criminal actions handled under law enforcement, acts of war are covered under Constitutionally authorized War Powers Congress grants the President as Commander-in-Chief during time of war.


>>>>

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

[WorldWatcher]

ONE MORE TIME
No president has the authority to supersede the Constitution by depriving an American citizen due process, like obama has done is a violation of constitution. No president has the authority to take out an American citizen. I really don't care what Congress did or does they have went over their constitutional authority.

ONE MORE TIME.

The Congress has the authority under Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution to authorize the use of the military to suppress insurrection and to deal with enemy combatants. Doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign nationals. Insurrection by the way is the act of revolting against civil authority or an established government (which said scum bag has done in assisting with terrorist acts against the United States and in his own video tape released to the public).

During a time of war the Congress issues an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (which they did) authorizing the President to use "all necessary force" (which they did). Doesn't matter if the Operational Leader of an enemy organization is a Citizen or not, if you make War on the United States the United States will make war on you and you will loose.

Due Process applies to criminal actions handled under law enforcement, acts of war are covered under Constitutionally authorized War Powers Congress grants the President as Commander-in-Chief during time of war.


>>>>

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

You forgot to bold "criminal case" in that clause, there is no requirement to give Due Process to enemy combatants when conducting a war no matter what their citizenship is.

You can tout the 5th all you like, but it applies to criminal proceedings and conduct of the war by the United States Military is not a law enforcement activity.



>>>>

 

[Amelia]

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you: do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW? The famous "WRIT of HEY! DON'T SHOOT ME!"

Bologna.

Of course the Constitution is about citizens. Not generic people around the world. Citizens. Just because they didn't use the word "citizen" doesn't mean they were talking about noncitizens. That would be ridiculous.

It's about "We the People of the United States".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ONE MORE TIME.

The Congress has the authority under Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution to authorize the use of the military to suppress insurrection and to deal with enemy combatants. Doesn't matter if they are citizens or foreign nationals. Insurrection by the way is the act of revolting against civil authority or an established government (which said scum bag has done in assisting with terrorist acts against the United States and in his own video tape released to the public).

During a time of war the Congress issues an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (which they did) authorizing the President to use "all necessary force" (which they did). Doesn't matter if the Operational Leader of an enemy organization is a Citizen or not, if you make War on the United States the United States will make war on you and you will loose.

Due Process applies to criminal actions handled under law enforcement, acts of war are covered under Constitutionally authorized War Powers Congress grants the President as Commander-in-Chief during time of war.


>>>>

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

You forgot to bold "criminal case" in that clause, there is no requirement to give Due Process to enemy combatants when conducting a war no matter what their citizenship is.

You can tout the 5th all you like, but it applies to criminal proceedings and conduct of the war by the United States Military is not a law enforcement activity.



>>>>

So none of it was a crime? no terrorist acts are criminal? So the president can with a stroke of a PEN DEEM A PERSON A TERRORIST USING THE WAR POWER ACT. Without any trial. Maybe next wek you will be on obama's terrorist hit list.

 

[whitehall]

I'm for killing terrorists after a warrant for their arrest has been issued and ample time for them to turn themselves in has passed.

You would be for the killing of an American citizen in that circumstance no matter which party held the White House?




*looking for notebook - I think I might need a record of this one*

Yep.

Killing American Citizens who commit heinous crimes or become treasonous and threaten terrorist attacks against this country is A-OKay..in my book.

Regardless of the ranting about the republican congressional majority, radical democrats are really in charge of American domestic and foreign policy. As long as we have a radical leftie in the white house and a democrat majority in the senate it seems that the liberal establishment is comfortable with the concept that the CIA and the president should be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of US citizens who are deemed to have committed "henious crimes". It might sound like a bad plot for a si-fi movie but it looks like truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Amelia]

Perhaps we need to put sentence diagramming back in schools. People are having way too difficult of a time parsing the fifth amendment.

 

[Big Fitz]

Perhaps we need to put sentence diagramming back in schools. People are having way too difficult of a time parsing the fifth amendment.

that would take too much time away from self esteem building.

"I'm a loser with no skills or future and I suck, but that's okay. I am a good person even though this is true."

It's called the Franken Method.

 

[whitehall]

There are a ton of reasons for killing this guy and they are all reasonable and they are all good. Now it seems popular opinion and the concerns of the CIA and the death warrant signed by the president are sufficient to authorize the execution of a US citizen without a trial. The media is satisfied that justice has been served and that's all it takes.

 

[Liability]

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you: do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW? The famous "WRIT of HEY! DON'T SHOOT ME!"

Bologna.

Of course the Constitution is about citizens. Not generic people around the world. Citizens. Just because they didn't use the word "citizen" doesn't mean they were talking about noncitizens. That would be ridiculous.

It's about "We the People of the United States".

