The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[LowDown]

I saw this headline in the Guardian and immediately loved it. Doubly so when I saw that Glenn Greenwald wrote it.

But, alas, I must conclude that part of Greenwald's argument is flawed. He has for 12 years insisted that Congress can put limitations on how the President conducts war, and Congress does not have that authority under the Constitution. All Congress can do is cut war funding, they can't tell the President how to fight the war. So when it comes to which of America's foreign enemies to kill when and how it is the President under his own authority who decides. If an American citizen abrogates his American citizenship and helps a hostile foreign power make war against the US the President has complete authority to conclude that he is no longer an American citizen and that he is instead an enemy foreign combatant. No court procedure to find the fact is required.

Greenwald keeps saying that Obama killed an American citizen, but that is not correct. He killed a man who had abrogated his American citizenship by joining with America's foreign enemies to take concrete actions against America. The President killed a man who was no longer an American citizen. He has full authority under the Constitution to determine that such people are no longer citizens and oversight of and a by-your-leave from Congress or the Courts is not required.

Kudos to Greenwald for being consistent about this issue. He used it to bash Bush and now he's using it to bash Democrats. I have also been consistent. This was my view of presidential war authority under Bush and this is my view now, under Obama.

DWS is still an idiot for not knowing about the drone killing, though, so that part of Greenwald's argument stands. I enthusiastically endorse it and extend it to the general sense, i.e., DSW is an idiot. Period.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

 

[rathi]

Greenwald keeps saying that Obama killed an American citizen, but that is not correct. He killed a man who had abrogated his American citizenship by joining with America's foreign enemies to take concrete actions against America. The President killed a man who was no longer an American citizen. He has full authority under the Constitution to determine that such people are no longer citizens and oversight of and a by-your-leave from Congress or the Courts is not required.

I must have missed the part of the constitution that says "citizenship may be stripped from anyone because the president says so". In fact, supreme courts cases have strict limitations on which the circumstances in which the loss of citizenship is possible. Treason is one of them, but nobody ever bothered to charged Anwar even if it would have been easy to get a conviction.

Your claim is especially baseless, given that the Obama administration has never justified the killing by claiming Anwar wasn't a citizen. In fact they haven't released any legal justification at all and opposed all court cases under national security.

Using lethal force, even against American citizens, is an unfortunate necessity in extreme circumstances. However, it is utterly unacceptable to carry out such killings without due process or oversight under a veil of secrecy. Even in the most dire situations, there is no excuse for not having a trial after the fact to ensure the attack was lawful. Unilateral murder at the order of the President with no limitations or transparency cannot be tolerated.

 

[LowDown]

I must have missed the part of the constitution that says "citizenship may be stripped from anyone because the president says so". In fact, supreme courts cases have strict limitations on which the circumstances in which the loss of citizenship is possible. Treason is one of them, but nobody ever bothered to charged Anwar even if it would have been easy to get a conviction.

Your claim is especially baseless, given that the Obama administration has never justified the killing by claiming Anwar wasn't a citizen. In fact they haven't released any legal justification at all and opposed all court cases under national security.

Using lethal force, even against American citizens, is an unfortunate necessity in extreme circumstances. However, it is utterly unacceptable to carry out such killings without due process or oversight under a veil of secrecy. Even in the most dire situations, there is no excuse for not having a trial after the fact to ensure the attack was lawful. Unilateral murder at the order of the President with no limitations or transparency cannot be tolerated.

The part of the Constitution where it implies that the President has the right to abrogate the American citizenship of those who turn against the United States and join with a foreign enemy of the US is in Article II where it says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...". Coupled with that is the total absence of any authority granted regarding military command to the other two branches of the government anywhere in the Constitution.

The issue in question is a military matter, ipso facto it's within the purview of the President.

 

[rathi]

The part of the Constitution where it implies that the President has the right to abrogate the American citizenship of those who turn against the United States and join with a foreign enemy of the US is in Article II where it says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...". Coupled with that is the total absence of any authority granted regarding military command to the other two branches of the government anywhere in the Constitution.

The issue in question is a military matter, ipso facto it's within the purview of the President.

Stripping citizenship has never been a power given to the military, ever. Congress has the authority to set the rules for citizenship, as granted in article 1 of the constitution. Congress stipulated the circumstances under which citizenship may be revoked in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and amendments plus court rulings.

8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions | LII / Legal Information Institute

Treason is a valid reason, but only if found guilty by a court of law. Al-awlaki did not meet any the legal requirements for loss of citizenship and thus remained a citizen upon his murder by the federal government, in clear violation of the due process required to deprive him of his life as proscribed in the 5th amendment. My arguments are grounded in the constitution, federal law and the rulings of supreme court, you have nothing but invented concepts utterly lacking in any kind of legal precedent.

