Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Liability]

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany was actively fighting.

I decline to let you unilaterally define the meaning of "fighting" to exclude a guy who enlists the enemy recruits and exhorts them, successfully, to kill our people. Such an enemy leader in many ways is a much more urgent and important a target than any one combatant in the field or any set of hijackers on passenger planes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

We didn't if they were in Buenos Aires.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't just a matter of easier. And it isn't a matter of changing definitions. It is a matter of the defense of this nation from her enemies in time of war.

And killing the enemy and/or certain leaders of that enemy in time of war is not an improper or even particularly questionable use of government power.

The fact that one particular enemy leader happens (effectively by mere coincidence) to BE a U.S. citizen doesn't fundamentally change the equation. Nor should it.

I agree, it is wrong no matter what.

Wrong. It is perfectly okay to kill the enemy in time of war, including the leaders of the enemy.

It so happens that we shouldn't kill the political leaders of the NATIONS with whom we may be at war (for reasons having to do with reciprocity and treaty obligations). However, al qaeda is not a nation. It's leaders are perfectly legitimate targets.

So, let's not pretend that you "agree" with me.

We disagree.

And that's fine. I disagree with some other people I respect on this topic, too. Certainly, if I disagree with a guy like Oddball, then you can disagree with me.

Why didn't we kill the Nazis In Argentina, Brazil, or Sweden during WWII?

 

[Ravi]

I consider most liberals my enemy, let's just cut the bullshit out and aiir this ******* shit right now.

LOL! Are you threatening me?

Take it anyway you want to I really don't give a shit.

What ******* shit do you want to air out?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, so much for rational discussion, I guess.



Still: if you are contending (as it seems you are) that because some government officials have acted atrociously (which I deem an irrefutable and incontestable FACT), that it necessarily follows that we can never trust any government officials without implementing an assortment of institutionalized checks and balances, I am in PARTIAL agreement.

However, there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that a rogue government agency bent of doing something Orwellian (as you have envisioned) could accomplish it without the checks and balances you want to put up in either of two ways: (1) they could simply ignore the checks and balances, DO the nefarious acts, then lie their asses off and cover up (on the theory that if you're gonna commit official murder, you aren't likely to be overly concerned with coverups and lying) or (2) they could present falsified "intel" to "justify" their conduct in advance (thereby getting the official stamp of approval from the Congressional oversight committee or the courts as the case may be).

If we have officials in office willing to commit official murder without valid justification, then neither one of those two options seems all that difficult for them to also contemplate and accomplish.

So my question becomes: what actual purpose do the checks and balances then serve? I KNOW what they are designed to achieve and would dearly love it if they could serve that purpose in all cases. But the POINT is: under my two scenarios, they don't serve that purpose at all becausethe very officials you seek to pen in and hamper are lawless. And if they are lawless enough to seek to kill a person for invalid reasons, then they are very likely lawless enough to perjure themselves to get the prior stamp of approval if that's what they must do to achieve their illegal agenda.

That is a problem, which is why I refuse to allow the government to get away with anything, even if they have valid reasons. If we simply draw a line saying this type of thing is always wrong then no one will ever be able to lie about it and fool me into thinking they had a good reason.

Bright line rules like that in a complicated real world are not workable.

For however much YOU may dislike it, I and lots of other folks don't disapprove of authorizing the government to target the leaders of terrorist groups at war with us.

I'd go further. It is, practically speaking, ALWAYS ok to do that.

Simple rules are only a problem when people imagine reasons not to use them. There are things the government should not do, among them is kill people simply because doing so is easier than apprehending him, especially when they are in countries that are not at war with us. Yemen went along with this, probably in return for us not making a bunch of noise about them killing the people who are protesting Assad. Trade offs like are what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

If you believe he wasn't a U.S. citizen, then the government did not violate his right of due process.

Due process applies to everyone, not just US citizens.

