Due Process: for noncitizens but not for citizens?

[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?

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.

Don't be dimwitted. As I said before, if this guy was in Iowa, this would have been a completely different situation.

The fact that he was operating in Yemen and actively involved in efforts that have (the Ft. Hood massacre) and will target Americans changes the context.

He had two years to make an appeal on his behalf. He did not. Deal with reality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate.

The irony of this is the Framers went out of their way to make treason difficult to prove, as it was so often misused as a political weapon by the regimes of their time.

Article III, Section 3 US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The authors were concerned about the definition of treason. They thought that it was used too broadly to define any dissenting opinions. Their new country would be much stricter about what treason was, and how one would be accused and convicted of it.

Treason, then, is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. To be convicted, the accused must confess to treason, or be accused by two direct witnesses of the treason.

Notes on the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article III, Section 3 clearly states that one must be convicted of treason, in court, per due process. One must either confess in a public proceeding or be accused by two witnesses.

Allegations of treason do not therefore mitigate, suspend, or otherwise do away with the defendant’s right to do process – as some have incorrectly argued.

It’s sad and troubling that Americans today are ignorant of this Constitutional stipulation and advocate that by committing acts of treason, one forfeits his Constitutional rights.

Lastly, no one is arguing that Anwar al-Awlaki’s actions do not meet the standards of treason, or that there isn’t sufficient evidence for indictment and trial, the argument is simply to adhere the Constitutional requirements as to addressing the issue of treason.

 

[Valerie]

The man was very Publicly, and openly at war with his own country. He was a traitor, and he chose his Fate.

The irony of this is the Framers went out of their way to make treason difficult to prove, as it was so often misused as a political weapon by the regimes of their time.

Article III, Section 3 US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The authors were concerned about the definition of treason. They thought that it was used too broadly to define any dissenting opinions. Their new country would be much stricter about what treason was, and how one would be accused and convicted of it.

Treason, then, is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. To be convicted, the accused must confess to treason, or be accused by two direct witnesses of the treason.

Notes on the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article III, Section 3 clearly states that one must be convicted of treason, in court, per due process. One must either confess in a public proceeding or be accused by two witnesses.

Allegations of treason do not therefore mitigate, suspend, or otherwise do away with the defendant’s right to do process – as some have incorrectly argued.

It’s sad and troubling that Americans today are ignorant of this Constitutional stipulation and advocate that by committing acts of treason, one forfeits his Constitutional rights.

Lastly, no one is arguing that Anwar al-Awlaki’s actions do not meet the standards of treason, or that there isn’t sufficient evidence for indictment and trial, the argument is simply to adhere the Constitutional requirements as to addressing the issue of treason.

Awlaki was also described in court testimony as an inspiration by two of the six people convicted on conspiracy and other charges in a plot to kill US military personnel at Fort Dix in 2007



US officials have cited evidence that Awlaki had become personally involved in the planning of attacks on America – something that would help provide a legal justification for the controversial act of remote-controlled assassination.

In testimony before a congressional committee last year, the secretary for homeland security Janet Napolitano said that Awlaki had taken on an operational role in attack planning. In a statement confirming his death, Obama cited a link to the failed Christmas 2009 bombing of an airliner heading for Detroit and a bid to post bombs to synagogues in Chicago on cargo planes last year.

Anwar al-Awlaki obituary | World news | The Guardian

A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit that had sought to block the American government from trying to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen and Muslim cleric in hiding overseas who is accused of helping to plan attacks by Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen.


In an 83-page opinion, Judge John D. Bates said Mr. Awlaki’s father, the plaintiff, had no standing to file the lawsuit on behalf of his son. He also said decisions about targeted killings in such circumstances were a “political question” for executive branch officials to make — not judges.


Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, praised the ruling for recognizing “that a leader of a foreign terrorist organization who rejects our system of justice cannot enjoy the protection of our courts while plotting strikes against Americans. The court properly rejected that course and declined to intrude into sensitive military and intelligence matters.”


LiveLeak.com - Judge Won't Quash Al-Awlaki Kill Order

Judge Bates rejected the notion that his ruling granted the executive “unreviewable authority to order the assassination of any American whom he labels an enemy of the state.”

