Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[BenNatuf]

wow... i guess the other 20 threads on this subject weren't enough.

it's amazing how some people think their every brain blip deserves a thread.

Whats even more amazing is that other people think thier every brain blip should be posted in a thread they think shouldn't exist in the first place... now thats some crazy shit there!!!

 

[Amelia]

wow... i guess the other 20 threads on this subject weren't enough.

it's amazing how some people think their every brain blip deserves a thread.

Whats even more amazing is that other people think thier every brain blip should be posted in a thread they think shouldn't exist in the first place... now thats some crazy shit there!!!

Hey, don't worry Ben. Jillian loves me and that's the only way she knows how to show it.

 

[BenNatuf]

Acting how?

Where's the indictment?...What are the charges?

When one has an enemy in his sights on a battlefield and a pull of the trigger will terminate his right to life and due process, etc., one does not say, "Shit. I sure wish I had this fucker under indictment, tried and convicted and all appellate review completed!"

Enemies in time of war do not get "due process." (Or, perhaps , to state it differently, the "process" to which they are allegedly "due" is very much different than the process a criminal defendant is entitled to receive.)

Taking up arms against the United States, terrorism, war, etc., are NOT criminal law matters to which the Bill of Rights even pertains.

Hey Achmed, you filthy motherfucker, you have the right to remain dead.

As I asked before, what's to stop a guy like Alex Jones, or some other nut job that might get reported to Attack Watch, from being declared such an "enemy of the state"?

What's to stop people you loathe from defining who the "filthy motherfucker" is tomorrow, or next week, or next year, and summarily executing them?

the lack of any authorization of the congress which would pertain to them.

 

[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.

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

LOL.

But putting the levity aside, I confess I find this important topic troubling from both perspectives.

I suppose that's what keeps bringing me back to my fundamental understanding of what it was the Constitution was intended to accomplish.

In a word, "balance."

 

[BenNatuf]

wow... i guess the other 20 threads on this subject weren't enough.

it's amazing how some people think their every brain blip deserves a thread.

Whats even more amazing is that other people think thier every brain blip should be posted in a thread they think shouldn't exist in the first place... now thats some crazy shit there!!!

Hey, don't worry Ben. Jillian loves me and that's the only way she knows how to show it.

meh? Just ragging her logic (or lack thereof) a little.

 

[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!!!

LOL.

But putting the levity aside, I confess I find this important topic troubling from both perspectives.

I suppose that's what keeps bringing me back to my fundamental understanding of what it was the Constitution was intended to accomplish.

In a word, "balance."

true. And i've read it now and find we are in basic agreement. I however do not share your conviction of any merit on the argument to the contrary.

We elect the president to do a job. the congress has oversite authority to determine how he does that job. thats the way our system works.

AllWhacky was BOTH a suspected criminal and a suspected enemy. As an enemy he can be targetted like any other and there is no requirement on the part of the president to prove he's an enemy before doing so. It's his call, it's what we elect him to do, and the congress can conduct oversite if there's a problem.

Our laws confer certain rights on criminal suspects (regardless of their citizenship status) and had AllWhacky surrendered himself to face justice he would have been entitled to those rights just as any other criminal suspect completely regardless of thier citizenship status. The 5th amendment does not limit it's protections to citizens only, and to claim he had any protection of it one must conclude that EVERY suspected enemy combatant has the same protections whether citizens or not. That is completely ludicrous, the due process enemies are entitled to is the process the constitution dictates the congress use to authorize the President to kill them (the AUMF is thier due process) ancd the laws of war. Claiming that his citizenship status gave him any extraordinary protections from the 5th amendment is just plain wrong, and extending the logic used to claim it to all persons (which is who it covers) would require the President to get a writ from a court to kill each and every enemy anywhere at anytime regardless of the acts of the congress authorizing him to use the war power.

The laws of war do not require "proof" of an enemy being an enemy, they require only that you believe they are a threat to the nation, it's forces, it's territories or its people. They require that your actions be authorized by the appropriate national authority, and they require that your actions conform to the laws of war with regard to acts of war and detention of EPW's. They specifically FORBID trying enemy combatants except for war crimes and crimes committed in captivity, and make it unlawful to make being an "enemy" a crime. The only thing that any enemy has any right to expect from you is death. They can change that by surrendering before you kill them, but there is no obligation to give them the opportunity to do so before attacking. If they die before they can surrender, oh well, thats the risk they took by both being your enemy and failing to surrender themselves willingly earlier.