Contrary to the views of the President and many others, the Constitution was not written for the entire world. It does not apply to the entire world. The Constitution was written to and for the American people. The federal government "may" grant certain rights to foreigners at certain times, due to Treaties it has in effect, that directly affect pertinent foreign citizens, or it "may" grant certain rights to foreign citizens for political pandering reasons. The Constitution does not give us our rights. It enumerates what powers the federal government is allowed to have, as it relates to the respective states, and the citizens therein.

Had Awlaki not been deemed an American citizen by our government, the U.S. government was not legally bound (save any applicable international law it is a party to) to give said individual due process.

We are not at war with any particular country. We are not fighting a uniformed enemy. As such, The Geneva Convention would not have applied to him. Had he been killed without being a citizen of the U.S., he would have been collateral damage, and I wouldn't be taking the time to make the points I have been making.

No, you're wrong. That's why we don't just deport illegal immigrants but give them a hearing.

The founders had a bigger, and perhaps unreasonable, idealism than you do.

 

[Ravi]

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

We didn't if they were in Buenos Aires.

I have no ******* idea what they did with Nazis in BA during the war.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine. I was trying to understand your viewpoint.

 

[Oddball]

Seriously? We should never kill enemies in time of war?

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany was actively fighting.

I decline to let you unilaterally define the meaning of "fighting" to exclude a guy who enlists the enemy recruits and exhorts them, successfully, to kill our people. Such an enemy leader in many ways is a much more urgent and important a target than any one combatant in the field or any set of hijackers on passenger planes.

At least Goebbels would've got a show trial before he was executed, had he not killed himself first.

 

[Ravi]

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany was actively fighting.

I decline to let you unilaterally define the meaning of "fighting" to exclude a guy who enlists the enemy recruits and exhorts them, successfully, to kill our people. Such an enemy leader in many ways is a much more urgent and important a target than any one combatant in the field or any set of hijackers on passenger planes.

At least Goebbels would've got a show trial before he was executed, had he not killed himself first.

How many tears did you shed over Goebbels?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Due process applies to everyone, not just US citizens.

Contrary to the views of the President and many others, the Constitution was not written for the entire world. It does not apply to the entire world. The Constitution was written to and for the American people. The federal government "may" grant certain rights to foreigners at certain times, due to Treaties it has in effect, that directly affect pertinent foreign citizens, or it "may" grant certain rights to foreign citizens for political pandering reasons. The Constitution does not give us our rights. It enumerates what powers the federal government is allowed to have, as it relates to the respective states, and the citizens therein.

Had Awlaki not been deemed an American citizen by our government, the U.S. government was not legally bound (save any applicable international law it is a party to) to give said individual due process.

We are not at war with any particular country. We are not fighting a uniformed enemy. As such, The Geneva Convention would not have applied to him. Had he been killed without being a citizen of the U.S., he would have been collateral damage, and I wouldn't be taking the time to make the points I have been making.

No, you're wrong. That's why we don't just deport illegal immigrants but give them a hearing.

The founders had a bigger, and perhaps unreasonable, idealism than you do.

Telling me courts hold deportation hearings for illegals , before deporting them, does not actually address nor refute my previous constitutional assertion.

It might be wise to try and use supporting founding documents to prove my assertion wrong, instead of trying to use the "courts hold deportation hearings before deportation, therefore I am wrong defense." None of what you said actually addresses the issue.

 

[Liability]

We should, but we should not define battlefield in a way that allows us to kill people who are not actively fighting.

The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany was actively fighting.

I decline to let you unilaterally define the meaning of "fighting" to exclude a guy who enlists the enemy recruits and exhorts them, successfully, to kill our people. Such an enemy leader in many ways is a much more urgent and important a target than any one combatant in the field or any set of hijackers on passenger planes.

At least Goebbels would've got a show trial before he was executed, had he not killed himself first.

Maybe he would have gotten a show trial if he had been captured alive.

Is giving folks a show trial before executing them an important component of due process?

Yeah yeah. I know. Of course not. So, that means that he should have gotten a REAL trial?

Had he been the leader of a non governmental group like al qaeda to whom no international rules apply, wouldn't it have been expedient and proper to target him during the war if possible?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you honestly think, say during WW2, that we had no right to kill Nazi military generals and other leaders or propagandists? People engaged in the Final Solution?

