does anyone have a problem with executing Americans without due process ??

[washamericom]

wash is a doofus on this issue is all.

He hates the idea that LEO, local and state and federal, and the military already have the authority to drone bad guys here in the states if necessary.

And, yes, that means any militia that goes rogue.

jake this is your third post on what you call a silly wrong again thread.

bowe bergdahl by laser drone in idaho ?

You keep defending a silly wrong opinion, I will keep outing it.

Was bergdahl calling for holy jihad and cutting off heads? If he were, then, yes, drone him if you can't get to him any other way.

Why does authorized activity to apprehend or kill criminals bother you?

because in this country suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty ? that's just a guess.

as to outing my opinion... you know everyone can see this right ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

even the semi communist huffington post doesn't like it:

U.S. Executes American Citizen Al-Awlaki Without Trial


Even though constitutional law professor Obama appears to have skipped reading about the Fifth Amendment (release the transcripts! Maybe he skipped class that day!), courts in Canada have not.

A Toronto judge was justified in freeing an alleged al Qaeda collaborator given the gravity of human rights abuses committed by the United States in connection with his capture in Pakistan, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled. Judges are not expected to remain passive when countries such as the U.S. violate the rights of alleged terrorists, the court said.

There is nothing in the text or history of the Constitution, nor in its case law, requiring due process be afforded American citizens outside of US jurisdiction; nor has any court ruled on the Constitutionality of not affording US citizens due process when beyond US jurisdiction.

Indeed, when Anwar al-Awlaki's father filed suit against the government seeking to prevent the killing of US citizen terrorists abroad, the complaint was thrown out pursuant to settled and accepted jurisprudence recognizing that such decisions were the sole purview of the Executive, concerning political – not legal – matters addressing foreign policy issues, which were not subject to review by the courts.

If the people oppose the Executive's action in these matters, they may seek redress through the political – not legal – process; in 2012 the people were afforded the opportunity to support or oppose the president's handling of American terrorists overseas during the General Election held that year.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

wash is a doofus on this issue is all.

He hates the idea that LEO, local and state and federal, and the military already have the authority to drone bad guys here in the states if necessary.

And, yes, that means any militia that goes rogue.

jake this is your third post on what you call a silly wrong again thread.

bowe bergdahl by laser drone in idaho ?

You keep defending a silly wrong opinion, I will keep outing it.

Was bergdahl calling for holy jihad and cutting off heads? If he were, then, yes, drone him if you can't get to him any other way.

Why does authorized activity to apprehend or kill criminals bother you?

because in this country suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty ? that's just a guess.

as to outing my opinion... you know everyone can see this right ?

And there is no presumption of innocence, nor requirement of due process, outside of this country.

 

[washamericom]

even the semi communist huffington post doesn't like it:

U.S. Executes American Citizen Al-Awlaki Without Trial


Even though constitutional law professor Obama appears to have skipped reading about the Fifth Amendment (release the transcripts! Maybe he skipped class that day!), courts in Canada have not.

A Toronto judge was justified in freeing an alleged al Qaeda collaborator given the gravity of human rights abuses committed by the United States in connection with his capture in Pakistan, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled. Judges are not expected to remain passive when countries such as the U.S. violate the rights of alleged terrorists, the court said.

There is nothing in the text or history of the Constitution, nor in its case law, requiring due process be afforded American citizens outside of US jurisdiction; nor has any court ruled on the Constitutionality of not affording US citizens due process when beyond US jurisdiction.

Indeed, when Anwar al-Awlaki's father filed suit against the government seeking to prevent the killing of US citizen terrorists abroad, the complaint was thrown out pursuant to settled and accepted jurisprudence recognizing that such decisions were the sole purview of the Executive, concerning political – not legal – matters addressing foreign policy issues, which were not subject to review by the courts.

If the people oppose the Executive's action in these matters, they may seek redress through the political – not legal – process; in 2012 the people were afforded the opportunity to support or oppose the president's handling of American terrorists overseas during the General Election held that year.

so due process ends at the border, but only for American citizens ?

what kind of process did holder want for the terrorists ? was awlaki mirandized before being whacked ?

The Trial - The New Yorker

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald

 

[ClosedCaption]

A false OP yet again.

Define the term "execution" and consider whether the target is actively aiding and abetting the enemy.

Do other opportunities exist to capture the target?

Review the President's war powers.

What a silly OP.

Part of the disagreement is whether to treat such people as
* enemy combatants
* criminal attackers who are still under criminal laws of due process
etc.

Labels

 

[JakeStarkey]

wash is a doofus on this issue is all.

He hates the idea that LEO, local and state and federal, and the military already have the authority to drone bad guys here in the states if necessary.

And, yes, that means any militia that goes rogue.

jake this is your third post on what you call a silly wrong again thread.

bowe bergdahl by laser drone in idaho ?

