Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

Amelia

Rookie
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
5,442
Points
0
Location
Packerland!
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?

I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.






Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.

The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.

The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
He was a known traitor, even flaunted it publicly...
:cool:
Most Successful Drone Strike Ever: Were Three Al Qaeda Leaders Killed?
Oct. 1, 2011 - The CIA drone strike that killed Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and chief propagandist Samir Khan may also have taken out the terror organization's top bombmaker.
Reports say that Ibrahim al-Asiri, who is believed to have constructed both the "underwear" bomb used in the attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253 and the bombs in last year's parcel bomb plot, may have been with Awlaki and Khan when missiles from a U.S. drone struck their vehicle in Yemen Friday. However, there has been no confirmation yet of al-Asiri's death from officials. Asiri's fingerprint was found on the bomb allegedly packed into the underwear of Umar Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to bring Northwest 253 on Christmas 2009 over Detroit. The chief target, radical American-born cleric Awlaki, was a major al Qaeda figure who U.S. officials say inspired numerous terror plots against the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issued a joint bulletin warning of the potential for retribution by jihadis. "We assess US and Western-based sympathizers may attempt to exploit [Awlaki's] death due to his popularity as a violent extremist whose speeches and writings are widely available on the Internet. While there is currently no information suggesting retaliatory US-based activities in response to [Awlaki's] death, we are concerned about the possibility that autonomous extremists may react violently. A senior U.S. official told ABC News the U.S. had been tracking the high-profile jihadist for some time and had just been waiting for the perfect moment to strike.

A Yemeni official said al-Awlaki was killed along with an unknown number of al Qaeda confederates. "They were waiting for the right opportunity to get him away from any civilians," a senior administration official told ABC News. President Obama said in an announcement Friday that al-Awlaki's death was a "major blow" to al Qaeda's most operational affiliate, the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and that the successful operation against him was a tribute to the intelligence community and to Yemen.

Born in New Mexico and educated in Colorado, al-Awlaki rose to prominence among extremists as a member AQAP and was a vocal preacher of jihad. His online teachings have been cited as part of the motivation behind several attacks on the U.S. homeland -- from the Fort Hood Massacre to the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the Times Square bomb plot. In 2010, al-Awlaki was declared a "specially designated global terrorist" and became the first U.S. citizen ever to be placed on a White House-approved list for targeted killing. He nearly met his fate shortly after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in early May when a drone strike hit the convoy he was traveling but barely missed him. Earlier this year, America's chief counter-terrorism official Michael Leiter called him and AQAP "probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland."

MORE
See also:

NATO captures senior Haqqani leader in Afghanistan
1 Oct.`11 – NATO captured a senior leader of the al-Qaeda- and Taliban-allied Haqqani network active inside Afghanistan, the alliance said Saturday, describing it as a "significant milestone" in disrupting the terror group's operations.
NATO said Haji Mali Khan was seized Tuesday during an operation in eastern Paktia province's Jani Khel district, which borders Pakistan. It was the most significant capture of a Haqqani leader in Afghanistan, and could dent the group's ability to operate along the porous border with Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. Shortly after NATO's announcement, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied in a message to Afghan media that Khan had been arrested but provided no evidence that he was free. NATO described Khan as an uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani, two of the son's of the network's aging leader Jalaludin Haqqani. However, in a recent report on the Haqqani's by the Institute for the Study of War, Khan appears as a brother in-law to Jalaludin Haqqani.

The Pakistan-based Haqqani network is affiliated with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda and has been described as the top security threat in Afghanistan. The group has been blamed for hundreds of attacks, including a 20-hour siege of the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters last month. Last week, U.S. officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqanis in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan — the most serious allegation yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war. The United States and other members of the international community have in the past blamed Pakistan for allowing the Taliban, and the Haqqanis in particular, to retain safe havens in the country's tribal areas along the Afghan border — particularly in North Waziristan.

"He was one of the highest ranking members of the Haqqani network and a revered elder of the Haqqani clan," NATO said of Khan, adding that he "worked directly under Siraj Haqqani, and managed bases and had oversight of operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Khan also moved forces from Pakistan to Afghanistan to conduct terrorist activity, NATO said. "Jalaluddin Haqqani consistently placed Mali Khan in positions of high importance." NATO also said that Khan had in the past year established a militant camp in Paktia and "coordinated the transfer of money for insurgents operations, and facilitated the acquisition of supplies."