We didn't if they were in Buenos Aires.

I have no ******* idea what they did with Nazis in BA during the war.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine. I was trying to understand your viewpoint.

The point is that the law actually prevents countries from fighting in neutral territory. Nazis and US Army forces were both in Argentina, and even went to the same parties during the war.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

We didn't if they were in Buenos Aires.

I have no ******* idea what they did with Nazis in BA during the war.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine. I was trying to understand your viewpoint.

The point is that the law actually prevents countries from fighting in neutral territory. Nazis and US Army forces were both in Argentina, and even went to the same parties during the war.

And that particular scenario, along with two uniformed countries declaring war on another, is not equatable to the current discussion, in my opinion.

 

[Oddball]

The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany was actively fighting.

I decline to let you unilaterally define the meaning of "fighting" to exclude a guy who enlists the enemy recruits and exhorts them, successfully, to kill our people. Such an enemy leader in many ways is a much more urgent and important a target than any one combatant in the field or any set of hijackers on passenger planes.

At least Goebbels would've got a show trial before he was executed, had he not killed himself first.

Maybe he would have gotten a show trial if he had been captured alive.

Is giving folks a show trial before executing them an important component of due process?

Yeah yeah. I know. Of course not. So, that means that he should have gotten a REAL trial?

Had he been the leader of a non governmental group like al qaeda to whom no international rules apply, wouldn't it have been expedient and proper to target him during the war if possible?

Hess, Goering, von Ribbentropp and the rest were all hunted down and allowed to give themselves up, not just gunned down on sight.

Hell, even the lowlife dirtbag POS Bill Ayers (who also declared war on America and actually killed people first-hand) was accorded due process.

Then there's the little matter of jurisdiction.....The US military enforcing dead-or-alive warrants of foreign courts?

Are you really this blood lusting to overlook even the most basic of legal precedents, procedures and processes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no ******* idea what they did with Nazis in BA during the war.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine. I was trying to understand your viewpoint.

The point is that the law actually prevents countries from fighting in neutral territory. Nazis and US Army forces were both in Argentina, and even went to the same parties during the war.

And that particular scenario, along with two uniformed countries declaring war on another, is not equatable to the current discussion, in my opinion.

I have a feeling Germany might disagree if we say think a terrorist is hiding there.

 

[Liability]

At least Goebbels would've got a show trial before he was executed, had he not killed himself first.

Maybe he would have gotten a show trial if he had been captured alive.

Is giving folks a show trial before executing them an important component of due process?

Yeah yeah. I know. Of course not. So, that means that he should have gotten a REAL trial?

Had he been the leader of a non governmental group like al qaeda to whom no international rules apply, wouldn't it have been expedient and proper to target him during the war if possible?

Hess, Goering, von Ribbentropp and the rest were all hunted down and allowed to give themselves up, not just gunned down on sight.

Hell, even the lowlife dirtbag POS Bill Ayers (who also declared war on America and actually killed people first-hand) was accorded due process.

Then there's the little matter of jurisdiction.....The US military enforcing dead-or-alive warrants of foreign courts?

Are you really this blood lusting to overlook even the most basic of legal precedents, procedures and processes?

Come on. Get real. "Hess, Goering, von Ribbentropp and the rest were all hunted down and allowed to give themselves up, not just gunned down on sight." (A) the war was over and (B) there are rules about targeting national leaders. THe point is NOT how we treated the ******* Nazi vermin, but how we COULD have lawfully, morally and legitimately treated them DURING the time of war if they had not been NATIONAL leaders of an actual nation state.

Bill Ayers, that piece of shit, had not had the entity for which he acted been the subject of a U.S. declaration of war. The AUMF did make al qaeda the subject of a declaration of war AFTER they engaged in terroristic ACTS of WAR.

And there is PLENTY of jurisdiction for the U.S. to act on its OWN declaration of war. The AUMF is the jurisdiction we need. We aren't doing it to enforce some other nation's laws. That's a red herring.

