Treason and the Constitution

[bigrebnc1775]

Imagine you are president.
A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
We have him in the crosshairs
but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.

What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.

Exactly


Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated

That would be up to Congress not the President.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Draft dodgers George and Dick illegally invaded a sovereign nation and you are crying for a terrorist? Bush and Cheney killed thousands and you cry over a terrorist? You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president.

Bush had Congressional approval before he did anything.

You people are sick in your hatred of our democratically elected president

oh I see since a president was democratically elected he can do as he pleases? Bush was too but you seem to act differently towards him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's say Obama had just let him go, even if this guy never harmed a living soul afterward (doubtful), if it ever leaked out that he had been allowed to get away because Obama hesitated and consulted a lawyer first just how damaging would that be? Lord, the republicans would make a field day of calling him a coward. So on the horns of a moral dilemma this large he chose the way he did and fallout be damned. I feel he chose correctly.

And that’s the problem, politicians ignoring the Constitution and rule of law to pursue that which is politically expedient.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's say Obama had just let him go, even if this guy never harmed a living soul afterward (doubtful), if it ever leaked out that he had been allowed to get away because Obama hesitated and consulted a lawyer first just how damaging would that be? Lord, the republicans would make a field day of calling him a coward. So on the horns of a moral dilemma this large he chose the way he did and fallout be damned. I feel he chose correctly.

And that’s the problem, politicians ignoring the Constitution and rule of law to pursue that which is politically expedient.

Agree

 

[Douger]

Here's what your masters think.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's what your masters think.

and here is what I say to the sheeple's masters
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg]Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoGtXEVQPxo&feature=g-u]DON'T TREAD ON ME - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hortysir]

Imagine you are president.
A guy comes in and says we know where PE#1 is.
We have him in the crosshairs
but we can't fire because there might be some legal problems later.

What do you do? I know what I would do, the same thing anyone with courage would do.

Exactly


Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated

That would be up to Congress not the President.

My CIC gave a lawful order to his Generals who then dispatched these lawful orders to the soldiers in charge of the predator drones and/or ST6 (whichever enemy you're referring to),who then took out a military target on the battlefield - which happens to be anyplace in the world our enemies happen to be.

Our military forces have teamed up more closely with, and have started taking action in tandem or instead of, our CIA.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Exactly


Said PE#1 is deemed a clear and present danger and thus eliminated

That would be up to Congress not the President.

My CIC gave a lawful order to his Generals who then dispatched these lawful orders to the soldiers in charge of the predator drones and/or ST6 (whichever enemy you're referring to),who then took out a military target on the battlefield - which happens to be anyplace in the world our enemies happen to be.

Our military forces have teamed up more closely with, and have started taking action in tandem or instead of, our CIA.

Even when it treason American citizens have rights. and Congress not the president dictates the punishment. that is according to the Constitution.

 

[hortysir]

So the Secret Service can't take out a sniper on the grassy knoll, regardless of which continent the knoll lies?

I see no difference between a sniper 2 minutes away from taking a shot and a terrorist 2 months away from mobilizing his cell to level an apartment building.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So the Secret Service can't take out a sniper on the grassy knoll, regardless of which continent the knoll lies?

I see no difference between a sniper 2 minutes away from taking a shot and a terrorist 2 months away from mobilizing his cell to level an apartment building.

I would say that's different but a president does not have the authority to supersede the Constitution and place an American citizen on a hit list.

 

[Toome]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

He's an American citizen we are a Constitutional republic do we trash the constitution now?

 

[hortysir]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

He's an American citizen we are a Constitutional republic do we trash the constitution now?

Kinda missed the bolded part, huh?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

He's an American citizen we are a Constitutional republic do we trash the constitution now?

Kinda missed the bolded part, huh?

What part of due process not matter what did you miss?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

This above makes no sense.

One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.

This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.

Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.

One doesn’t forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).

He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).

He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).

In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitution’s violation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

This above makes no sense.

One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.

This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.

Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.

One doesn’t forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).

He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).

He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).

In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitution’s violation.

Ladies and gentlemen there you have it, a well thought out very knowledgeable and sound and informed post.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

This above makes no sense.

One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.

This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.

Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.

One doesn’t forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).

He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).

He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).

In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitution’s violation.

But, there is one big but. I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death. The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive". If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country. Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons. The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this. Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't count me as an Anwar Al-Awlaki sympathizer. While I understand the controversy of an American being targeted for assassination, fact remains that Al-Awlaki had plenty of opportunities to exercise his constitutional rights to petition the US government. Instead, he chose to contest it on the battlefield and he lost.

Life kinda sucks that way when you decide to be a terrorist.

This above makes no sense.

One is presumed innocent, the burden lies with the state to prove guilt. Guilt can only be determined in a court of law. In order for a citizen to be detained, charged with a crime, and indicted, there must be sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation and hold the suspect for trial.

This constitutes due process, which was not afforded Al-Awlaki.

Punishment can only be carried out after conviction.

One doesn’t forfeit his Constitutional rights because he decides to be a criminal. And he retains certain rights even after conviction, such as the right to appeal and not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

Al-Awlaki was killed extra-judicially, without probable cause or warrant issued (4th Amendment).

He was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; he was never allowed to confront witnesses against him; or allowed a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, nor was he afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense (6th Amendment).

He was never indicted by a Grand Jury, he was deprived of life without due process of law (5th Amendment).

In the context of the Bill of Rights, then, one can clearly see the egregious nature of the Constitution’s violation.

But, there is one big but. I'm not sure of how this all works legally, but I have a feeling you do.
He was tried in Yemen, where he was living for years, and was in at the time of his death. The judge ordered that he be found and captured "dead or alive". If I am correct, by law we typically respect foreign countries courts, when the law was broken in that country. Simply, one could easily argue that the US was just helping Yemen enforce their own laws.
Further the argument that congress must dictate the punishment for treason, is completely bunk, for two reasons. The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.
The second is that the national security act of 1947, gave the National Security Council, the ability to do this. Until a court rules that this law is unconstitutional, what happened was perfectly legal, even then, Obama could not be found at fault, due to ex post facto being unconstitutional in most cases.

No we do not assassinate American citizens because some foreign gave an order.

The first is that congress had already approved use of military force against al-qaeda.

Why in Gods name did obama assist al-qaeda in libya?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the President orders anyone to be assassinated even if they are declared a terrorist they will be violating that person Constitutional right for due process, without a trial by his peers, or Testimony of two Witnesses. Further more Congress is the body that is to decide punishment not the president.
Art. 3 Section 3 states

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 Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You are entitled to an opinion.

But since you are not a judge, your opinion is moot.

Move on, folks, nothing to see here.