Pres. memo--execute Americans without due process

[Dot Com]

Jake, you're a filthy piece of shit. A leftist demagogue and paid propagandist. Nothing you spew has any value - ever.

But, you filthy ****, Yemen isn't a "war zone," **********. Your god had Al-Awliki murdered in a suburban neighborhood..

rw flame post (pssst: you never heard of AQAP?)

Uncensored is a reactionary flamer with nothing but hate.

one thing he is quite good at

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored is a reactionary flamer with nothing but hate.

Jakematters, can you point to any post of yours in this thread, that has any content at all? Other than flame posts, you are silent.

I doubt you made it to 5th grade, so you were never exposed to the constitution (which is why you're a far left democrat)

{Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. }

Try again, comrade.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's help you out, flamer.

Tell us how Yemen is a "war zone," moron?

 

[Sallow]

Due process means the state has to respect the rights that you possess.

Not a particularly accurate definition, but even with that, Obama denied due process when he ordered the assassination of American citizens.

Once you've joined forces with an enemy of the US that Congress has authorized the use of force against,

you no longer possess all the rights you mistakenly think you do.

You've joined forces with the enemy. You spend your days here arguing against constitutional government and advocating for a totalitarian system.

Does that mean that the next Republican president would be right to order you killed on the spot?

Just like you, Al-Awliki was a demagogue. He put out propaganda and incited ant-American hatred. There is no evidence he ever fired a shot at Americans, engaged in any terrorist act, or did anything other than make videos.

Bullshit.

He was involved in several plots including the mass shooting at fort hood and the attempted bombing of times square.

Anwar al-Awlaki?s Suspected Ties to Terror Plots - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

If he was "innocent" he never should have left the US and turned himself over to authorities.

 

[Sallow]

I have not read much of this thread yet. But I am a bit amazed that a decision by the Obama Administration is making SOME allies of SOME natural antagonists (politically speaking).

I add these musing to make a point, but I am CERTAIN it will garner me much animosity from the left, the right , the libertarians and everyone else (save for a few).

The COMMENTS about "due process" are absolutely DEVOID of logic or rationality.

The CONSTITUTION says (and I will cut and paste the clauses for brevity's sake):

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5]

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[6]

-- lifted from Wiki, Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: it says any PERSON. It does not say "no citizen."

Therefore, by the logic of the opponents, ANYONE -- whether an American citizen or not -- would be having a Constitutional right violated if they are targeted for a drone strike.

YET, the primary objection to the DoJ's "memo" is that it says that it is even permissible to target a U.S. citizen. That's when the opponents start wailing about "due process."

Properly understood, Due Process does NOT apply JUST to citizens.

SOME rights guaranteed under the Constitution do pertain only to citizens. Voting, for example. But, it is not just citizens who are protected by the First Amendment. Aliens here have a guaranteed right to the same freedom of speech and religion. Thus, SOME guaranteed rights pertain to all people.

IF, in time of war, it is "ok" to target an enemy who is bent on attacking the U.S., its people, its forces, its property or its interests, then it doesn't make it any less "ok" if that enemy happens to be a citizen.

Quite correct.

Which is why the AUMF, the Patriot Act and Enemy Combatant Status are so dangerous.

 

[Dot Com]

Let's help you out, flamer.

Tell us how Yemen is a "war zone," moron?

you still never answered my question: what is AQAP?

 

[Katzndogz]

What's wrong with obama's kill list is that it is so vague, so undefinable, that it could mean almost anyone. There need be no evidence, not action, no proven ties to any terrorist group. There doesn't even need to be a suspicion. That's what's wrong with this.

On the one hand, obama wants to make all the illegal aliens citizens, INCLUDING terrorists. American citizenship is handed out to babies born here specifically to gain citizenship and for no other reason. On the other hand, obama wants the power of life and death over ALL American citizens based upon nothing more than his whim. Open borders and national security do not go hand in hand.

 

[Liability]

I have not read much of this thread yet. But I am a bit amazed that a decision by the Obama Administration is making SOME allies of SOME natural antagonists (politically speaking).

I add these musing to make a point, but I am CERTAIN it will garner me much animosity from the left, the right , the libertarians and everyone else (save for a few).

The COMMENTS about "due process" are absolutely DEVOID of logic or rationality.

The CONSTITUTION says (and I will cut and paste the clauses for brevity's sake):

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5]

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[6]

-- lifted from Wiki, Due Process Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: it says any PERSON. It does not say "no citizen."

Therefore, by the logic of the opponents, ANYONE -- whether an American citizen or not -- would be having a Constitutional right violated if they are targeted for a drone strike.

YET, the primary objection to the DoJ's "memo" is that it says that it is even permissible to target a U.S. citizen. That's when the opponents start wailing about "due process."

Properly understood, Due Process does NOT apply JUST to citizens.

SOME rights guaranteed under the Constitution do pertain only to citizens. Voting, for example. But, it is not just citizens who are protected by the First Amendment. Aliens here have a guaranteed right to the same freedom of speech and religion. Thus, SOME guaranteed rights pertain to all people.