Are you really going to ignore reality to frame your "arguments?"

 

[IndependntLogic]

You really don't sound like you're a country before party person. Because if you were you would put the Constitutional process ahead of everything else.

Simply a difference of opinion. Mine is that terrorists, people who have declared war on us, blown up our civilian population etc... and are inaccessible for arrest, are open game.
Your opinion is that Civil Liberties should be the top priority when it comes to terrorists, people who have publicly declared war on us, openly aided and abbetted our enemies.
This is a matter of interpretation.
I'm not saying all of these suddenly Liberal-minded Conservatives don't have a valid point. They do.
I'm saying that we have had legal remedies for dealing with matters such as this, which we've employed for over 200 years.
Would you dispute that there are a lot of things in the USC which have exceptions?

Legal remedies do not do much good for the fact that we just broke the Constitution, do they? Not to mention the guy you just wiped off the planet because you did not like his politics.

Legal remedies such as not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre? That Sharia Law shall not supercede Fed or Local law? That felons are not allowed to own nukes?
Yeah okay. Nice to see the little puppy following me around just to take another shot as a contrarian. Cute.
You may now continue your feeble atte,pts at finding anything possible to disagree with me on. It's actually kind of entertaining and has certainly provided laughs in the household! BTW, my lovely bride is convinced you're a teen-aged girl. I told her I believe you said you were a teen-age gay male but may have gotten you confused another poster. Help me out here sweetheart, which is it?

 

[Oddball]

And there is PLENTY of jurisdiction for the U.S. to act on its OWN declaration of war. The AUMF is the jurisdiction we need.

Which declared war?

The war on "terror" is no more a lawfully declared war than are the "wars" on poverty and (some) drugs.

We aren't doing it to enforce some other nation's laws. That's a red herring.

The only lawfully issued warrants or indictments I've seen have been issued by Yemeni courts.....No jurisdiction...That's no red herring....A first week law plebe can see that.

Are you really going to ignore reality to frame your "arguments?"

Funny, I was wondering the same about you.

 

[whitehall]

The hypocrisy in the death penalty issue tells you all you need to know about the left. They didn't trust the state and local courts and the appeals court or even the supreme court to make the right decision in the recent execution of a Cop killer in Georgia but they trust the CIA and the (radical left wing democrat) president to make the right decision to assassinate a US citizen.

 

[Liability]

And there is PLENTY of jurisdiction for the U.S. to act on its OWN declaration of war. The AUMF is the jurisdiction we need.

Which declared war?

The war on "terror" is no more a lawfully declared war than are the "wars" on poverty and (some) drugs.

God damn but I hate that bullshit faux argument. It was a stupid, baseless bullshit argument every time the liberals trotted it out and it remains just as useless and dishonest today.

Once AGAIN: the so-called war on poverty or the so-called war on drugs are not wars and you know it. The war against the filth that committed the 9/11/2001 atrocities is the war I am speaking of. Perhaps you will recall the AUMF. It need not say "We declare war" to be a declaration of war. That war.

We aren't doing it to enforce some other nation's laws. That's a red herring.

The only lawfully issued warrants or indictments I've seen have been issued by Yemeni courts.....No jurisdiction...That's no red herring....A first week law plebe can see that.

Once AGAIN, there is no need for an indictment or a warrant. This is not now and it never was a mere criminal law matter for which warrants and indictments (and the Bill of Rights) pertain. This is a matter involving the power and valid authority of the government to address matters of war and national security. We are entitled to kill the enemy. So, yeah. It was and it remains a red herring. Your plebe needs an eye exam.

Are you really going to ignore reality to frame your "arguments?"

Funny, I was wondering the same about you.

I know. Thus I responded in kind to you. The difference is: I'm the one who's right. Your arguments are invalid and you cannot support them in law or logic. And you most certainly have not. Your fundamental mistake is that (like so many liberals do -- so it' surprising to see you parroting their logic) you PERSIST in conflating matters of war and national security (perfectly VALID matters of national security by the way) with matters of criminal law. That was the kind of thinking we saw from the Clinton Administration that got us into this mess.