Glenn Greenwald: The Due Process Free Assasination Of U.S. Citizens Is Now Reality

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The process we use to assasinate American Citizens is indistingiushalbe from the process used by Stalin and dozens of other tin-pot dictators since then. We have about 20 years of State Department Human Rights reports condemning the very same types of actions we are now committing.

Absurd.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

The lack of personal knowledge is a two way street. As I have pointed out repeatedly, none of us can or should be able to a priori determine who could or who could not be captured alive. We can debate the principles of the issue but not that facts and considering the circumstance of how these decisions are being made, I would argue that we shouldn't.



Apparently you are aware of criminal procedures heretofore unknown even to criminal defense attorneys.

You can be tried in absentia ONLY mid-trial and only if a defendant voluntarily absents himself from his own trial.

I find it fascinating that in defending the rights of the accuse you are willing to give up the constitutional rights under the 6th Amendment; "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;"

Did you by chance read my post regarding the attempt to win an injunction and the appeals court position on the issue. Was that or was it not part of our system of due process?



"We" killed an American (not the first I might add) not for being a criminal but for being an unlawful enemy combatant.



Yes, Obama woke up one morning after a bad night of sleep and decided to blow off a little steam and issued a presidential finding to whack al-awlaki before breakfast.

The lack of knowledge does not support abandoning principles, in fact, it supports the opposite, an adherence to principles.

Re trials in absentia, you asserted that they did not occur. I asserted that they did. Which you now allow.

I am not willing to give up the rights accorded by the 6th Amendment, I am willing for the standards of trials in absentia to be modified in order to reflect the realities of the modern world, and I would rather that then due process be set aside entirely.

As for the injunction, the ruling regarding the father's lack of standing addresses your due process question, in my opinion. If the father was not deemed to have standing, then the accused would have had to bring suit in order for due process to occur.

The formality of this man being added to a list, the time involved between his being on the list and being executed, all add to my argument that "imminent threat" is being re-defined, and in such a way that it damages the Constitution and its guarantees.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Absurd.

This is our current system:

1. The President keeps a list of American citizens he intends to have the CIA assasinate.
2. He doesn't have to tell anyone which people are on that list.
3. He doesn't have to justify to anyone why a person should be on the list.
4. If one happens to find out they are on the list, they can't go to court to challange their imminent death.
5. After the assasination, the President doesn't have to explain to anyone why he ordered the assasination.
6. The President doesn't even have to tells us that the government is the one who assasinated the citizen - he can make it look like an accident and never inform anyone that he was involved.
7. The only person who approved the process the President uses to determine who should be assasinated - is the President himself.
8. The President can change the process to determine who should be assasinated at his discretion.


How is that any different than the system used by a 3rd world dictator?

One may like Obama, and still think this system is not good for the U.S. to have... because Obama will not always be President, yet that system will remain.

How many American citizens are on the President's assasination list? I don't know, you don't know, congress doesn't know, and the judiciary doesn't know. Only the administration knows how many and who are on the list. It's somewhere between 0 and 350 million, as best as we can tell.

And you think that is a good system??!?

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

This is our current system:

1. The President keeps a list of American citizens he intends to have the CIA assasinate.
2. He doesn't have to tell anyone which people are on that list.
3. He doesn't have to justify to anyone why a person should be on the list.
4. If one happens to find out they are on the list, they can't go to court to challange their imminent death.
5. After the assasination, the President doesn't have to explain to anyone why he ordered the assasination.
6. The President doesn't even have to tells us that the government is the one who assasinated the citizen - he can make it look like an accident and never inform anyone that he was involved.
7. The only person who approved the process the President uses to determine who should be assasinated - is the President himself.
8. The President can change the process to determine who should be assasinated at his discretion.


How is that any different than the system used by a 3rd world dictator?

One may like Obama, and still think this system is not good for the U.S. to have... because Obama will not always be President.

How many American citizens are on the President's assasination list? I don't know, you don't know, congress doesn't know, and the judiciary doesn't know. Only the administration knows how many and who are on the list. It's somewhere between 0 and 350 million, as best as we can tell.

And you think that is a good system??!?

There you go with that American Exceptionalism again.

Americans are too proud to believe that they are any better than any other country on the planet.

No country left behind, man.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The lack of knowledge does not support abandoning principles, in fact, it supports the opposite, an adherence to principles.

I never said that it should.

Re trials in absentia, you asserted that they did not occur. I asserted that they did. Which you now allow.

Folks around here tend to comment with a certain lack of specificity, a trial in absentia usually refers to a trial conducted from start to finish without the presence of the defendant. A trial where a defendant skips out to avoid a verdict being rendered is not trial by absentia but for the sake of the conversation I just let it go.

I am not willing to give up the rights accorded by the 6th Amendment, I am willing for the standards of trials in absentia to be modified in order to reflect the realities of the modern world, and I would rather that then due process be set aside entirely.

I would be interested in considering any number of Constitutional/statutory changes and amendments to the Laws of War to adapt to the present circumstances.

As for the injunction, the ruling regarding the father's lack of standing addresses your due process question, in my opinion.

Too bad it wasn't the judges which was based upon a number of issues.

If the father was not deemed to have standing, then the accused would have had to bring suit in order for due process to occur.

Since I already posted this point in my previous point, I find it strange that you would attempt to use an argument that I've already made as if it were your own.

The formality of this man being added to a list, the time involved between his being on the list and being executed, all add to my argument that "imminent threat" is being re-defined,

Well that's true. When the threat is constant and continuous, I find little rational rationale for calling time-out between individual acts of terrorism.