During the operation Tuesday, Khan surrendered without resistance and NATO forces also arrested his deputy and bodyguard, along with a number of other insurgents, the alliance said. "The Haqqani network and its safe havens remain a top priority for Afghan and coalition forces," NATO concluded. The NATO statement said security forces have conducted more than 500 operations so far in 2011 in an effort to disrupt the Haqqani network leadership, resulting in the deaths of 20 operatives and the capture of nearly 300 insurgent leaders and 1,300 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Source
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
He was a known traitor, even flaunted it publicly...
:cool:
Most Successful Drone Strike Ever: Were Three Al Qaeda Leaders Killed?
Oct. 1, 2011 - The CIA drone strike that killed Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and chief propagandist Samir Khan may also have taken out the terror organization's top bombmaker.
Reports say that Ibrahim al-Asiri, who is believed to have constructed both the "underwear" bomb used in the attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253 and the bombs in last year's parcel bomb plot, may have been with Awlaki and Khan when missiles from a U.S. drone struck their vehicle in Yemen Friday. However, there has been no confirmation yet of al-Asiri's death from officials. Asiri's fingerprint was found on the bomb allegedly packed into the underwear of Umar Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to bring Northwest 253 on Christmas 2009 over Detroit. The chief target, radical American-born cleric Awlaki, was a major al Qaeda figure who U.S. officials say inspired numerous terror plots against the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issued a joint bulletin warning of the potential for retribution by jihadis. "We assess US and Western-based sympathizers may attempt to exploit [Awlaki's] death due to his popularity as a violent extremist whose speeches and writings are widely available on the Internet. While there is currently no information suggesting retaliatory US-based activities in response to [Awlaki's] death, we are concerned about the possibility that autonomous extremists may react violently. A senior U.S. official told ABC News the U.S. had been tracking the high-profile jihadist for some time and had just been waiting for the perfect moment to strike.

A Yemeni official said al-Awlaki was killed along with an unknown number of al Qaeda confederates. "They were waiting for the right opportunity to get him away from any civilians," a senior administration official told ABC News. President Obama said in an announcement Friday that al-Awlaki's death was a "major blow" to al Qaeda's most operational affiliate, the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and that the successful operation against him was a tribute to the intelligence community and to Yemen.

Born in New Mexico and educated in Colorado, al-Awlaki rose to prominence among extremists as a member AQAP and was a vocal preacher of jihad. His online teachings have been cited as part of the motivation behind several attacks on the U.S. homeland -- from the Fort Hood Massacre to the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the Times Square bomb plot. In 2010, al-Awlaki was declared a "specially designated global terrorist" and became the first U.S. citizen ever to be placed on a White House-approved list for targeted killing. He nearly met his fate shortly after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in early May when a drone strike hit the convoy he was traveling but barely missed him. Earlier this year, America's chief counter-terrorism official Michael Leiter called him and AQAP "probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland."

MORE
See also:

NATO captures senior Haqqani leader in Afghanistan
1 Oct.`11 – NATO captured a senior leader of the al-Qaeda- and Taliban-allied Haqqani network active inside Afghanistan, the alliance said Saturday, describing it as a "significant milestone" in disrupting the terror group's operations.
NATO said Haji Mali Khan was seized Tuesday during an operation in eastern Paktia province's Jani Khel district, which borders Pakistan. It was the most significant capture of a Haqqani leader in Afghanistan, and could dent the group's ability to operate along the porous border with Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. Shortly after NATO's announcement, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied in a message to Afghan media that Khan had been arrested but provided no evidence that he was free. NATO described Khan as an uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani, two of the son's of the network's aging leader Jalaludin Haqqani. However, in a recent report on the Haqqani's by the Institute for the Study of War, Khan appears as a brother in-law to Jalaludin Haqqani.