“The court only concludes that it lacks capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an ‘operational member’ ” of Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch, “presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him,” Judge Bates said.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Don't be dimwitted. As I said before, if this guy was in Iowa, this would have been a completely different situation.

The fact that he was operating in Yemen and actively involved in efforts that have (the Ft. Hood massacre) and will target Americans changes the context.

He had two years to make an appeal on his behalf. He did not. Deal with reality.

Here's the reality, dipshit: he's an American citizen. No matter where he is, he's entitled to due process from our government. It doesn't matter whether he's a serial killer or a terrorist. All Americans are entitled to due process. Nothing you have posted contradicts that simple irrefutable fact.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Don't be dimwitted. As I said before, if this guy was in Iowa, this would have been a completely different situation.

The fact that he was operating in Yemen and actively involved in efforts that have (the Ft. Hood massacre) and will target Americans changes the context.

He had two years to make an appeal on his behalf. He did not. Deal with reality.

Here's the reality, dipshit: he's an American citizen. No matter where he is, he's entitled to due process from our government. It doesn't matter whether he's a serial killer or a terrorist. All Americans are entitled to due process. Nothing you have posted contradicts that simple irrefutable fact.

By that logic, every criminal shot by a cop should cause a constitutional crisis. I mean, they were denied their "due process" rights too.

I'd be in full agreement if we had detained this guy.

As it stands, he's an enemy combatant killed on the battlefield. Nobody was worried about "due process" for the handful of Americans that defected and fought for Germany. They just killed the bastards.

But it is nice to see to see you conservatives suddenly become concerned with the rights of terrorists. Kind of how you guys all became fiscally conservative when Obama won.

At any rate, "apprehension by use of deadly force" is a seizure. He wasn't denied his right to a jury trial. He was never given that opportunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Read up, buttercup. And feel free to see what the court found.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't be dimwitted. As I said before, if this guy was in Iowa, this would have been a completely different situation.

The fact that he was operating in Yemen and actively involved in efforts that have (the Ft. Hood massacre) and will target Americans changes the context.

He had two years to make an appeal on his behalf. He did not. Deal with reality.

Here's the reality, dipshit: he's an American citizen. No matter where he is, he's entitled to due process from our government. It doesn't matter whether he's a serial killer or a terrorist. All Americans are entitled to due process. Nothing you have posted contradicts that simple irrefutable fact.

By that logic, every criminal shot by a cop should cause a constitutional crisis. I mean, they were denied their "due process" rights too.

I'd be in full agreement if we had detained this guy.

As it stands, he's an enemy combatant killed on the battlefield. Nobody was worried about "due process" for the handful of Americans that defected and fought for Germany. They just killed the bastards.

But it is nice to see to see you conservatives suddenly become concerned with the rights of terrorists. Kind of how you guys all became fiscally conservative when Obama won.

At any rate, "apprehension by use of deadly force" is a seizure. He wasn't denied his right to a jury trial. He was never given that opportunity.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up, buttercup. And feel free to see what the court found.

You really have to twist to justify your position here.

Alwaki was not involved in a police shootout, he was ordered killed by the President of the United States of America without a trial. That is a death sentence passed by a single man, not a case of the police trying to arrest someone who ends up resisting that arrest.

Tennessee v Gardner does not apply because there was no imminent threat of danger to the CIA operative sitting in an office in the US from a guy in Yemen, and there were no other people in the immediate vicinity of of Awlaki that he was placing in danger. If there is no immediate threat to the officer trying to apprehend the suspect, or to the public, it is illegal to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect. According to the criteria laid out in your own example that made this entire action unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional.

That alone makes you wrong, and it is not even the issue that is being discussed here.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here's the reality, dipshit: he's an American citizen. No matter where he is, he's entitled to due process from our government. It doesn't matter whether he's a serial killer or a terrorist. All Americans are entitled to due process. Nothing you have posted contradicts that simple irrefutable fact.

By that logic, every criminal shot by a cop should cause a constitutional crisis. I mean, they were denied their "due process" rights too.

I'd be in full agreement if we had detained this guy.

As it stands, he's an enemy combatant killed on the battlefield. Nobody was worried about "due process" for the handful of Americans that defected and fought for Germany. They just killed the bastards.

