Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[bigrebnc1775]

Uh, no. He got taken out because he was a terrorist.

Really?

That is good news. Just another nail in the coffin for Bush. Apparently he's got no real evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists.

3 years a go not a terrorist now they're all terrorist

Is stupidity a congenital disability in your case?

You said back in 2008 that they had no evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists, but now the same people say someones a terrorist and you agree. Why are you now agreeable but 3 years ago so skepticable?

Is being a passonite liar your dream?

 

[Ravi]

Really?


3 years a go not a terrorist now they're all terrorist

Is stupidity a congenital disability in your case?

You said back in 2008 that they had no evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists, but now the same people say someones a terrorist and you agree. Why are you now agreeable but 3 years ago so skepticable?

Is being a passonite liar your dream?

Some of the terrorists turned out to be bystanders swept up during the invasion of Iraq. No intelligence was used to verify in advance that they were indeed terrorists. That was a bad outcome, especially since Bush didn't want them classified as POWs (probably so they could be tortured).

In Al-Awaki's case the intelligence says he's a terrorist. As do his own actions on the internet.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Now lie again or act stupid, it really makes no difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh please, you guys need to get a grip and stop injecting your egos into this stuff as if it's about what I can or can not prove..AS IF some gotcha clip from a post is going to change ANY of the relevant facts involved... I have been posting diligently on this topic since Friday so go check my posts if you're really interested, but again, I don't delude myself into thinking my posts matter one way or the other in regards to the legality of the US mission against AQ terrorists.

Its simpler than that Valerie.. My comment meant that ALL US legal precedent is based on "innocent until proven guilty" -- Something we expect you to understand and not ask for "proof of innocence". Which is why I also asked Ravi to "prove her innocence" as a satirical method. (Tho the missile strike on her is still pending..)

Not to mention that use of a combined CIA/DOD strike against a US citizen with no history of violence and a relatively recent request to SPEAK AT A PENTAGON LUNCHEON -- OUGHT to be easily defended and publically justified. Shouldn't it?

Or are the masters in charge of this operation just too inept and embarrassed by their past handling of this Awlaki matter to comment?

No, as has been ALREADY posted over and over in several threads on this board, the President in FACT had the legal authority to target Awlaki. You and others may have an understandable and legitimate concern with that authority, but nothing I could possibly post is going to change anything one iota... The law as it stands did not require a warrant in this case, no matter what ANYone posts here. People are running around the internet claiming American citizens are no longer afforded due process and that Obama is going to send rocket launchers into LA. It's a bunch of hysterical bullshit.

I'll buy most of that. After all -- I started out by saying I'm not asking for much. I just know not to expect excellence or competency from a govt that doesn't respond until there is a crisis.

THe CLOSEST evidence that Awlaki deserved a $10Mill effort to terminate his ass, was the alledged praise of the whacko Muslim Army shrink that shot up those soldiers in Texas. THAT alone doesn't justify the recent bellowing about Awlaki being playing a "leadership role in Al Queada".. That's a MASSIVE stretch..

If I praise Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame as an American HERO for defying efforts to entrap and slime his honor -- Am I now aiding terrorist activities? I watched his wife die over and over with their baby in her arms while my govt mounted a paramilitary assault on a tiny cabin with several kids inside. Not the proudest moment. It CHANGED the rules of engagement for BATF (at least temporarily). Would I have been targeted for DEFENDING HIM while the stand-off was in progress? Branded a dangerous domestic militia member maybe?

Just make sure that Congress and the Judiciary stay engaged in the process. I speak from a little experience in intelligience operations. And I'm telling you it's NOT safe to let all these 3 letter agencies run without CONSTANT accountibility and clear process...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is stupidity a congenital disability in your case?

You said back in 2008 that they had no evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists, but now the same people say someones a terrorist and you agree. Why are you now agreeable but 3 years ago so skepticable?

Is being a passonite liar your dream?

Some of the terrorists turned out to be bystanders swept up during the invasion of Iraq. No intelligence was used to verify in advance that they were indeed terrorists. That was a bad outcome, especially since Bush didn't want them classified as POWs (probably so they could be tortured).

In Al-Awaki's case the intelligence says he's a terrorist. As do his own actions on the internet.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Now lie again or act stupid, it really makes no difference.

Why do you claim something is a lie when you're losing the argument?

There is a huge difference between the two.

Sure one happen while Bush was president now obams president good call.
You'r partisanship is showing

 

[Ravi]

You said back in 2008 that they had no evidence that any of the detainees are terrorists, but now the same people say someones a terrorist and you agree. Why are you now agreeable but 3 years ago so skepticable?

Is being a passonite liar your dream?

Some of the terrorists turned out to be bystanders swept up during the invasion of Iraq. No intelligence was used to verify in advance that they were indeed terrorists. That was a bad outcome, especially since Bush didn't want them classified as POWs (probably so they could be tortured).

