Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

however he was deemed an enemy combatant.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

1. The scumbag was not captured, nor did he voluntarily return to the United States, and so he was never in control of either military or law enforcement authorities.

2. The fact that the scumbag is dead.



>>>>

 

[thetor]

What about all the Terror and murder the US has perpetrated on the INNOCENT??????????

If they've become a foreign militant and we're fighting a war on terror and the foreign militants said person joined was against us in the war on terror, than obviously yes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

So an arrest warrant is the same as a contract for a hit?

Maybe we should just hunt down all those people with arrest warrants for traffic tickets too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

1. The scumbag was not captured, nor did he voluntarily return to the United States, and so he was never in control of either military or law enforcement authorities.

2. The fact that the scumbag is dead.



>>>>

Damn dude you don't leave your citizenship when you leave the states it goes with you and all the rights you are entitled too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

So an arrest warrant is the same as a contract for a hit?

Maybe we should just hunt down all those people with arrest warrants for traffic tickets too.

I like my opinion better L.A. gangbanggers are terrorist and following the hit list of obama all terrorist should be killed on sight. Welcome to the police state usa

 

[Dune]

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.

Ravi, thanks for proving you have nothing.
If you had ANYTHING AT ALL, you could have a typed a few sentences.

 

[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

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.

It is a legitimate concern to protect due process for American citizens but people should really go back and reread Liabilities' excellent legal explanations of the differences here.

Some people will never be convinced probably because they are just predisposed to hating on the USA... As I said, some would sooner believe the US would systematically kill Americans than a Jihadist who SAID he intended to kill Americans...

 

[Dune]

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.



>>>>

Those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither.

 

[Valerie]

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.



>>>>

Those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither.

Wanna cracker...?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

Those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither.

Those who lead organizations that declare war on the United States and slaughter thousands of innocent civilian deserve neither also.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

It is a legitimate concern to protect due process for American citizens but people should really go back and reread Liabilities' excellent legal explanations of the differences here.

Some people will never be convinced probably because they are just predisposed to hating on the USA... As I said, some would sooner believe the US would systematically kill Americans than a Jihadist who SAID he intended to kill Americans...

Actually I think **part** of the problem is that the TV generation has no real concept of what tactical operations are like in the real world. They've grown up with TV where everything is neatly wrapped up in 44-minutes, the good guys always hit what they shoot at, and the bad guys can spray thousands or rounds in the air and they always miss the good guys.


>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

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.



>>>>

Those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither.

Wanna cracker...?

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

 

[Valerie]

Those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither.

Wanna cracker...?

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game. It is a WAR over there. American due process is suspended in a war zone. I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb. So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

 

[Valerie]

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.

however he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

however he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

A Maverick Missile does tend to solve a lot of legal conundrums.




>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

however he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

you need to reread those case. The justices at a 6 -3 that an American citizen still has constitutional; rights and due process even though they were deemed enemy combatants.
OH and Hamdi's detention wasn't in the united states it was at gitmo. Thanks for playing.

 

[Valerie]

however he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

you need to reread those case. The justices at a 6 -3 that an American citizen still has constitutional; rights and due process even though they were deemed enemy combatants.

Yawn, IF Awlaki had ever actually been detained, he would have retained those same rights...

 

[Valerie]

however he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Yes, and the case you cite, and others that have been cited elsewhere, all have to do with the legal process ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN DETAINED.

A Maverick Missile does tend to solve a lot of legal conundrums.




>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

Wanna cracker...?

Ben Franklin was a very wise and perceptive man.

Indeed he was... And....................???

If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game. It is a WAR over there. American due process is suspended in a war zone. I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb. So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.

Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
If those gangbangers are doing the cop killing in the theater of battle, then of course they're fair game. It is a WAR over there. American due process is suspended in a war zone. I never thought we'd be on the opposite sides of a discussion Bigreb. So needless to say, I'm surprised you're siding with Code Pink on this one.



Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz
Unlike you, I get the fact that if you admit you assisted in trying to kill innocent Americans or have been shown to be a part of the plot, you effectively are a traitor and deserve death on sight. You're not going to change my mind on this one.

Is Los Angeles a war zone as declared by congress or an area inside the theater of War on Terror in which the activities of terrorists are taking place?

Has a state of emergency been declared in LA by the governor or mayor to allow the use of military force inside the borders of the US?

Are the Crips, Bloods, MS-13 and other gangs identified as terrorist organizations by the government?

What are the legal requirements for the US Military for operating inside the US?

Have gangbangers declared themselves enemies of the United States and members of a foreign power or movement designed to destroy the nation?

<><><>

You are trying to equivocate things that are not alike. If you have a problem with it, then maybe you should start asking WHY groups like this, that you seem to think are equal to terrorists are not being treated the same as terrorists and traitors?