But it is nice to see to see you conservatives suddenly become concerned with the rights of terrorists. Kind of how you guys all became fiscally conservative when Obama won.

At any rate, "apprehension by use of deadly force" is a seizure. He wasn't denied his right to a jury trial. He was never given that opportunity.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up, buttercup. And feel free to see what the court found.

You really have to twist to justify your position here.

Alwaki was not involved in a police shootout, he was ordered killed by the President of the United States of America without a trial. That is a death sentence passed by a single man, not a case of the police trying to arrest someone who ends up resisting that arrest.

Tennessee v Gardner does not apply because there was no imminent threat of danger to the CIA operative sitting in an office in the US from a guy in Yemen, and there were no other people in the immediate vicinity of of Awlaki that he was placing in danger. If there is no immediate threat to the officer trying to apprehend the suspect, or to the public, it is illegal to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect. According to the criteria laid out in your own example that made this entire action unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional.

That alone makes you wrong, and it is not even the issue that is being discussed here.

Neither was Garner. Your interpretation of the case is not what the court actually ruled.

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

"Immediate" is not in the ruling. "Significant" is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By that logic, every criminal shot by a cop should cause a constitutional crisis. I mean, they were denied their "due process" rights too.

I'd be in full agreement if we had detained this guy.

As it stands, he's an enemy combatant killed on the battlefield. Nobody was worried about "due process" for the handful of Americans that defected and fought for Germany. They just killed the bastards.

But it is nice to see to see you conservatives suddenly become concerned with the rights of terrorists. Kind of how you guys all became fiscally conservative when Obama won.

At any rate, "apprehension by use of deadly force" is a seizure. He wasn't denied his right to a jury trial. He was never given that opportunity.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up, buttercup. And feel free to see what the court found.

You really have to twist to justify your position here.

Alwaki was not involved in a police shootout, he was ordered killed by the President of the United States of America without a trial. That is a death sentence passed by a single man, not a case of the police trying to arrest someone who ends up resisting that arrest.

Tennessee v Gardner does not apply because there was no imminent threat of danger to the CIA operative sitting in an office in the US from a guy in Yemen, and there were no other people in the immediate vicinity of of Awlaki that he was placing in danger. If there is no immediate threat to the officer trying to apprehend the suspect, or to the public, it is illegal to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect. According to the criteria laid out in your own example that made this entire action unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional.

That alone makes you wrong, and it is not even the issue that is being discussed here.

Neither was Garner. Your interpretation of the case is not what the court actually ruled.

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

"Immediate" is not in the ruling. "Significant" is.

You should know better than to use Wikipedia for citations,

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

TENNESSEE V. GARNER, 471 U. S. 1 :: Volume 471 :: 1985 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Immediate is in the ruling.

 

[geauxtohell]

You really have to twist to justify your position here.

Alwaki was not involved in a police shootout, he was ordered killed by the President of the United States of America without a trial. That is a death sentence passed by a single man, not a case of the police trying to arrest someone who ends up resisting that arrest.

Tennessee v Gardner does not apply because there was no imminent threat of danger to the CIA operative sitting in an office in the US from a guy in Yemen, and there were no other people in the immediate vicinity of of Awlaki that he was placing in danger. If there is no immediate threat to the officer trying to apprehend the suspect, or to the public, it is illegal to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect. According to the criteria laid out in your own example that made this entire action unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional.

That alone makes you wrong, and it is not even the issue that is being discussed here.

Neither was Garner. Your interpretation of the case is not what the court actually ruled.

"Immediate" is not in the ruling. "Significant" is.

You should know better than to use Wikipedia for citations,

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

TENNESSEE V. GARNER, 471 U. S. 1 :: Volume 471 :: 1985 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Immediate is in the ruling.

Oh, did I post anything inaccurate? I don't think so. The majority opinion of the court was this:

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Again, "immediate" is not in there. Significant is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neither was Garner. Your interpretation of the case is not what the court actually ruled.

"Immediate" is not in the ruling. "Significant" is.

You should know better than to use Wikipedia for citations,



TENNESSEE V. GARNER, 471 U. S. 1 :: Volume 471 :: 1985 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Immediate is in the ruling.