That said, no libertarian should need a legal argument to realize that this is a horrible horrible idea. The ability to order the death of anyone in secret without any kind of restrictions or accountability is asking for abuse. Claims that Anwar supported terrorism may be correct, but the government has not formally presented a single shred of evidence. If you claim that this power is only to be used against terrorists, you should have no objections to formally providing proof.

 

[LowDown]

Stripping citizenship has never been a power given to the military, ever.

The rules are different in a military situation. I'm aware that this is a controversial issue, but I do believe that I have the President on my side in this.

 

[samsmart]

The part of the Constitution where it implies that the President has the right to abrogate the American citizenship of those who turn against the United States and join with a foreign enemy of the US is in Article II where it says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...". Coupled with that is the total absence of any authority granted regarding military command to the other two branches of the government anywhere in the Constitution.

The issue in question is a military matter, ipso facto it's within the purview of the President.

Except American citizens have a right to due process of law, and so declarations of the President violate that since there is no oversight nor appeal.

Also, the Constitution prohibits the issuing of bills of attainder, which "the kill list" essentially is, especially when Congress has not declared war on a nation or a group.

 

[LowDown]

Except American citizens have a right to due process of law, and so declarations of the President violate that since there is no oversight nor appeal.

Also, the Constitution prohibits the issuing of bills of attainder, which "the kill list" essentially is, especially when Congress has not declared war on a nation or a group.

All of that only applies to people who are still citizens. Those who have already by their own actions abrogated their citizenship are another matter. If an American citizen turns a letter over to the government renouncing his citizenship then does it take a court procedure to strip him of his citizenship? I would think not. Only the administrative recognition of the fact is required. So it is when an an American citizen "signs up" with Al Qaeda and then takes up arms against the US. The President merely recognizes the fact of what that person has done. And again, in a war such fact finding is handled differently. In short, it is handled any way the President thinks is in the country's best interest, which may or may not include some sort of court procedure such as a military tribunal. Or it may just be handled using a kill list.

 

[rathi]

The rules are different in a military situation. I'm aware that this is a controversial issue, but I do believe that I have the President on my side in this.

The rules are not different in military situations. You are simply making up nonsense that has no basis in justice. If you want to make legal claim, cite some damn laws. You don't even have the president on your side, as he has never issued any statements claimed he stripped Al-Awlaki of citizenship, he just killed him American and all.

All of that only applies to people who are still citizens. Those who have already by their own actions abrogated their citizenship are another matter. If an American citizen turns a letter over to the government renouncing his citizenship then does it take a court procedure to strip him of his citizenship? I would think not. Only the administrative recognition of the fact is required. So it is when an an American citizen "signs up" with Al Qaeda and then takes up arms against the US. The President merely recognizes the fact of what that person has done. And again, in a war such fact finding is handled differently. In short, it is handled any way the President thinks is in the country's best interest, which may or may not include some sort of court procedure such as a military tribunal. Or it may just be handled using a kill list.

I posted a direct link to the exact wording of the law stating the requirements for removing citizenship. All claims require Preponderance of Evidence at the very least, making your claim of "administrative recognition" false. Furthermore, the president has not even given "administrative recognition" of Al-Awlaki's status, so the killing didn't even meet your made -up standards.

 

[LowDown]

The rules are not different in military situations. You are simply making up nonsense that has no basis in justice. If you want to make legal claim, cite some damn laws. You don't even have the president on your side, as he has never issued any statements claimed he stripped Al-Awlaki of citizenship, he just killed him American and all.

No doubt you are aware of the military code of justice, of the fact that military tribunals have been used throughout American history starting with George Washington to adjudicate these wartime matters. You may not be aware that a military tribunal might consist of nothing more than some officers gathered ad hoc on a battlefield, but it is a fact. How can you say it's not different?

Getting back to the point of loss of citizenship, according to the state department:

Causes of Citizenship Loss

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

• Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
• Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
• Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
• Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
• Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
• Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
• Conviction for an act of treason.

Disposition of Cases when Administrative Premise Is Inapplicable

The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

1. Formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
2. Takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
3. Is convicted of treason; or
4. Performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

*Cases in categories 2, 3, and 4 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship.

Number 4 would surely apply to Al-Awlaki

Rathi: I posted a direct link to the exact wording of the law stating the requirements for removing citizenship. All claims require Preponderance of Evidence at the very least, making your claim of "administrative recognition" false.

Nope. A "Preponderance of evidence" standard and administrative action are not mutually exclusive, see Number 4 above.

Rathi: Furthermore, the president has not even given "administrative recognition" of Al-Awlaki's status, so the killing didn't even meet your made -up standards.

I'm sure that some sort of document detailing Al-Awlaki's status has been written, but I doubt if it's available to the general public.