The Pakistan-based Haqqani network is affiliated with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda and has been described as the top security threat in Afghanistan. The group has been blamed for hundreds of attacks, including a 20-hour siege of the U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters last month. Last week, U.S. officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqanis in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan — the most serious allegation yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war. The United States and other members of the international community have in the past blamed Pakistan for allowing the Taliban, and the Haqqanis in particular, to retain safe havens in the country's tribal areas along the Afghan border — particularly in North Waziristan.

"He was one of the highest ranking members of the Haqqani network and a revered elder of the Haqqani clan," NATO said of Khan, adding that he "worked directly under Siraj Haqqani, and managed bases and had oversight of operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Khan also moved forces from Pakistan to Afghanistan to conduct terrorist activity, NATO said. "Jalaluddin Haqqani consistently placed Mali Khan in positions of high importance." NATO also said that Khan had in the past year established a militant camp in Paktia and "coordinated the transfer of money for insurgents operations, and facilitated the acquisition of supplies."

During the operation Tuesday, Khan surrendered without resistance and NATO forces also arrested his deputy and bodyguard, along with a number of other insurgents, the alliance said. "The Haqqani network and its safe havens remain a top priority for Afghan and coalition forces," NATO concluded. The NATO statement said security forces have conducted more than 500 operations so far in 2011 in an effort to disrupt the Haqqani network leadership, resulting in the deaths of 20 operatives and the capture of nearly 300 insurgent leaders and 1,300 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Source
I am glad we keep winnowing down on the Haqquanni network. I didn't think I'd ever see that day.

A few months ago, they rocked them in my old AO, the Paktika Province, and killed 50 members. I'd been through the district where the raid was conducted many times. I am surprised that is where it went down.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?

I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.






Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.

The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.

The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.

I guess you could argue that this was an "illegal search and seizure", with killing being the ultimate form of seizure, but it's kind of hard to argue that a smoking carcass in Yeman was denied his right to trial.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
1,536
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?

I find it ironic that some of the people who are so concerned for the rights of those who are living here illegally are not concerned about the precedent set by targeting an American citizen for death without so much as an indictment much less a conviction.






Please note: the fifth amendment is a series of independent clauses which address different aspects of the kinds of legal proceedings the government can take against its citizens.

The first clause is about the right to a grand jury. That clause gives an exception which says that members of the U.S. military may not be entitled to a grand jury in times of war or public danger. That is not applicable to the case of Awlaki. He was not a U.S. service member.

The due process clause is a separate issue. Just like the double jeopardy clause is a separate issue. Etc.
Illegal aliens are on our soil. Al-Awlaki was not. If al-Awlaki was on American soil, I would have a very serious problem with him being targeted for elimination because, at least theoretically, he could be captured by any number of law enforcement agencies from Federal agencies like the FBI to individual State's police force, and municiple police forces. However, he was overseas in a country where our laws do not apply, and he was actively plotting and planning attacks against Americans and American interests, both here and abroad. It would be the equivalent of an American fighting with the Nazis even if he wasn't wearing their uniform.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,588
Reaction score
14,270
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
The Supreme Court does. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to due process rights:

We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 564 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“ndefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ”). This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by abstaining from these controversies. See Hamdan, 548 U. S., at 585, n. 16 (“[A]bstention is not appropriate in cases … in which the legal challenge ‘turn on the status of the persons as to whom the military asserted its power’ ” (quoting Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 759 (1975) )). The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.


Prior to that ruling, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Court held that an American accused of being an ‘enemy combatant’ was entitled to due process rights:

But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

[A] court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved.
Clearly the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki denied him ‘a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker’ that he was indeed an ‘enemy of the state.’

Consequently the arguments by some that al-Awlaki forfeited his due process rights or rights as an American citizen because he advocated the destruction of America, joined al-Qaeda, or otherwise declared himself a ‘terrorist’ has no factual basis in Constitutional case law.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
1,536
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Do you think that noncitizens such as terrorist suspects from other countries and illegal aliens deserve due process under the Constitution of the United States?
The Supreme Court does. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to due process rights:

We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 564 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“ndefinite imprisonment on reasonable suspicion is not an available option of treatment for those accused of aiding the enemy, absent a suspension of the writ”). This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by abstaining from these controversies. See Hamdan, 548 U. S., at 585, n. 16 (“[A]bstention is not appropriate in cases … in which the legal challenge ‘turn on the status of the persons as to whom the military asserted its power’ ” (quoting Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 759 (1975) )). The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention.