Oh, did I post anything inaccurate? I don't think so. The majority opinion of the court was this:

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Again, "immediate" is not in there. Significant is.

Do you stop reading medical books after the first paragraph? Immediate might not be in the first paragraph, but it is in the decision. The part I quoted was in the majority opinion, and it explains what is meant by the small portion you quoted.

Nice to see you maintain your inability to admit you are wrong even when prevented with incontrovertible evidence.

 

[Photonic]

From what I see here, that court ruling sets enough presidence to possibly allow for this to be constitutionally legal.

If there was enough evidence to show he may have been a serious and effective threat to other US Citizens, his death is judged as necessary unless capture is possible without further risk of those who would capture him.

 

[Xchel]

the problem is they had plenty of opportunity to capture him before they killed him...they in fact one time did arrest him...they released him because there were no charges to hold him on.

 

[Mustang]

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?

I don't know what you're talking about. You make it sound like Rush Limbaugh should now be afraid to go on vacation in Tuscany.

But something about your outrage will probably give aid and comfort to the enemy. Congratulations! They may now believe that if they recruit enough disaffected American Muslims into their ranks, they might just be able to raise a virtual Army of potential terrorists who will be protected by crackpot conservatives and ultra-liberals who wave the US Constitution as if it was the equivalent of a protective force field.

Personally, I find the killing of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker on American soil to be more troubling as a matter of "due process" since they were essentially ambushed and murdered by law enforcement officers.

But in modern-day America, if a criminal commits a crime, and he's known to be armed and dangerous, a police officer is allowed to shoot with the intent to kill a suspect if that suspect is determined to be a threat to the officer or civilians, even IF the suspect never had a court hearing or was never formally charged with a crime by the legal system.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Self confessed terrorist leader. Jake Tapper is a twit LOL!

But you were against waterboarding? And now you're for killing US citizens? How does that work.....

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Another Benedict Arnold bites the dust. The Brits hung Lord Hawhaw after the war almost as fast as they could get their hands on him. Militant Islam declared war on the United States and this guy decided to bite the hand that fed him and jumped over to the wrong side. How many more there are after this guy is anybody's guess? If I dared venture my own opinion how many more they'd be burning up the lines to Cair and to attackwatch.com as soon as this was posted. But this is similar to the scene described in one of Ulysses travels where as soon as he dispatched one attacker, another would rise up out of the dust and stones to attack him anew. Islam has been at war with Christianity and Western Civilization since 723 AD and none of their representatives have yet ventured onto the deck of the USS Missouri as had General Umezu and Foreign Minister Shigomitzu.

 

[Mustang]

Self confessed terrorist leader. Jake Tapper is a twit LOL!

But you were against waterboarding? And now you're for killing US citizens? How does that work.....

Are you familiar with the concepts of a criminal or a terrorist being 'at large' as opposed to being 'in custody'?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what I see here, that court ruling sets enough presidence to possibly allow for this to be constitutionally legal.

If there was enough evidence to show he may have been a serious and effective threat to other US Citizens, his death is judged as necessary unless capture is possible without further risk of those who would capture him.

That court ruling does not even come close to making this legal. Alwaki was not being pursued by police when he was hit with those missiles, nor was he armed, or an immediate threat to anyone.

 

[Amelia]

From what I see here, that court ruling sets enough presidence to possibly allow for this to be constitutionally legal.

If there was enough evidence to show he may have been a serious and effective threat to other US Citizens, his death is judged as necessary unless capture is possible without further risk of those who would capture him.

That court ruling does not even come close to making this legal. Alwaki was not being pursued by police when he was hit with those missiles, nor was he armed, or an immediate threat to anyone.

I agree. That court ruling kicked the can down the road. Well ... it kicked the can over a ledge and made it hard for anyone to retrieve it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Self confessed terrorist leader. Jake Tapper is a twit LOL!

But you were against waterboarding? And now you're for killing US citizens? How does that work.....

Are you familiar with the concepts of a criminal or a terrorist being 'at large' as opposed to being 'in custody'?

If a US citizen is a suspect or is wanted for some crime authorities detain that person through due process.....unless suspect starts firing on authorities.