your "gun to the head" scenario implies self defense.
what sanctions are held as constitutional... and is targeted assassination one of them?
Let me assist you Grasshopper. A "sanction" is another word for anything that constitutes a "death warrant". To be "sanctioned" is to be ordered killed.
Secondly, and I thank Maggie D for first finding (and posting) this earlier in the thread. When the Obama Administration sanctioned Al-Dirtbag, Al's father actually filed suit against the US Government.
What the US Judge is saying is that the Constitution grants that process to the Executive.
No, it does not. A designated SWAT sniper has almost no concern for his safety in such a situation. No "self" about it. The President is tasked by the Constitution to provide for the Defense of America, and its assets.
Read the above info and links for input on your second question. Some of you folks need to take a little time to read.
That's an easy one, first you have to find him and hold him them you have to extradite him to Clubgetmo, where he will sit forever. Obama's way is to shoot first and ask questions later. Which I like, of course those on the left will hate him for it, but won't say anything. Just imagine the uproar from the left if Bush did what Obama just did.
Why not prosecute him in absentia? Then, if found guilty for treason, he could be sentenced to death.
Phoney bloney. SCOTUS did not rule against such sanctions. What SCOTUS ruled with Bush was that enemy combatants within US custody had some minimal habeus corpus rights. Further, this is a 2010 decision, such that prior Bush decisions do not apply. If they did, then the Judge would have had precedent. He did not.
Conservatives are bringing facts, court rulings, and the direct quotes here to this debate. Libs (liberals and misguided libertarians) bring a bunch of made-up stuff.
deadly force is authorized during the commission of a felony under certain conditions , sure..
is SWAT the sniper allowed to summarily execute the perpetrator minutes, days,weeks, or months later?... the answer is no.
ironic that you should mention "taking a lil time to read"....
unlike you, I actually took the time to read your court case, ..the whole thing... and it's immediately evident that it has no bearing on this issue whatsoever.
I was hoping it would stipulate that targeted assassinations of American citizens are valid.. but , alas, it didn't breach the subject at all.
were we to be talking about Gitmo and military tribunals, the case would be relevant... but we aren't, so it's isn't.
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.
It was argued July 29 and July 30, 1942 and decided July 31, 1942 with an extended opinion filed October 29, 1942.
This decision states:
“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
United States Code: Title 8,1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What the court ruled is what the standards are for a citizen to lose their rights as a citizen.
I agreed that his actions do not relieve him of the consequences of war. That would be an impossibility. I argued that it's wrong to specifically target a U.S. citizen without due process.
I'm slightly liberal and I cited my source.Conservatives are bringing facts, court rulings, and the direct quotes here to this debate. Libs (liberals and misguided libertarians) bring a bunch of made-up stuff.I meant people are upset because military force was used by the CIA to kill a US citizen and member of Al Qaeda in a country that could not or would not arrest him and turn him over to the US for trial.The law used by GWB's administration to hold that both actions were legal is below. The SCOTUS held that this law did not apply to Padilla and Yaser because the US had the men in custody and could therefore offer them due process as citizens. Al Awlaki was not in custody and could not be brought into custody so it would seem this law authorizes the POTUS to use military force against him.
Entire text available at: Authorization for Use of Military Force- Sept. 18, 2001
He got due process. Just not the due process that most folks find themselves receiving.
Were he not an enemy combatant, in a hostile foreign war zone, but rather within US custody somewhere, then the "due process" is different. But he wasn't, so he was properly targeted, and killed. It was not only "due process", but it was a process very much due to him.
Conservatives are bringing facts, court rulings, and the direct quotes here to this debate. Libs (liberals and misguided libertarians) bring a bunch of made-up stuff.
I'm slightly liberal and I cited my source.
Which is the problem. Someone simply deciding that some people get all the protections of the Constitution while others do not.
Simply your opinion. The SCOTUS dismissed the enemy combatant arguement when Bush tried it. They did not argue that this was only valid because someone was in custody. They ruled that citizens do not lose their protections simply because they are deemed as an enemy combatant.
I am a liberal, others like me and libertarians are citing sources, so STFU
The SCOTUS dismissed GWB's argument because both Padilla and Yaser were in US custody when they were denied their right to due process. The status of an enemy combatant who is a US citizen, is not in US custody and cannot be brought into US custody is an entirely different matter than treatment of US citizens in US custody. The SCOTUS on that matter would not apply to Al Awlaki's situation.The SCOTUS dismissed the enemy combatant argument when Bush tried it. They did not argue that this was only valid because someone was in custody. They ruled that citizens do not lose their protections simply because they are deemed as an enemy combatant.
Libs getting all butt-hurt today.uch:
The SCOTUS dismissed GWB's argument because both Padilla and Yaser were in US custody when they were denied their right to due process. The status of an enemy combatant who is a US citizen, is not in US custody and cannot be brought into US custody is an entirely different matter than treatment of US citizens in US custody. The SCOTUS on that matter would not apply to Al Awlaki's situation.
US passport, page 4, section 8:
Loss of U.S. Citizenship: Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing, voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship, any of the following acts: 1) being naturalized in a foreign state; 2) raking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; 3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state.
I think we can logically argue that joining Al Qaeda and taking part in the planning and implementation of terrorist attacks against the American citizen population, counts as an intention of relinquishing one's U.S. citizenship.
"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said. "I believe our country and the world are better off with the likes of Awlaki dead and I for one, congratulate the men and women in uniform who helped make this world safer."
It's not like a couple of FBI agents could fly to Yemen, find him in the tribal lands, cuff him, and then whisk him back to the US for trial.
It's so not about whether or not al-Awlaki had it coming.
It think it's pretty much a given that he did have it coming. That's not the issue.
What's at issue is whether or not it's right for a govt to be allowed to execute citizens w/o due process.
Both majority opinions state clearly that because the US had them in custody and they were citizens, the US had a responsibility to afford them access to counsel and due process - that the extended detainment of a US citizen without access to legal counsel or any charges being brought was unconstitutional.Why did they keep their rights? Because labeling them enemy combatants did not remove their rights to due process.
We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
Consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I believe that the Non-Detention Act, 18 U. S. C. §4001(a), prohibits—and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, 115Stat. 224, adopted on September 18, 2001, does not authorize—the protracted, incommunicado detention of American citizens arrested in the United States
Both majority opinions state clearly that because the US had them in custody and they were citizens, the US had a responsibility to afford them access to counsel and due process - that the extended detainment of a US citizen without access to legal counsel or any charges being brought was unconstitutional.
I like where your heart is at but not your head. We can do both. When it comes to waging war if you re in the enemy's camp you are a legitimate target, American or not.You either believe in concepts like habeas corpus and due process or you do not. Obviously, you are hostile to these concepts.
We were not in a war with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Yet the American government, under Bill Clinton killed those people. I considered it manslaughter.As far as a discussion goes, I would not agree. I would have deemed McVeigh a murderer also but I wouldn't accept the government killing him (forgetting for a moment I don't agree with that anyway) without a trial.
No, we should only require a trial before ordering an American citizen dead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?