You are wrong. Lots of people are wrong on that topic. An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury. Yet an alien here is not a citizen.

Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.

So your formulation starts off on the wrong track. You can call it bologna or Oscar Mayer, but that just makes you all the more wrong.

NOW then, once we understand that SOME rights belong to JUST citizens (e.g., voting) but SOME rights belong to "persons" (i.e., not just to citizens), then the next thing some of YOU must start to come to grips with is that NOT ALL PHRASES used within the Constitution apply to all people at all times.

For example, by its very terms, the FIFTH Amendment applies to considerations of due process within the context of criminal law, for the most part. You can try to deny that obvious fact, but you cannot succeed since -- when you deny it -- you start off with a false premise.

I'm sorry you have YET to learn the truth of this matter. But the Constitution in MANY regards applies to all people who happen to be here (our right to a jury trial doesn't extend to citizens, either, outside of OUR sovereign reach). And it applies only to the extent it was intended to apply. So, for example, if you are charged with a crime here, regardless of whether you are a citizen or an alien, you ARE equally ENTITLED to a fair trial, a jury, in some cases to a Grand Jury, to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, to have one appointed to you. The procedural rules are also CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed to be the same for you as for anybody else in a similar bind, regardless of your citizenship status.

But it ONLY applies where it was intended to apply. So if you are an enemy of our Republic in time of War, you have no right to "due process."

The Constitution was not drafted by simpletons. They (unlike you in this regard) knew what they were doing. And the claim that the Constitutional right to due process applies to enemy combatants over in Yemen confuses a Constitutional right applicable to a criminal proceeding with some unimaginable "right" of overarching planetary scope in non criminal matters.

You are not merely wrong; you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Amelia]

Dune, on the chance that maybe you are open to the prospect of opening your mind let us start with what the Fifth Amendment actually SAYS:



As you MIGHT be able to discern from the focus of the words of the Amendment itself, the concern is with the right of PEOPLE (not just citizens, by the way) relative to CRIME and LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

To help frame the discussion just a LITTLE bit more, let me ask you: do you imagine that enemy soldiers on a foreign battlefield might have some hitherto unknown "right" to seek a prior ruling from an American Court of LAW? The famous "WRIT of HEY! DON'T SHOOT ME!"

Bologna.

Of course the Constitution is about citizens. Not generic people around the world. Citizens. Just because they didn't use the word "citizen" doesn't mean they were talking about noncitizens. That would be ridiculous.

It's about "We the People of the United States".

You are wrong. Lots of people are wrong on that topic. An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury. Yet an alien here is not a citizen.

Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.

So your formulation starts off on the wrong track. You can call it bologna or Oscar Mayer, but that just makes you all the more wrong.

NOW then, once we understand that SOME rights belong to JUST citizens (e.g., voting) but SOME rights belong to "persons" (i.e., not just to citizens), then the next thing some of YOU must start to come to grips with is that NOT ALL PHRASES used within the Constitution apply to all people at all times.

For example, by its very terms, the FIFTH Amendment applies to considerations of due process within the context of criminal law, for the most part. You can try to deny that obvious fact, but you cannot succeed since -- when you deny it -- you start off with a false premise.

I'm sorry you have YET to learn the truth of this matter. But the Constitution in MANY regards applies to all people who happen to be here (our right to a jury trial doesn't extend to citizens, either, outside of OUR sovereign reach). And it applies only to the extent it was intended to apply. So, for example, if you are charged with a crime here, regardless of whether you are a citizen or an alien, you ARE equally ENTITLED to a fair trial, a jury, in some cases to a Grand Jury, to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, to have one appointed to you. The procedural rules are also CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed to be the same for you as for anybody else in a similar bind, regardless of your citizenship status.

But it ONLY applies where it was intended to apply. So if you are an enemy of our Republic in time of War, you have no right to "due process."

The Constitution was not drafted by simpletons. They (unlike you in this regard) knew what they were doing. And the claim that the Constitutional right to due process applies to enemy combatants over in Yemen confuses a Constitutional right applicable to a criminal proceeding with some unimaginable "right" of overarching planetary scope in non criminal matters.

You are not merely wrong; you couldn't be more wrong.

Whether it applies to noncitizens is open to interpretation. I grant that the courts have been very generous in making the call to apply it to noncitizens.

But it is not - or should not be - open to interpretation as to whether the constitution applies to citizens.

 

[Liability]

Bologna.

Of course the Constitution is about citizens. Not generic people around the world. Citizens. Just because they didn't use the word "citizen" doesn't mean they were talking about noncitizens. That would be ridiculous.

It's about "We the People of the United States".

You are wrong. Lots of people are wrong on that topic. An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury. Yet an alien here is not a citizen.

Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.

So your formulation starts off on the wrong track. You can call it bologna or Oscar Mayer, but that just makes you all the more wrong.