IF, in time of war, it is "ok" to target an enemy who is bent on attacking the U.S., its people, its forces, its property or its interests, then it doesn't make it any less "ok" if that enemy happens to be a citizen.

Quite correct.

Which is why the AUMF, the Patriot Act and Enemy Combatant Status are so dangerous.

There is inherent danger in ANY authorization for the use of force by the government. ****, man. There's an inherent danger in having a government with the power to search property -- even with a warrant, since the application for a warrant may pass judicial scrutiny but still be fallaciously based or dishonest in whole or part.

We don't shy away from the granting of power and authority to the government on the basis that it might turn out to be dangerous. We calculate the risks and we proceed with caution, but we are supposed to go forward with appropriate checks and balances.

We grant cops the right to carry weapons to protect society even as we know that SOME cops occasionally act like the criminals instead. Knowing that doesn't deter us from authorizing police to use reasonable force.

I happen to support the AUMF and the USA PATRIOT Act. Lots of my friends (libs and conservatives and libertarians) quite fully disagree with me on that. I agree they require close scrutiny, but that is never (alone) a ground to deny necessary powers and authorities to the government, imho.

Now if you want to argue that the scrutiny is decidedly LACKING, I might surprise you. I happen to agree.

 

[Dot Com]

What's wrong with obama's kill list is that it is so vague, so undefinable, that it could mean almost anyone. There need be no evidence, not action, no proven ties to any terrorist group. There doesn't even need to be a suspicion. That's what's wrong with this.

On the one hand, obama wants to make all the illegal aliens citizens, INCLUDING terrorists. American citizenship is handed out to babies born here specifically to gain citizenship and for no other reason. On the other hand, obama wants the power of life and death over ALL American citizens based upon nothing more than his whim. Open borders and national security do not go hand in hand.

Link?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bullshit.

He was involved in several plots including the mass shooting at fort hood and the attempted bombing of times square.

Look, you're a leftist demagogue and a liar, but seriously, Al-Awliki wasn't even in the country when the TERRORIST ATTACK are Ft. Hood went down.

Even the propaganda piece merely speaks of "influence."

If he was "innocent" he never should have left the US and turned himself over to authorities.

No one said he was "innocent."

See, this is the level that you thugs have fallen to. If you have a suspect, kill them.

Bush had Johnny Walker Lindh arrested for joining the terrorists. That's what Americans do. Obama had Al-Awliki assassinated, which is what dictators do. Any pretense of supporting civil rights fell, the second you leftists gained power.

And you wonder why normal people feel the need to be well armed....

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's wrong with obama's kill list is that it is so vague, so undefinable, that it could mean almost anyone. There need be no evidence, not action, no proven ties to any terrorist group. There doesn't even need to be a suspicion. That's what's wrong with this.

On the one hand, obama wants to make all the illegal aliens citizens, INCLUDING terrorists. American citizenship is handed out to babies born here specifically to gain citizenship and for no other reason. On the other hand, obama wants the power of life and death over ALL American citizens based upon nothing more than his whim. Open borders and national security do not go hand in hand.

You've obviously not read the white paper.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The administration managed to keep the memo under wraps for a while but apparently an executive order authorizes the execution of American citizens overseas without due process by drone strikes if "it is determined" that they are "threats" to American security. Is that OK with the left? Who makes the determination? It's pretty ironic that the US affords Constitutional protection to every person in the US regardless of their legal status but authorizes killing American citizens without due process overseas.

methinks the 'left' was onto this before you were .. like a few years ago.


You need to come out from under your rock more often. This has been discussed to death and it has been one of the "left's" main beefs with President Obama.

Actually, it would appear that most Americans are not taking the side of the terrorists like a few rw's are.

That is until Obama became President.

Wrong.

And, apparently, it IS constitutional but I'm sure we'll hear from the SCOTUS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit.
Al-Awliki wasn't even in the country when the TERRORIST ATTACK are Ft. Hood went down.

How many of Al Qaeda's top leaders were in the US on 9/11?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many of Al Qaeda's top leaders were in the US on 9/11?

How many actively planned the attack?

Despite your attempt at revisionism to cover for your god; here is what the FBI reported;

{In one of the e-mails, Hasan wrote al-Aulaqi: "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]". "It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up, or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan also asked al-Aulaqi when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[21] In the months before the attacks, Hasan increased his contacts with al-Aulaqi to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.[139]

A DC-based Joint Terrorism Task Force operating under the FBI was notified of the e-mails, and reviewed the information. Army employees were informed of the e-mails, but they didn't perceive any terrorist threat in Hasan's questions. Instead, they viewed them as general questions about spiritual guidance with regard to conflicts between Islam and military service, and judged them to be consistent with legitimate mental health research about Muslims in the armed services.[141] The assessment was that there was not sufficient information for a larger investigation.[142]}

Anwar al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's help you out, flamer.

Tell us how Yemen is a "war zone," moron?

Al Qaeda is a trans-national non-state actor in this conflict.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many of Al Qaeda's top leaders were in the US on 9/11?

How many actively planned the attack?

