Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[Valerie]

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&#8221. 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.

Except he was not a detainee... He was an unlawful enemy combatant as well as a leader of unlawful enemy combatants directly threatening innocent Americans. Big difference.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44735709/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Charles....
was he shooting at soldiers? I somehow doubt it since we aren't at war with Yemen..there is no battlefield there.

Was he not planning, and carrying out Terrorist attacks? Would there not have been a fire fight had we attempted to take him alive? Really?

You people need to grow up. The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate. Had he ventured some where that we could have arrested him we would have. Instead he hide out in Yemen, where he knows we get very little cooperation from the Local Government, and would basically have no choice but to send Military Units in there, risking an International Incident, to try and get him.

He chose to be an Enemy Combatant, and he was dealt with as such. End of story.

Actually there is no credible evidence he did any of that. Just an unsupported claim by the Government. No evidence was ever presented to ANY court at any time. No effort was made by the Government to provide any evidence to ANYONE that this man did any of the things they claimed he did.

 

[geauxtohell]

So the "battlefield" is wherever the U.S. government decides to kill you?

Obviously not.

It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?

Case closed.

He was never detained. This isn't a habius corpus issue. You can argue that this was an illegal "seizure", but he wasn't detained and denied his right to a trial. The Hamdi case and all the other ones don't adequately address this issue.

More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do I have to try to fit my argument into your misinterpretation of applicable law?

Obama issued a kill order on Awlaki last year. That is not an illegal search and seizure, that is depriving a person of their life at the whim of one man, with no chance of appeal, and no trial. Obama just successfully set himself, and every president in the future, up as judge, jury, and executioner. Why doesn't that bother you?

If you want to argue the legalities, you have to actually be able to cite something in the law and not just your opinion.

All of the relevant law about this has come in the past decade over detainees. This muldoon was never detained. He was killed on the battlefield. He wasn't denied his right to trial, because he was never detained. He was simply killed.

At any rate, it doesn't bother me because he was given at least two years notice that we were gunning for him. He continued to hold a high seat in Al Queda and plot to kill Americans.

In the end, he was a combatent, and he died as one. A smoking carcass on the modern battlefield.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why do people keep saying battlefield? Were there soldiers in a firefight? Was Awlaki armed and shooting at someone? Was the pickup he was riding in actually a camouflaged tank?

Because the concept of "battlefield" and combatent has changed in the past 50 years.

Have you been asleep for the last decade?

It has changed? How, exactly? What is the exact definition of battlefield now? Enlighten me since I have apparently been asleep my entire life, and think that battlefield still implies actual battle, and that a combatant means someone actually has to have a weapon in their hand.

Silly me.

I won't waste my time enlightening you, when there has been plenty of published literature on the matter. You can start with "Black Hawk Down" and proceed from there.

You aren't stupid. You obviously know that we have long exceeded the place and time where we will face a uniformed and armed enemy.

It's counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism from here on out. Where, if you are lucky, someone shoots at you and you can return fire and kill them and sleep well at night knowing you have killed the "bad guys".

But that would be a dumb insurgent, now, wouldn't it? More than likely, they shoot at you, stash their weapons, and when you find them, claim they are goat herders.

But they aren't armed! They don't have a uniform on! What to do? What to do?

Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Valerie]

The elite unit and army soldiers surrounded a village and tried to persuade local leaders to hand al-Awlaki over, a member of the unit told the paper.

"We stayed a whole week, but the villagers were supporting him," the counterterrorism officer, who is not authorized to speak on the record," told the Times. "The local people began firing on us, and we fired back, and while it was happening, they helped him to escape."

Official: Al-Awlaki's death will make al-Qaida afraid - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

 

[Photonic]

Well, at first I was all for him being arrested by a predator drone.

But as time goes by I wonder if his constitutional rights may have been violated, and we are becoming as our enemy. We categorize our enemies as uncivil barbarians willing to kill anyone to get their point across.

This event may not be so different to what they do.

It certainly is a conundrum.

 

[Valerie]

At the Washington-area mosque where al-Awlaki preached a decade ago, there were few tears over his death.

Most worshippers at Dar al-Hijrah for Friday services said they were glad that al-Awlaki was gone — that he besmirched not only their mosque but all of Islam by calling for the deaths of innocent Americans.