NOW then, once we understand that SOME rights belong to JUST citizens (e.g., voting) but SOME rights belong to "persons" (i.e., not just to citizens), then the next thing some of YOU must start to come to grips with is that NOT ALL PHRASES used within the Constitution apply to all people at all times.

For example, by its very terms, the FIFTH Amendment applies to considerations of due process within the context of criminal law, for the most part. You can try to deny that obvious fact, but you cannot succeed since -- when you deny it -- you start off with a false premise.

I'm sorry you have YET to learn the truth of this matter. But the Constitution in MANY regards applies to all people who happen to be here (our right to a jury trial doesn't extend to citizens, either, outside of OUR sovereign reach). And it applies only to the extent it was intended to apply. So, for example, if you are charged with a crime here, regardless of whether you are a citizen or an alien, you ARE equally ENTITLED to a fair trial, a jury, in some cases to a Grand Jury, to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, to have one appointed to you. The procedural rules are also CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed to be the same for you as for anybody else in a similar bind, regardless of your citizenship status.

But it ONLY applies where it was intended to apply. So if you are an enemy of our Republic in time of War, you have no right to "due process."

The Constitution was not drafted by simpletons. They (unlike you in this regard) knew what they were doing. And the claim that the Constitutional right to due process applies to enemy combatants over in Yemen confuses a Constitutional right applicable to a criminal proceeding with some unimaginable "right" of overarching planetary scope in non criminal matters.

You are not merely wrong; you couldn't be more wrong.

Whether it applies to noncitizens is open to interpretation. I grant that the courts have been very generous in making the call to apply it to noncitizens.

But it is not - or should not be - open to interpretation as to whether the constitution applies to citizens.

It is far from a useful insight to declare that "the Constitution applies to citizens." Of course it does. That's never been debated.

What the Constitution does or does not command is what has been debated.

YOU (and several others) have claimed that the Constitution prohibits the military order of the President to kill an enemy combatant if that enemy combatant happens to be (by accident of birth) nominally an U.S. citizen.

But you are wrong. The Constitution provides no such prohibition.

You (and others) repeatedly cite to the Fifth Amendment as "support" for your proposition; but you adamantly REFUSE to recognize that the Fifth Amendment addresses the rights of people in the context of (for the most part) CRIMINAL proceedings.

OF COURSE a citizen is entitled to due process when threatened by the government with loss of life or liberty -- IN THE CONTEXT of a CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. But that is NOT the same thing as saying that an enemy combatant (who happens to be a citizen) is entitled to "due process" in Yemen from being struck down in time of war.

The entire concept of "due process" simply and flatly does NOT PERTAIN to such matters.

 

[Valerie]

Bologna.

Of course the Constitution is about citizens. Not generic people around the world. Citizens. Just because they didn't use the word "citizen" doesn't mean they were talking about noncitizens. That would be ridiculous.

It's about "We the People of the United States".

You are wrong. Lots of people are wrong on that topic. An alien here in America has a right to trial by jury and for a felony, etc., he has a right to be indicted by a Grand Jury. Yet an alien here is not a citizen.

Surely SOME of you must, by now, start to glean that at least SOME of the rights accorded to the People under our Constitution apply to PEOPLE not just to CITIZENS.

So your formulation starts off on the wrong track. You can call it bologna or Oscar Mayer, but that just makes you all the more wrong.

NOW then, once we understand that SOME rights belong to JUST citizens (e.g., voting) but SOME rights belong to "persons" (i.e., not just to citizens), then the next thing some of YOU must start to come to grips with is that NOT ALL PHRASES used within the Constitution apply to all people at all times.

For example, by its very terms, the FIFTH Amendment applies to considerations of due process within the context of criminal law, for the most part. You can try to deny that obvious fact, but you cannot succeed since -- when you deny it -- you start off with a false premise.

I'm sorry you have YET to learn the truth of this matter. But the Constitution in MANY regards applies to all people who happen to be here (our right to a jury trial doesn't extend to citizens, either, outside of OUR sovereign reach). And it applies only to the extent it was intended to apply. So, for example, if you are charged with a crime here, regardless of whether you are a citizen or an alien, you ARE equally ENTITLED to a fair trial, a jury, in some cases to a Grand Jury, to a lawyer, and if you can't afford one, to have one appointed to you. The procedural rules are also CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed to be the same for you as for anybody else in a similar bind, regardless of your citizenship status.

But it ONLY applies where it was intended to apply. So if you are an enemy of our Republic in time of War, you have no right to "due process."

The Constitution was not drafted by simpletons. They (unlike you in this regard) knew what they were doing. And the claim that the Constitutional right to due process applies to enemy combatants over in Yemen confuses a Constitutional right applicable to a criminal proceeding with some unimaginable "right" of overarching planetary scope in non criminal matters.