In Al-Awaki's case the intelligence says he's a terrorist. As do his own actions on the internet.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Now lie again or act stupid, it really makes no difference.

Why do you claim something is a lie when you're losing the argument?

There is a huge difference between the two.

Sure one happen while Bush was president now obams president good call.
You'r partisanship is showing

Nope. IMO, if the military thought they were terrorists they should have shot them or made them into POWs.

Bush fucked up, that's all there is to it.

Obama did it correctly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Some of the terrorists turned out to be bystanders swept up during the invasion of Iraq. No intelligence was used to verify in advance that they were indeed terrorists. That was a bad outcome, especially since Bush didn't want them classified as POWs (probably so they could be tortured).

In Al-Awaki's case the intelligence says he's a terrorist. As do his own actions on the internet.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Now lie again or act stupid, it really makes no difference.

Why do you claim something is a lie when you're losing the argument?

There is a huge difference between the two.

Sure one happen while Bush was president now obams president good call.
You'r partisanship is showing

Nope. IMO, if the military thought they were terrorists they should have shot them or made them into POWs.

Bush fucked up, that's all there is to it.

Obama did it correctly.

They were captured because they were part of al qaeda after all, isn't that your best argument that Al-Awaki was the leader of al qaeda?

 

[George Costanza]

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?

They may not always deserve Due Process, but they are clearly entitled to get it. The Due Process clause says that no person shall be denied due process - it does not say that no citizen shall be denied due process.

I am concerned about the rights of all people - citizens and non-citizens alike.

 

[jillian]

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?

They may not always deserve Due Process, but they are clearly entitled to get it. The Due Process clause says that no person shall be denied due process - it does not say that no citizen shall be denied due process.

I am concerned about the rights of all people - citizens and non-citizens alike.

the whiners on this thread are only worried about 'rights' because this was done on president obama's watch.

betcha they're ok with GITMO.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

They may not always deserve Due Process, but they are clearly entitled to get it. The Due Process clause says that no person shall be denied due process - it does not say that no citizen shall be denied due process.

I am concerned about the rights of all people - citizens and non-citizens alike.

the whiners on this thread are only worried about 'rights' because this was done on president obama's watch.

betcha they're ok with GITMO.

I don't know about anyone else but as for me I wouldn't care who done I would be concerned about it. I never cared for the patriot act. It should be repealed.

But Jillian I will ask you this would you support this if Bush did it? I know you want lie to me so I will take you at your word.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

They may not always deserve Due Process, but they are clearly entitled to get it. The Due Process clause says that no person shall be denied due process - it does not say that no citizen shall be denied due process.

I am concerned about the rights of all people - citizens and non-citizens alike.

the whiners on this thread are only worried about 'rights' because this was done on president obama's watch.

betcha they're ok with GITMO.

At least in Gitmo they have due process.

 

[flacaltenn]

What people seem to be overlooking is that there was a second American citizen who was murdered by the drone strike.

He had not been charged with anything and had not committed any crimes.

Your racist tag line makes me wonder why I care about restraining the bombs and use of military force without accountability. Perhaps I should just support a MUCH broader definition of terrorist -- eh pali?? Not making friends and encouraging support if you think that's really just cute.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Valerie/Ravi :::

Lahkota found this interesting Reuters article on the "sketchy" process of authorizing a CIA/DOD kill operation... Tell me how definitive and well-conceived this assassination really was -- after you read all the shabby weasel words that were used....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4237878-post1.html

 

[BenNatuf]

being an enemy is not the same as being a criminal. criminals have rights, they are arrested and tried. Enemies have no right or expectation to be captured and trying them is unlawful except in the cases of war crimes or crimes committed in captivity. When arresting a criminal suspect law enforcement must try to aprehend him using the least amount of force possible, you don't even try yo capture enemies, you just kill them till they quit. If they surrender, then you capture them, if not you continue killing them. Unless an enemy has his hands up, his weapon down and he's asking you to capture him the only thing he has any right or expectation to recieve is death. Al Allwhacky was both a criminal and an enemy, he died an enemies death, had he chosen to surrender himself beforehand he likely would have died a traitors death. The fact that he was a criminal does not make him any less an enemy and does not impart on the executive any requirement to treat him as anything other than an enemy unless he surrenders.

 

[BenNatuf]

Hey Valerie/Ravi :::

Lahkota found this interesting Reuters article on the "sketchy" process of authorizing a CIA/DOD kill operation... Tell me how definitive and well-conceived this assassination really was -- after you read all the shabby weasel words that were used....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4237878-post1.html

Assassination is what happens when the government kills people we are NOT at war with. The congress duly authorized military force against AQ, it's affiliates and it's supporters, he was one of them and therefore an enemy. He was not "assassinated", he was ambushed and killed like any other enemy would have been.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

They may not always deserve Due Process, but they are clearly entitled to get it. The Due Process clause says that no person shall be denied due process - it does not say that no citizen shall be denied due process.