Official: Al-Awlaki's death will make al-Qaida afraid - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

 

[Mr.Nick]

Obviously not.

He was never detained. This isn't a habius corpus issue. You can argue that this was an illegal "seizure", but he wasn't detained and denied his right to a trial. The Hamdi case and all the other ones don't adequately address this issue.

More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do I have to try to fit my argument into your misinterpretation of applicable law?

Obama issued a kill order on Awlaki last year. That is not an illegal search and seizure, that is depriving a person of their life at the whim of one man, with no chance of appeal, and no trial. Obama just successfully set himself, and every president in the future, up as judge, jury, and executioner. Why doesn't that bother you?

If you want to argue the legalities, you have to actually be able to cite something in the law and not just your opinion.

All of the relevant law about this has come in the past decade over detainees. This muldoon was never detained. He was killed on the battlefield. He wasn't denied his right to trial, because he was never detained. He was simply killed.

At any rate, it doesn't bother me because he was given at least two years notice that we were gunning for him. He continued to hold a high seat in Al Queda and plot to kill Americans.

In the end, he was a combatent, and he died as one. A smoking carcass on the modern battlefield.

Yea, treason is something new - then you wonder why I have you on ignore?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Was he not planning, and carrying out Terrorist attacks? Would there not have been a fire fight had we attempted to take him alive? Really?

You people need to grow up. The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate. Had he ventured some where that we could have arrested him we would have. Instead he hide out in Yemen, where he knows we get very little cooperation from the Local Government, and would basically have no choice but to send Military Units in there, risking an International Incident, to try and get him.

He chose to be an Enemy Combatant, and he was dealt with as such. End of story.

Was he? Where is the proof?

The guy only posted Anti-American bullshit for a decade .... It's all in his lit, er online postings...

The guy at minimum was facing a potential death sentence for being a traitor. Not to mention his blatant acts....

Apparently progressives have no idea who this guy is - cant say I'm shocked....

I've only been reading his bullshit for nearly a decade...

The guy was a terrorist...

Anti government speech carries the death penalty without a trial? When did we become the enemy?

 

[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?

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:



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.

Except he was not a detainee... He was an unlawful enemy combatant as well as a leader of unlawful enemy combatants directly threatening innocent Americans. Big difference.

Radical cleric influenced many plots, US says - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

From your link.

Here's are some of plots in which al-Awlaki was thought by the U.S. to have played a role, either directly or through his propaganda:

I guess that proves it, someone thought he did it, so we can kill him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obviously not.

He was never detained. This isn't a habius corpus issue. You can argue that this was an illegal "seizure", but he wasn't detained and denied his right to a trial. The Hamdi case and all the other ones don't adequately address this issue.

More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do I have to try to fit my argument into your misinterpretation of applicable law?

Obama issued a kill order on Awlaki last year. That is not an illegal search and seizure, that is depriving a person of their life at the whim of one man, with no chance of appeal, and no trial. Obama just successfully set himself, and every president in the future, up as judge, jury, and executioner. Why doesn't that bother you?

If you want to argue the legalities, you have to actually be able to cite something in the law and not just your opinion.

All of the relevant law about this has come in the past decade over detainees. This muldoon was never detained. He was killed on the battlefield. He wasn't denied his right to trial, because he was never detained. He was simply killed.

At any rate, it doesn't bother me because he was given at least two years notice that we were gunning for him. He continued to hold a high seat in Al Queda and plot to kill Americans.

In the end, he was a combatent, and he died as one. A smoking carcass on the modern battlefield.

You started by arguing the legalities, do you go first. Even the White House is not offering any legal argument for the decision, they claim it is a state secret. If that does not bother you than you are not half as intelligent as I thought you were.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the concept of "battlefield" and combatent has changed in the past 50 years.

Have you been asleep for the last decade?

It has changed? How, exactly? What is the exact definition of battlefield now? Enlighten me since I have apparently been asleep my entire life, and think that battlefield still implies actual battle, and that a combatant means someone actually has to have a weapon in their hand.

Silly me.

I won't waste my time enlightening you, when there has been plenty of published literature on the matter. You can start with "Black Hawk Down" and proceed from there.

You aren't stupid. You obviously know that we have long exceeded the place and time where we will face a uniformed and armed enemy.