In any case, the President, your guy, who you no doubt voted for, is acting very much like he agrees with me on everything! And the guy who wants to replace him is even more so. It looks to me like someone whispered in the ear of our constitutional scholar President and convinced him of the utility of maintaining these positions of executive war power. In this I agree with the President. It is foolish to shackle a war leader with a lot of legislative and judicial oversight. The founders saw that clearly. A war leader above and beyond all considerations must be able to do what is necessary to win wars or else all is lost and debates about propriety become moot.

 

[samsmart]

All of that only applies to people who are still citizens. Those who have already by their own actions abrogated their citizenship are another matter. If an American citizen turns a letter over to the government renouncing his citizenship then does it take a court procedure to strip him of his citizenship? I would think not. Only the administrative recognition of the fact is required. So it is when an an American citizen "signs up" with Al Qaeda and then takes up arms against the US. The President merely recognizes the fact of what that person has done. And again, in a war such fact finding is handled differently. In short, it is handled any way the President thinks is in the country's best interest, which may or may not include some sort of court procedure such as a military tribunal. Or it may just be handled using a kill list.

Actually, a person renouncing his or her citizenship is quite full of red tape. The reason why is because the American government wants to continue getting tax revenues from it's citizens. And so an American citizen cannot just turn over a letter that legally renounces his citizenship.

Also, due process must be followed, because an American citizen who is a suspect of terrorist activities still maintains their constitutional civil rights and civil liberties. Only after conviction can an American then be treated as a terrorist.

And the President does not have the power to treat suspects however he or she wants. To do so is the height of tyranny, as we are a constitutional representative democratic republic whose legal basis is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

Actually, a person renouncing his or her citizenship is quite full of red tape. The reason why is because the American government wants to continue getting tax revenues from it's citizens. And so an American citizen cannot just turn over a letter that legally renounces his citizenship.

Also, due process must be followed, because an American citizen who is a suspect of terrorist activities still maintains their constitutional civil rights and civil liberties. Only after conviction can an American then be treated as a terrorist.

And the President does not have the power to treat suspects however he or she wants. To do so is the height of tyranny, as we are a constitutional representative democratic republic whose legal basis is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Not in disagreement, but would that not make our sitting president guilty of murder in the 1st degree?

 

[samsmart]

Not in disagreement, but would that not make our sitting president guilty of murder in the 1st degree?

Not just our sitting President.

 

[rathi]

No doubt you are aware of the military code of justice, of the fact that military tribunals have been used throughout American history starting with George Washington to adjudicate these wartime matters. You may not be aware that a military tribunal might consist of nothing more than some officers gathered ad hoc on a battlefield, but it is a fact. How can you say it's not different?

Military tribunals have zero authority to strip citizenship of a civilian. It has never been done ever in American history ever, you are simply making up powers that don't exist.

Number 4 would surely apply to Al-Awlaki

No it doesn't.

Performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

The staute referenced are the laws I linked to. They do not contain any actions taken by Al-Awlaki except treason, which requires a conviction in a court of law.

Nope. A "Preponderance of evidence" standard and administrative action are not mutually exclusive, see Number 4 above.

The executive branch has not released a single piece of evidence whatsoever. That fails to meet the standard for preponderance and thus fails.

I'm sure that some sort of document detailing Al-Awlaki's status has been written, but I doubt if it's available to the general public.

I'm sorry did the USSR win the cold war? The idea that its okay to strip someone of citizenship and execute them in secret is a flagrant violation of due process and the entire principles upon which democracy stands.

 

[LowDown]

I'm sorry did the USSR win the cold war? The idea that its okay to strip someone of citizenship and execute them in secret is a flagrant violation of due process and the entire principles upon which democracy stands.

Again, it would appear that you're wrong about all of that, badly wrong, because our current President is acting very much like polices you regard as Stalinesque are the true and proper interpretation of the Constitutional authority of the President. So I'm afraid you're just full of beans in this matter, or so at least according to the President. Let us not go around and around on this point. I've got both Obama and Romney on my side in this.

But if you want to push the idea that Obama is a war criminal then be my guest!

 

[rathi]

Again, it would appear that you're wrong about all of that, badly wrong, because our current President is acting very much like polices you regard as Stalinesque are the true and proper interpretation of the Constitutional authority of the President. So I'm afraid you're just full of beans in this matter, or so at least according to the President. Let us not go around and around on this point. I've got both Obama and Romney on my side in this.

I'll give you that the executive branch and congress may have endorsed extra-judicial killings, but the courts have not. The lawsuit regarding Al-Awlaki's death has not been resolved yet and there is still chance for the 3rd branch to check the power of the other two. That you have both Obama and Romney on your side is a demonstration of the failing of the two party system, not an endorsement of legal principle or sensible policy.

But if you want to push the idea that Obama is a war criminal then be my guest!

Actually it would be plain old murder one for violating the 5th amendment. I am aware that there is zero chance of anything ever being done about it, just like the crimes of the Bush administration. However, I feel compelled to point out the hideous breach of legal principle, even if the justice system is too easily corrupted by the powerful for it to actually matter.