Prior to that ruling, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Court held that an American accused of being an ‘enemy combatant’ was entitled to due process rights:

But it is equally vital that our calculus not give short shrift to the values that this country holds dear or to the privilege that is American citizenship. It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.

[A] court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved.
Clearly the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki denied him ‘a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker’ that he was indeed an ‘enemy of the state.’

Consequently the arguments by some that al-Awlaki forfeited his due process rights or rights as an American citizen because he advocated the destruction of America, joined al-Qaeda, or otherwise declared himself a ‘terrorist’ has no factual basis in Constitutional case law.


If he wanted his "due process" rights, he should have surrendered to whatever legal authority was nearest and requested extradition to the US.
 
OP
Amelia

Amelia

Rookie
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
21,830
Reaction score
5,442
Points
0
Location
Packerland!
People don't lose due process just because they are not on American soil.

We can't just target any expatriate.

They have rights under our Constitution no matter where they travel.
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
We can't just target any expatriate.

This guy didn't meet that description,he wasn't just anything but willing to kill anyone one of us,posters on this board included.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,588
Reaction score
14,270
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
If he wanted his "due process" rights, he should have surrendered to whatever legal authority was nearest and requested extradition to the US.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

One is not required to ‘request’ his rights, nor must any action be taken to ‘activate’ them.

‘Inalienable’ means one’s rights can not be separated from him; they predate the government and Constitution – which codifies, not bestows, rights – no government, no person may take another’s rights away, unless one voluntarily waives his rights, and there’s no documentation that al-Awlaki indeed did that.

This, then, is the basis of the Court’s rulings, that regardless the status of the individual - terrorist, enemy combatant, traitor, what have you - none of that mitigates one’s right to due process.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,472
Reaction score
23,485
Points
2,180
Due process is a consideration after combatants are removed from the battlefield.
So the "battlefield" is wherever the U.S. government decides to kill you?

I guess you could argue that this was an "illegal search and seizure", with killing being the ultimate form of seizure, but it's kind of hard to argue that a smoking carcass in Yeman was denied his right to trial.
It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?

Case closed.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,472
Reaction score
23,485
Points
2,180
Illegal aliens are on our soil. Al-Awlaki was not. If al-Awlaki was on American soil, I would have a very serious problem with him being targeted for elimination because, at least theoretically, he could be captured by any number of law enforcement agencies from Federal agencies like the FBI to individual State's police force, and municiple police forces. However, he was overseas in a country where our laws do not apply, and he was actively plotting and planning attacks against Americans and American interests, both here and abroad. It would be the equivalent of an American fighting with the Nazis even if he wasn't wearing their uniform.
So it's OK for the government to kill Americans so long as they aren't on American soil?

Do you freaks ever read the stuff you post?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,472
Reaction score
23,485
Points
2,180
If he wanted his "due process" rights, he should have surrendered to whatever legal authority was nearest and requested extradition to the US.
So if you don't turn yourself in, the government can gun you down without so much as a fair-thee-well?

Unbelievable.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,472
Reaction score
23,485
Points
2,180
We can't just target any expatriate.

This guy didn't meet that description,he wasn't just anything but willing to kill anyone one of us,posters on this board included.
The same was true of Jeffrey Dahlmer, but he got a fair trial.
 

Sunshine

Trust the pie.
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
19,377
Reaction score
3,363
Points
183
The Supreme Court has consistently held that terrorists are criminals. We have incarcerated foreign terrorists off US soil and imported them here for the purpose of being tried for their crimes.

I think the larger questions here, are: When will Obama be tried as a war criminal? And what will HIS punishment be?
 

Sunshine

Trust the pie.
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
19,377
Reaction score
3,363
Points
183
If he wanted his "due process" rights, he should have surrendered to whatever legal authority was nearest and requested extradition to the US.
So if you don't turn yourself in, the government can gun you down without so much as a fair-thee-well?

Unbelievable.
Give it time. RMATL will be around to call this a straw man! :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top