You keep defending a silly wrong opinion, I will keep outing it.

Was bergdahl calling for holy jihad and cutting off heads? If he were, then, yes, drone him if you can't get to him any other way.

Why does authorized activity to apprehend or kill criminals bother you?

because in this country suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty ? that's just a guess.

as to outing my opinion... you know everyone can see this right ?

Yep. You are saying that people operating outside of the law should not face the force of LEO. Tell the cops that the next time you rob a bank.

The issue here is that some of the rogue elements in the 'militia' are afraid of LEO.

They should be.

 

[washamericom]

wash is a doofus on this issue is all.

He hates the idea that LEO, local and state and federal, and the military already have the authority to drone bad guys here in the states if necessary.

And, yes, that means any militia that goes rogue.

jake this is your third post on what you call a silly wrong again thread.

bowe bergdahl by laser drone in idaho ?

You keep defending a silly wrong opinion, I will keep outing it.

Was bergdahl calling for holy jihad and cutting off heads? If he were, then, yes, drone him if you can't get to him any other way.

Why does authorized activity to apprehend or kill criminals bother you?

because in this country suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty ? that's just a guess.

as to outing my opinion... you know everyone can see this right ?

And there is no presumption of innocence, nor requirement of due process, outside of this country.

so what's the standard for our government killing Americans abroad ? why enemy combatants in our civilian courts. what law/precedent was holder alluding to when he said: attacks like the strike that killed al-Awlaki fell within "our laws and values."

are laws and values interchangeable now ??


While not referring directly to the government's drone attack on U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year, Holder was unflinching in providing publicly for the first time the Justice Department's legal justification for using lethal force, saying attacks like the strike that killed al-Awlaki fell within "our laws and values."

Holder: Not 'assassination' to target Americans in terror hunt

 

[JakeStarkey]

When suspects refuse to surrender, cowboy, guess what happens next?

Hint: follow the law.

 

[bripat9643]

frankly i'm really surprised this hasn't become a campaign issue. (note: i just corrected this, i meant to say i'm surprised it's not a campaign issue (it isn't), sorry folks)

eric holder , you remember, wanted to try the guitmo detainees in New York city, it was as bad an idea as buzzing manhattan with airforce one, Trump probably won't do that, because of his New York values.


Can the president kill you? The short answer is: Yes, but not legally. Yet, President Obama has established a secret process that involves officials from the Departments of Justice and Defense, the CIA, and the White House senior staff whereby candidates are proposed for execution and the collective wisdom of the officials then recommends execution to the president, who then accepts or rejects the recommendation.

Can the President Legally Kill Americans?


i have to consider, if obama had been republican would the libs be as ok with it as they are now.

It is happening here.

In 2011, Obama ordered the CIA to murder Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born in New Mexico. When the CIA's drones murdered Awlaki, he was within eyesight in Yemen of about 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents, all of whom collectively could have arrested him. He was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. He was unarmed and sitting at an outdoor cafe with a friend and his teenage son and the son's friend. All four—Americans all—were murdered by the drones dispatched from Virginia.

When word of this got out, the president came under heavy criticism. He responded by claiming he had the lawful authority to kill any dangerous person whose arrest was impractical. He also claimed he had a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Holder that justified the killings. He then dispatched Holder to explain the lawful basis for the killings at a speech at Northwestern Law School. The speech produced even more criticism and, eventually, the revelation of a portion of the legal opinion.


no patriot would argue that awlaki isn't better off dead dead dead, so are we all.

in another twist of constitutionalism is the immediate imprisonment of the video that caused benghazi murders according to the administrative's story, brought in for questioning three days after hillary promised to have him subsequently jailed. (another thread)

i'd like everyone's opinion, but if any legal people would weigh in that would be awesome.

libs tell me why it's ok please.

Short answer: Yes, I have a problem with it. I was quite agitated when Obama killed Awlaki. Obama behaves like a dictator.

 

[bripat9643]

When suspects refuse to surrender, cowboy, guess what happens next?

Hint: follow the law.

The law says the government can't execute you without a trial, moron.

 

[TeaBagger]

frankly i'm really surprised this hasn't become a campaign issue. (note: i just corrected this, i meant to say i'm surprised it's not a campaign issue (it isn't), sorry folks)

eric holder , you remember, wanted to try the guitmo detainees in New York city, it was as bad an idea as buzzing manhattan with airforce one, Trump probably won't do that, because of his New York values.


Can the president kill you? The short answer is: Yes, but not legally. Yet, President Obama has established a secret process that involves officials from the Departments of Justice and Defense, the CIA, and the White House senior staff whereby candidates are proposed for execution and the collective wisdom of the officials then recommends execution to the president, who then accepts or rejects the recommendation.

