Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
and


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if over the years Al-Awlaki had (a) returned to the United States or (b) peacefully presented himself at a United States Embassy for detention and arrest he would have been returned to the States and been able to avail himself to judicial due process.

He didn't he decided to stay hidden in a country without the possibility of arrest and extradition and to continue in his leadership position of an organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans.

He had an opportunity for Judicial Due Process and declined it.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
and


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if over the years Al-Awlaki had (a) returned to the United States or (b) peacefully presented himself at a United States Embassy for detention and arrest he would have been returned to the States and been able to avail himself to judicial due process.

He didn't he decided to stay hidden in a country without the possibility of arrest and extradition and to continue in his leadership position of an organization responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans.

He had an opportunity for Judicial Due Process and declined it.



>>>>

Does n ot change a thing he still was protected by the fifth amendment and due process. The superme court disagrees with you and obama.

 

[Xchel]

World Watcher, he did return to the US during the years..and we released him.

 

[Paulie]

I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years. My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.

But I would need to see comprehensive evidence against the person to prove that they have in fact pledged loyalty to another country militarily. I'm not just going to listen to whoever is president send a "memo" about it that the MSM decides to take and run with and cram down our throats every day until we're conditioned to accept it.

Just because someone goes around and plots different attacks in this country, doesn't mean they've given loyalty to another country and taken up arms against the US. This is where the difference would lie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years. My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.

But I would need to see comprehensive evidence against the person to prove that they have in fact pledged loyalty to another country militarily. I'm not just going to listen to whoever is president send a "memo" about it that the MSM decides to take and run with and cram down our throats every day until we're conditioned to accept it.

Just because someone goes around and plots different attacks in this country, doesn't mean they've given loyalty to another country and taken up arms against the US. This is where the difference would lie.

The superme court disagrees with your opinion. Never mindI reread what you wrote I retract my statement because of the last part of your post.

 

[Paulie]

I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years. My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.

But I would need to see comprehensive evidence against the person to prove that they have in fact pledged loyalty to another country militarily. I'm not just going to listen to whoever is president send a "memo" about it that the MSM decides to take and run with and cram down our throats every day until we're conditioned to accept it.

Just because someone goes around and plots different attacks in this country, doesn't mean they've given loyalty to another country and taken up arms against the US. This is where the difference would lie.

The superme court disagrees with your opinion. Never mindI reread what you wrote I retract my statement because of the last part of your post.

I've never been one to accept just anything the supreme court decides, either.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm a hard core Ron Paul supporter, have been for years. My view on this is that if an American citizen takes up arms against the US in loyalty to another country, then that citizen should be stripped of citizenship and considered a foreign combatant.

But I would need to see comprehensive evidence against the person to prove that they have in fact pledged loyalty to another country militarily. I'm not just going to listen to whoever is president send a "memo" about it that the MSM decides to take and run with and cram down our throats every day until we're conditioned to accept it.

Just because someone goes around and plots different attacks in this country, doesn't mean they've given loyalty to another country and taken up arms against the US. This is where the difference would lie.

The superme court disagrees with your opinion. Never mindI reread what you wrote I retract my statement because of the last part of your post.

I've never been one to accept just anything the supreme court decides, either.

I agree if its rulings and opinions are contrary to what the Constitution dictates

 

[Paulie]

The superme court disagrees with your opinion. Never mindI reread what you wrote I retract my statement because of the last part of your post.

I've never been one to accept just anything the supreme court decides, either.

I agree if its rulings and opinions are contrary to what the Constitution dictates

Which has happened too many times.

 

[Dune]

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!"

I would like very much to be wrong on this.
So far, nothing I have read or seen indicates that to be the case,
including your post.
Care to extrapolate?

 

[WorldWatcher]

World Watcher, he did return to the US during the years..and we released him.

My understanding is that he returned to Yemen in 2004 and has not returned to the United States since. Prior to 2004 there is evidence that he acted as a spiritual advisor the the highjackers of 9/11 but there was no evidence to link him directly to the slaughter of American citizens. Starting sometime in 2009 (IIRC) he was promoted and became more involved with the operations and planning for terrorist attacks.


If I'm pulled over for speeding in 2003 and rob a bank in 2009, it's kind of hard to arrest and charge me in 2003 for actions I had not committed yet.


>>>>

 

[Dune]

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.



>>>>

What war are we in?
Do you mean perchance the "War on Terror"?
When did congress declare this a war, and specificaly against whom?
Certainly no county other than Saudi Arabia could be tasked with responsibility for the events of 9-11.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.



>>>>

What war are we in?
Do you mean perchance the "War on Terror"?
When did congress declare this a war, and specificaly against whom?
Certainly no county other than Saudi Arabia could be tasked with responsibility for the events of 9-11.

Wasn't there a declaration of war on drugs made at one time?

 

[Dune]

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.

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

 

[Valerie]

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.

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

 

[Ravi]

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

Try to quit being such an idiot.

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

Thanks, but I've decided that it is pointless to argue with these morons. The difference has been explained to them repeatedly and they just stick their fingers in their ears.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Try to quit being such an idiot.

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

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"?


Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

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.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

What war are we in?
Do you mean perchance the "War on Terror"?
When did congress declare this a war, and specificaly against whom?
Certainly no county other than Saudi Arabia could be tasked with responsibility for the events of 9-11.

Wasn't there a declaration of war on drugs made at one time?

The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8) requires Congress to declare war, as opposed to the political and rhetorical use of the word "war", which they did with the War on Terror on September 18th 2001 authorizing the President to use "all necessary" military force.

You claim to be standing for the constitution but yet keep ignoring that minor Constitutional requirement for long term military action.



>>>>

 

[Valerie]

I have an idea.

Instead of just calling me an idiot, why don't you prove I am an idiot by pointing out a few of the differences?

The difference is the due process of war.




A secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.




With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of officials, "due process in war."

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News

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"?


Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

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.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Went through this already in another thread... He was not a DETAINEE.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What war are we in?
Do you mean perchance the "War on Terror"?
When did congress declare this a war, and specificaly against whom?
Certainly no county other than Saudi Arabia could be tasked with responsibility for the events of 9-11.

Wasn't there a declaration of war on drugs made at one time?

The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8) requires Congress to declare war, as opposed to the political and rhetorical use of the word "war", which they did with the War on Terror on September 18th 2001 authorizing the President to use "all necessary" military force.

You claim to be standing for the constitution but yet keep ignoring that minor Constitutional requirement for long term military action.



>>>>

I have support from the Superme court ruling of 2003 so I am not alone and you have?

 

[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.



>>>>

What war are we in?
Do you mean perchance the "War on Terror"?
When did congress declare this a war, and specificaly against whom?
Certainly no county other than Saudi Arabia could be tasked with responsibility for the events of 9-11.

Congress issued and "Authorization for Use of Military Force" on September 18, 2001 and has chosen not to rescind that authorization in the last 10-years.


You appear to be of the mindset from 70, 100, 200 years ago in that wars are fought between Nation States with defined lines of battle that you can point to on a map and say - "See, here is the battle field." This war is against a non-Nation State organization that declared war against the United States by slaughtering literally thousands of innocent civilians. If you are unwilling, or unable, to adapt to that paradigm - well I'm sorry for that.



>>>>