It's counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism from here on out. Where, if you are lucky, someone shoots at you and you can return fire and kill them and sleep well at night knowing you have killed the "bad guys".

But that would be a dumb insurgent, now, wouldn't it? More than likely, they shoot at you, stash their weapons, and when you find them, claim they are goat herders.

But they aren't armed! They don't have a uniform on! What to do? What to do?

Pull your head out of your ass.

I ask you to teach me, and you respond that you are not going to waste time, and claim that there has been published literature. Is that supposed to convince me I am wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Obviously not.

That's obviously how you and Obama define it because the last time I checked the U.S.A was not at war with Yemen.

It's not hard to argue at all. Was he a U.S. citizen? Did he get a fair trial?

Case closed.

He was never detained. This isn't a habius corpus issue. You can argue that this was an illegal "seizure", but he wasn't detained and denied his right to a trial. The Hamdi case and all the other ones don't adequately address this issue.

More on the use of deadly force as an act of seizure:

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have to be joking. Deliberately killing someone in cold blood is an "illegal seizure?" Since when? The last time I looked it up it was called "murder one."

 

[bripat9643]

Why do people keep saying battlefield? Were there soldiers in a firefight? Was Awlaki armed and shooting at someone? Was the pickup he was riding in actually a camouflaged tank?

Because the concept of "battlefield" and combatent has changed in the past 50 years.

Have you been asleep for the last decade?

Yep. Now the "battlefield" is wherever the government decides to kill you.

It's astounding how people can twist the language to justify virtually anything.

 

[bripat9643]

It has changed? How, exactly? What is the exact definition of battlefield now? Enlighten me since I have apparently been asleep my entire life, and think that battlefield still implies actual battle, and that a combatant means someone actually has to have a weapon in their hand.

Silly me.

Now the "battlefield" is wherever the government decides to gun you down with robotic weapons.

 

[bripat9643]

It has changed? How, exactly? What is the exact definition of battlefield now? Enlighten me since I have apparently been asleep my entire life, and think that battlefield still implies actual battle, and that a combatant means someone actually has to have a weapon in their hand.

Silly me.

I won't waste my time enlightening you, when there has been plenty of published literature on the matter.

We know. It's obvious you have no intention of using actual facts or actual laws to defend your despicable point of view.

How does one defend cold blooded murder?

 

[yidnar]

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.

another left wing thread defending a terrorist enemy

 

[Xchel]

Yidnar, most folks are not defending this guy..most of us are screaming about the violation of our constitution. I don't give a rat about him being dead..what makes me sad is that we violated everything our country is about to do it...when we did that the terrorists won...we aren't the country we claim to be..and are no better than the enemy..why? Because we don't have the balls to stick to our constitution and do things the right way. That isn't about being a left winger it is not about being a right winger it is about being an American and being proud of the fact we are a constitutional republic and not some dictatorship in another part of the world..but what makes us different than the country of Libya where their leader also ordered murders of citizens? I am certainly not left or right...I am a Libertarian and stick to the constitution.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why do I have to try to fit my argument into your misinterpretation of applicable law?

Obama issued a kill order on Awlaki last year. That is not an illegal search and seizure, that is depriving a person of their life at the whim of one man, with no chance of appeal, and no trial. Obama just successfully set himself, and every president in the future, up as judge, jury, and executioner. Why doesn't that bother you?

If you want to argue the legalities, you have to actually be able to cite something in the law and not just your opinion.

All of the relevant law about this has come in the past decade over detainees. This muldoon was never detained. He was killed on the battlefield. He wasn't denied his right to trial, because he was never detained. He was simply killed.

At any rate, it doesn't bother me because he was given at least two years notice that we were gunning for him. He continued to hold a high seat in Al Queda and plot to kill Americans.

In the end, he was a combatent, and he died as one. A smoking carcass on the modern battlefield.

Yea, treason is something new - then you wonder why I have you on ignore?

Three things for you.

1.) I think ignore is for sufferers of vaginitis. I don't use it myself. I see it as a bastion of those who are so mentally fragile that words written on an internet message board force them to expend enough energy to click an extra button.
2.) I don't really care if you have me on ignore. I certainly don't spend any time worrying about what you or anyone else thinks of me.
3.) If you have me on ignore, then why respond? Oh wait, you have me on ignore, you'll never see this unless someone else quotes it.

Loser.

 

[jillian]

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.