Can the President Legally Kill Americans?


i have to consider, if obama had been republican would the libs be as ok with it as they are now.

It is happening here.

In 2011, Obama ordered the CIA to murder Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born in New Mexico. When the CIA's drones murdered Awlaki, he was within eyesight in Yemen of about 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents, all of whom collectively could have arrested him. He was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. He was unarmed and sitting at an outdoor cafe with a friend and his teenage son and the son's friend. All four—Americans all—were murdered by the drones dispatched from Virginia.

When word of this got out, the president came under heavy criticism. He responded by claiming he had the lawful authority to kill any dangerous person whose arrest was impractical. He also claimed he had a legal opinion from Attorney General Eric Holder that justified the killings. He then dispatched Holder to explain the lawful basis for the killings at a speech at Northwestern Law School. The speech produced even more criticism and, eventually, the revelation of a portion of the legal opinion.


no patriot would argue that awlaki isn't better off dead dead dead, so are we all.

in another twist of constitutionalism is the immediate imprisonment of the video that caused benghazi murders according to the administrative's story, brought in for questioning three days after hillary promised to have him subsequently jailed. (another thread)

i'd like everyone's opinion, but if any legal people would weigh in that would be awesome.

libs tell me why it's ok please.

 

[washamericom]

wash is a doofus on this issue is all.

He hates the idea that LEO, local and state and federal, and the military already have the authority to drone bad guys here in the states if necessary.

And, yes, that means any militia that goes rogue.

jake this is your third post on what you call a silly wrong again thread.

bowe bergdahl by laser drone in idaho ?

You keep defending a silly wrong opinion, I will keep outing it.

Was bergdahl calling for holy jihad and cutting off heads? If he were, then, yes, drone him if you can't get to him any other way.

Why does authorized activity to apprehend or kill criminals bother you?

because in this country suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty ? that's just a guess.

as to outing my opinion... you know everyone can see this right ?

Yep. You are saying that people operating outside of the law should not face the force of LEO. Tell the cops that the next time you rob a bank.

The issue here is that some of the rogue elements in the 'militia' are afraid of LEO.

They should be.

i assume you mean law enforcement, not low earth orbit. so is it a civilian or a military model they decide from.

 

[TeaBagger]

I see it like this. When the US goes on one of it military adventures to steal Middle Eastern oil and war profiteering the people the US kills do not get due process so if the Muslims say figure out who their real enemy is as start killing off Wall Street banksters I would not have a problem with that since the plutocrats in the US are above the law. But when it comes to true American citizens, even criminal and treasonous Republicans like Christie, Rubio and Bush I would want them to have due process. Cruz may be a diiferent story since he is not a citizen. In his case he needs to be deported back to Canada and the Canadian justice system needs to deal with him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then surrender if you want due process.

Unlawful resistance means LEO or the military can do you in.

 

[bripat9643]

Then surrender if you want due process.

Unlawful resistance means LEO or the military can do you in.

The police aren't allowed to shoot suspects in the back because they are running away. You and Obama are totally clueless about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know what "due process of law" means? Turds like you are always invoking it when your spouting crap about queer marriage.

 

[Si modo]

Death Without Due Process

" Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process."

 

[Andylusion]

What does the Constitution say about US citizens which take up arms against the US?

What does it say in the constitution when the government takes up arms against the people?

The answer to his question, is the same as the answer to yours. Read the constitution. It's in there.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Death Without Due Process

" Our Constitution and international law strictly limit extrajudicial killing, for good reason. In areas of actual armed conflict, killing can be lawful because of battlefield requirements. Outside that context, an extrajudicial killing is legal only as a last resort, and only in response to a truly imminent threat. This makes sense: If a threat is imminent, there is no time for judicial review. In every other context, the Constitution requires the government to prove its case to a court before it kills. After all, allegations aren't evidence - the difference between the two is due process."

That would mean that anyone killed in war should have got a trial. I think the reason why killing someone in war is legal is because their is some kind of legislative act saying so. A declaration of war is a good example. People in power just can't go around and kill, steal, etc, etc without some kind of written rule or law to do so. It kind of prevents them from ignoring the legislative body of the government. That is the body that makes the rules.

 

[Agit8r]

And here I thought this was going to be about rogue cops...

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What does the Constitution say about US citizens which take up arms against the US?

What does it say in the constitution when the government takes up arms against the people?

The answer to his question, is the same as the answer to yours. Read the constitution. It's in there.

Once the government decides to impose a dictatorship of anykind it will just ignore the rules set for it. The constitution has no magical force that prevents this from happenning other than the restraint of those in power . IN many ways we kind of live at their mercy and if it wasn't for the fact that we have a lot of people in power who have no desire to harm us or follow the rules set for them this country will become an banana republic over night.