I am concerned about the rights of all people - citizens and non-citizens alike.

That of course is the logical extension of the inane argument about allwhacky being "assassinated" without due process. Does the President now have to get a writ from the courts giving him permission to take military action against enemies the congress has already duly authorized him to attack? Should he get one for each enemy... after all these are individual rights we're talking about? Wouldn't a trial in absentia allowing the president to do so violate any of those enemies right to confront their accuser? The whole argument is inane. An AUMF or DoW is DUE PROCESS when it comes to authorized military action and the courts have no say in the matter. This is not a criminal case, it would have been had allwhacky surrendered himself, but he didn't, he was therefore killed like any other enemy should be. The guy was BOTH an enemy and a criminal, he died like an enemy before he could be tried like a criminal. Nothing wrong with it either way.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

They may not always deserve Due Process, but they are clearly entitled to get it. The Due Process clause says that no person shall be denied due process - it does not say that no citizen shall be denied due process.

I am concerned about the rights of all people - citizens and non-citizens alike.

the whiners on this thread are only worried about 'rights' because this was done on president obama's watch.

betcha they're ok with GITMO.

Why wouldn't I be OK with GITMO? It's a detention facility for EPW's and where they will be held until the cesassion of hostilities (or tried for warcrimes).

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Valerie/Ravi :::

Lahkota found this interesting Reuters article on the "sketchy" process of authorizing a CIA/DOD kill operation... Tell me how definitive and well-conceived this assassination really was -- after you read all the shabby weasel words that were used....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4237878-post1.html

Assassination is what happens when the government kills people we are NOT at war with. The congress duly authorized military force against AQ, it's affiliates and it's supporters, he was one of them and therefore an enemy. He was not "assassinated", he was ambushed and killed like any other enemy would have been.

You do realize that this "enemy" was in the recent past an invited guest to a Pentagon luncheon where he spoke on Muslim - American perspectives on 9.11.. Didn't need to list him that day.. In fact, the FBI indictment on him that caused him to flee the country had to do with Soc Sec fraud -- not terrorism.

Did you READ the REUTERS article above? Do you understand the danger of delegating the "targeting process" to the CIA and other dark agencies? Did YOU get an adequate explanation for the Prez describing him as "an Al Queda leader"? Does the PRESS and the public have even mild proof of that?

You do know that Clinton blew up a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan (which YOU latter paid for) based on false CIA links to Al Queda? You are one trusting fool....

 

[Liability]

I stand by my prior analysis of this whole topic, as posted in this and at least one other thread.

On the other hand, I have to admit, those who have been preaching the flip side of the debate have made some really impressive and principled arguments.

 

[BenNatuf]

Hey Valerie/Ravi :::

Lahkota found this interesting Reuters article on the "sketchy" process of authorizing a CIA/DOD kill operation... Tell me how definitive and well-conceived this assassination really was -- after you read all the shabby weasel words that were used....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4237878-post1.html

Assassination is what happens when the government kills people we are NOT at war with. The congress duly authorized military force against AQ, it's affiliates and it's supporters, he was one of them and therefore an enemy. He was not "assassinated", he was ambushed and killed like any other enemy would have been.

You do realize that this "enemy" was in the recent past an invited guest to a Pentagon luncheon where he spoke on Muslim - American perspectives on 9.11.. Didn't need to list him that day.. In fact, the FBI indictment on him that caused him to flee the country had to do with Soc Sec fraud -- not terrorism.

I'm sure Washington felt the same way about benedict Arnold... or not. IOW, your assertions here are pretty pointless.

Did you READ the REUTERS article above? Do you understand the danger of delegating the "targeting process" to the CIA and other dark agencies? Did YOU get an adequate explanation for the Prez describing him as "an Al Queda leader"? Does the PRESS and the public have even mild proof of that?

proof is whats needed to investigate and charge crimes, belief that they pose a threat is the only requirement for identifying enemies (according to the laws of war, which would be what controls acts of war). If the congress doesn't like how the president identifies them, they have oversite authority. The president does not owe me any explanation for killing enemies, he doesn't owe one to you. He may, if called to answer, need to provide one for the congress.

You do know that Clinton blew up a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan (which YOU latter paid for) based on false CIA links to Al Queda? You are one trusting fool....

Did Clintion have an AUMF authorizing him to attack the nations enemies in Sudan? (to be sure if there was a threat to the US, it's forces, it's territory or it's citizens that had to be prevented, responded to or repelled he didn't need one)

 

[BenNatuf]

I stand by my prior analysis of this whole topic, as posted in this and at least one other thread.

On the other hand, I have to admit, those who have been preaching the flip side of the debate have made some really impressive and principled arguments.

damn... now i have to go back and read it!!!