Despite your attempt at revisionism to cover for your god; here is what the FBI reported;

{In one of the e-mails, Hasan wrote al-Aulaqi: "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]". "It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up, or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan also asked al-Aulaqi when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[21] In the months before the attacks, Hasan increased his contacts with al-Aulaqi to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.[139]

A DC-based Joint Terrorism Task Force operating under the FBI was notified of the e-mails, and reviewed the information. Army employees were informed of the e-mails, but they didn't perceive any terrorist threat in Hasan's questions. Instead, they viewed them as general questions about spiritual guidance with regard to conflicts between Islam and military service, and judged them to be consistent with legitimate mental health research about Muslims in the armed services.[141] The assessment was that there was not sufficient information for a larger investigation.[142]}

Anwar al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're the one who tried to make something of the fact that he wasn't in this country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Al Qaeda is a trans-national non-state actor in this conflict.

Got it, so the "war zone" meme fails, onto the next leftist yapping point...

Fact, Obama violated the United States Constitution.

Fact, you don't don't care; you have no particular love of the Constitution and care ONLY about promoting your shameful party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're the one who tried to make something of the fact that he wasn't in this country.

American Jurisprudence has a process. Charges are levied, followed by arrest, then trial, then punishment.

North Korea and Barack Obama have a different method, kill those who you don't like.

 

[Liability]

Let's pick a name at random. It need not be a real person for the sake of this example. Let's call the guy "Al."

Al is a U.S. born American citizen who at some point finds Islam. He later embraces Islam and one of its most radical sects. He becomes a militant. Al grows to hate the U.S.A. with a burning passion. Who cares why?

Al joins al qaeda. Al advances in al qaeda. His career path takes him into the upper echelon of al qaeda. There, with others of similar ilk, he actively plans and plots to attack America and Americans and American interest with deadly force.

The U.S. military and intelligence forces "find" the guy and intercept some of his communications and come to the realization that he is actively planning some imminent attack against some of our military forces. We happen to be at war with al qaeda and they certainly consider themselves to be at war with us.

Let's get down to it. What is the U.S. military supposed to do with this intel?

Is it actually the case that the military, the President and his Administration, is obliged to submit the evidence against "Al" to some robed person in the Judicial Branch? Why?

Let's say that out of an abundance of caution, that is the path the President chooses to take. He goes to some Court (possibly doing it on a secret basis, like back in chambers with a sealed record?) and lays out the intel. No cross examination? No right of Al to be heard? Or maybe there must be? That would kind of blow the State Secret out of the water, wouldn't it?

For now let's say that it is not the "kind" of judicial proceeding that Al has to be invited to participate in. But even without a defense attorney speaking for his side, the Judge concludes that the intel is too sketchy. Maybe he's right, but maybe he's just got his head up his ass. The point is, who gave any judge a say in how the President conducts the war?

Is the President now BOUND to do nothing? Hm. What does "Al" now do? Left to his own devices, he proceeds with his plot and the orders go out and in some way that the intel had not yet scoped out, he and his "troops" commit his planned attack. Lots of dead Americans. But, THANK GOD, the notion of "due process" has been revered and all.

Right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's pick a name at random. It need not be a real person for the sake of this example. Let's call the guy "Al."

Al is a U.S. born American citizen who at some point finds Islam. He later embraces Islam and one of its most radical sects. He becomes a militant. Al grows to hate the U.S.A. with a burning passion. Who cares why?

Al joins al qaeda. Al advances in al qaeda. His career path takes him into the upper echelon of al qaeda. There, with others of similar ilk, he actively plans and plots to attack America and Americans and American interest with deadly force.

The U.S. military and intelligence forces "find" the guy and intercept some of his communications and come to the realization that he is actively planning some imminent attack against some of our military forces. We happen to be at war with al qaeda and they certainly consider themselves to be at war with us.

Let's get down to it. What is the U.S. military supposed to do with this intel?

Is it actually the case that the military, the President and his Administration, is obliged to submit the evidence against "Al" to some robed person in the Judicial Branch? Why?

Let's say that out of an abundance of caution, that is the path the President chooses to take. He goes to some Court (possibly doing it on a secret basis, like back in chambers with a sealed record?) and lays out the intel. No cross examination? No right of Al to be heard? Or maybe there must be? That would kind of blow the State Secret out of the water, wouldn't it?

For now let's say that it is not the "kind" of judicial proceeding that Al has to be invited to participate in. But even without a defense attorney speaking for his side, the Judge concludes that the intel is too sketchy. Maybe he's right, but maybe he's just got his head up his ass. The point is, who gave any judge a say in how the President conducts the war?

Is the President now BOUND to do nothing? Hm. What does "Al" now do? Left to his own devices, he proceeds with his plot and the orders go out and in some way that the intel had not yet scoped out, he and his "troops" commit his planned attack. Lots of dead Americans. But, THANK GOD, the notion of "due process" has been revered and all.

Right?

It depends on what country it is.

If the country is the United States as it was under that old Constitution, then the president has the CIA pick "Al" up and bring him in for a trial. If Al resists, he might die, but the order given is to arrest, not to murder.

If the country is under Obamunist rule, then of course assassins are dispatched to kill Al, no questions asked.