The problem here is that people are conflating his suspected criminal status (requiring proof and conviction) with his enemy status (requiring belief and authorization). The two are not the same, the standards of "proof" in one do not exist in the other and the "status" are in no way equivalent or even comparable. This guy was dual status, he died for the first before he could be tried for the second. Job well done!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

So you have no explanation how this "enemy" went from invited guest to chopped meat do you? Ok for you to just refer back 200+ plus years to find a textbook traitor.
I see.. That's makes it better...

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.

Let's HOPE that happens.. Perhaps that what the OBAMA slogan was all about.. Let's give him UNLIMITED power to delegate death strikes in any arbitrary country and HOPE that the mystery panel got it right.

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)

You missed the point here.. There WERE no enemies or threat in that factory. YET -- with no Congressional approval and no oversight -- Clinton acted on UNACCOUNTABLE CIA sources and we later paid to build a new aspirin factory. He bombed 3 countries in one day with that show of force.. You proud???? Did that IMPROVE our world standing and respect?

Aren't you the least bit interested in REMAINING structure of "the enemy"? If so -- shouldn't we know something about what role our drone target played in that organization? Do you KNOW of any oversight or hearings from Congress on determining WHO'S LEFT on the kill list? Can you vote the KILL LIST board out of office?

The answers are no of course. But go ahead and try.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

So you have no explanation how this "enemy" went from invited guest to chopped meat do you? Ok for you to just refer back 200+ plus years to find a textbook traitor.
I see.. That's makes it better...


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.

Let's HOPE that happens.. Perhaps that what the OBAMA slogan was all about.. Let's give him UNLIMITED power to delegate death strikes in any arbitrary country and HOPE that the mystery panel got it right.

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)

You missed the point here.. There WERE no enemies or threat in that factory. YET -- with no Congressional approval and no oversight -- Clinton acted on UNACCOUNTABLE CIA sources and we later paid to build a new aspirin factory. He bombed 3 countries in one day with that show of force.. You proud???? Did that IMPROVE our world standing and respect?

Aren't you the least bit interested in REMAINING structure of "the enemy"? If so -- shouldn't we know something about what role our drone target played in that organization? Do you KNOW of any oversight or hearings from Congress on determining WHO'S LEFT on the kill list? Can you vote the KILL LIST board out of office?

The answers are no of course. But go ahead and try.

If you're to lazy to properly use quote boxes to break up the post and comment on it. I'm to lazy to bother doing it for you in my reply.

So that leaves this last, on which it is not me but YOU who missed the point. Nowhere did I defend Clinton's actions. He acted without being duly authorized and his actions IMO were unlawful. That he committed an unlawful act and was not called on it does not preclude any other President from committing lawful acts. And this one was lawful as it is authorized by the approrpiate body (the congress).

Yes, I am interested in the remaining structure left to the enemy, but I will not fault us for killing the enemy befor we could find out. It's what your supposed to do to enemies... kill them until they quit. I also realize that though i would be interested in that, i have no reasonable right to expect to be informed of the intelligence they may have been able to gather from him if he had surrendered befor being killed, so the same questions would remain about that. As such, the point is moot.

Yes, we, as in our government, should know what roll he played in the structure. What makes you think you or I should know? Seems to me to be the type of intelligence thats kept secret for a reason, and we have intelligence committees in the congress to oversite it. That would be what a republican form of government entails... representatives who represent you and know things on your behalf that are better left out of the public realm that they base thier decissions on.

Why would I need to KNOW who might be on a secret list that the intelligence comittees can oversite? They are there to do that for me, it's why we elect them. Telling me who's on the list is no different than telling the enemy who's on the list... seems to me to be something that we are better off if the enemy doesn't know it.

As to the last inane question... can I vote the DoI out of office? The SecDEF?, how about just the Interior secretary? yet there are many things they know that are secret which I have no right or expectation to be informed about. Things that I do elect officials to know on my behalf and expect them to act accordingly. Wierd huh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So do I, and so have you.

 

[ZiemanZnzoru]

the thing is that we all are human .but some evil ones are not want peace on this beautiful planet .humanity is the thing which bond one person to another.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the thing is that we all are human .but some evil ones are not want peace on this beautiful planet .humanity is the thing which bond one person to another.

There is this thing called rule of law. For some reason we have by-passed that process