You are not merely wrong; you couldn't be more wrong.

Whether it applies to noncitizens is open to interpretation. I grant that the courts have been very generous in making the call to apply it to noncitizens.

But it is not - or should not be - open to interpretation as to whether the constitution applies to citizens.

In all this parsing I can't seem to find where the meaning of "due process of law" requires formal federal indictment of unlawful enemy combatants in a time of war who are threatening their countrymen from a remote hiding place across the world.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

You forgot to bold "criminal case" in that clause, there is no requirement to give Due Process to enemy combatants when conducting a war no matter what their citizenship is.

You can tout the 5th all you like, but it applies to criminal proceedings and conduct of the war by the United States Military is not a law enforcement activity.



>>>>

So none of it was a crime? no terrorist acts are criminal? So the president can with a stroke of a PEN DEEM A PERSON A TERRORIST USING THE WAR POWER ACT. Without any trial. Maybe next wek you will be on obama's terrorist hit list.

And maybe this Christmas when you fly out to see relatives you will arrive safely instead of having your plane exploded in mid-air or highjacked and flown into skyscraper.

See I can make silly "what ifs" also.


Your appeal to emotion characterizations are just that, trying to jerk a tear in support of a terrorist scum bag because it's the fun "anti-government" of the day.


The fact remains that Congress authorized the use of force in protecting this country and Obama (as much as I dislike the current President) exercised that Constitutional authorized force through military action in a foreign land.


>>>>

 

[Amelia]

The steadfast claims that Awlaki was not owed due process because his citizenship didn't matter since his acts were in the realm of war not crime might be compelling if Obama and/or his spokespeople had made a credible case for that.

But if Obama actually did have a credible case to make, then he needs to fire Jay Carney fast.

Pathetic answers to Jake Tapper:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo]Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney on President Killing U.S. Citizens. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You forgot to bold "criminal case" in that clause, there is no requirement to give Due Process to enemy combatants when conducting a war no matter what their citizenship is.

You can tout the 5th all you like, but it applies to criminal proceedings and conduct of the war by the United States Military is not a law enforcement activity.



>>>>

So none of it was a crime? no terrorist acts are criminal? So the president can with a stroke of a PEN DEEM A PERSON A TERRORIST USING THE WAR POWER ACT. Without any trial. Maybe next wek you will be on obama's terrorist hit list.

And maybe this Christmas when you fly out to see relatives you will arrive safely instead of having your plane exploded in mid-air or highjacked and flown into skyscraper.

See I can make silly "what ifs" also.


Your appeal to emotion characterizations are just that, trying to jerk a tear in support of a terrorist scum bag because it's the fun "anti-government" of the day.


The fact remains that Congress authorized the use of force in protecting this country and Obama (as much as I dislike the current President) exercised that Constitutional authorized force through military action in a foreign land.


>>>>

You're full of shit and you know it. for the last 10 years the government has called terrorist acts a crime.

Tyranny no matter what it's used for is still tyranny. Why are you so eager for obama to start taking the action of a dictator? Do you have some status with the government? Have you been promised some kind authority in a puppet status?
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD
Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?




Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696
and


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696

 

[Ravi]

If obama wasn't wanting terrorist killed on sight he never would have a hit list or send in drones to do the job. gang members are terrorist they terrorize people. So they do not deserve any rights according to the action of obama

You can't have it both ways, but being you're not American citizen you would never understand what due process is.

Sooo...what you are saying in more words than you needed to use is "Actually, I have nothing".

No, that is what you are saying.

What he is saying is true and that is the whole point of this thread.

If it is O.K. for the president to order the death of an american, without due process in Yemen, than it is O.K. here as well. There is no difference.

There's every difference in the world. And if it ever happened all hell would break loose.

Try to quit being such an idiot.

 

[Ravi]

YOU (and several others) have claimed that the Constitution prohibits the military order of the President to kill an enemy combatant if that enemy combatant happens to be (by accident of birth) nominally an U.S. citizen.

You keep making this rather pointless point. He was a citizen, that is undisputed. It wouldn't matter if he were a direct descendant of George and Martha Washington. He'd still be a legitimate military target given his actions.

Other than that your arguments are spot on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sooo...what you are saying in more words than you needed to use is "Actually, I have nothing".

No, that is what you are saying.

What he is saying is true and that is the whole point of this thread.

If it is O.K. for the president to order the death of an american, without due process in Yemen, than it is O.K. here as well. There is no difference.

There's every difference in the world. And if it ever happened all hell would break loose.

Try to quit being such an idiot.

a terrorist is a terrorist you can't have it both ways. Anyone or group who terrorizes a person or group are terrorist, L.A. gangbangers are terrorist and obama just made it easier to kill these groups on sight using the war on drugs as the cause.