Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2011, 12:38 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,975,677 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The FBI shooting mobsters in the back is not legal precedent for the planned assassination of an American abroad.
I'm sorry but assassination is a misnomer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:01 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Let me be clear, what concerns me in this discussion is the distinction being drawn as a result of al-Awlaki's citizenship. If the debate was based upon the legitimacy of targeted killing that is one debate, but to draw a distinction based solely on al-Awlaki's citizenship is in my mind a long settled legal issue. And, I have yet to read a compelling argument based upon the 4th Amendment, a series of supporting Supreme Court decisions, Congressional authorization or international law that in my opinion asserts a clear prohibition against the government's use of deadly force to "seize" a suspect who presents a threat to public safety, be they a citizen or not.

As for probable cause, personally I have none, and perhaps in the heat of the discussion I took my argument a step farther than I normally would be comfortable in doing because I am always circumspect from opining about legal cases based upon statements by police, prosecutors and especially the press because with because I will never have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the probable cause for the guy who shoots the local store clerk and is killed by police in Philadelphia as they attempt to affect an arrest, or for that matter the facts surrounding the probable cause any of the other "alleged" terrorist who have been killed over the course of the last 15 years and neither do you and therein lies the political dilemma.

In either the case of the store shooter or the terrorist on foreign soil any probable cause stated will be the facts as presented by the government. There can be no trial of fact other than one conducted during a civil tort action (which Anwar Al-Awlaki's family can certainly pursue). So, then the question becomes what evidence can the government produce that will satisfy its critics, I suspect that such evidence no matter how compelling would be sufficient which brings us back full circle, is the issue really one of citizenship which their is substantial legal precedent to establish that their isn't, or is the issue targeted killing?
A compelling argument. The Constitution is the compelling argument. It says American citizens are entitled to due process. This man did not get due process. The compelling argument is why not? The Slate outlawed the problem quite clearly this morning. There were certainly difficulties with Al-Awlaki, his presence in foreign countries, he continued to be a thorn in our side, but the salient argument for supporting his assassination depends on the immediate threat he posed. Maybe military intelligence or the state department know more than the public about this "immediate threat", but since Al-Awlaki was a puppet master and not a soldier himself, I find "immediate threat" to be questionable at best. And since it's questionable, I wonder why the authorities decided that gutting the rights of an American citizen was supportable, since it sets a precedent that potentially guts the rights of all American citizens. There's a reason why due process is so important, because you don't trust a government to decide who is a serious and imminent threat and give that same government the power to execute anyone they so determine. It renders the protections of citizenship null and void.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:03 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,808,044 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I'm sorry but assassination is a misnomer.
How so?

They located the target. Drones took out the target. The target was assassinated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 03:32 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,975,677 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The Constitution is the compelling argument. It says American citizens are entitled to due process.
It does indeed.

The 5th Amendment is clear:
...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;
But it is equally clear that the Constitution grants the Congress the power to;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
which the Congress did by the by a bi-partisan vote 420 to 1 in the House and 98 to 2 in the Senate. Subsequently the Constitution in Article II Section 2, grants the power of conduct such wars to the President. And under this grant of power the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in ex parte Quirin that the President under his or her powers as Commander in Chief has to the power and authority to declare an individual or groups of individuals enemy combatants lawful or otherwise under the Laws of War. In so doing, those combatants are deprived of all other rights other than the right of Habeas Corpus and only if they come under the physical control of American authority.

So which compelling Constitutional argument holds greater weight?

Quote:
The compelling argument is why not?
If we are to accept the argument as one based upon criminal law and not the Laws of War, again and as William Slaten points out, how does one grant due process to an individual who presents a imminent threat and who will not avail himself of his 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment rights? A criminal indictment is not a license to kill, and it is equally un-Constitutional to try an individual in absentia. So what is the government suppose to do? Sit on its hands when it has an authorization from Congress to do otherwise?

Further Mr. Awlaki, and the Congress for that matter, were informed months in advance of the administrations intentions. This was no secret plot to kill Americans but a rather open and much advertised statement of intent and at any time Mr. Awlaki could have turned himself into any number of impartial jurisdictions (including the International Criminal Court) to press for his rights not only as a citizen but as a civilian covered under a concomitant number of human rights statutes.

Quote:
Maybe military intelligence or the state department know more than the public about this "immediate threat", but since Al-Awlaki was a puppet master and not a soldier himself, I find "immediate threat" to be questionable at best.
Only if you deem the puppet to be free of the puppet masters strings. I don't. An military chaplain who blesses the troops and then sends them off to battle is no less a legitimate military target than the foot soldier he sends off to the battle field with their gods blessing.

Quote:
I wonder why the authorities decided that gutting the rights of an American citizen was supportable, since it sets a precedent that potentially guts the rights of all American citizens.
Once again you are barking up the wrong side of the Constitutional tree and that is the basis for my consternation regarding this topic. The Constitution DOES NOT distinguish between the due process rights of citizens vs those of non-citizens.

Again:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 offense 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.
So is the issue up for discussion the propriety of targeted killings or the non-existent issue of the citizenship of those being targeted?

Quote:
There's a reason why due process is so important, because you don't trust a government to decide who is a serious and imminent threat and give that same government the power to execute anyone they so determine.
I agree due process is imminently important which is why some will think that it is hypocritical for me to be a proponent of civil trials for captured terrorist while at the same time a proponent of targeted killing, simply stated is because like Justice White in the 1985 Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) there must be a balancing act for government actions when balancing the rights of citizens to be free from harm and the rights of the accused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 03:52 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
It does indeed.

The 5th Amendment is clear:
...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;
But it is equally clear that the Constitution grants the Congress the power to;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
which the Congress did by the by a bi-partisan vote 420 to 1 in the House and 98 to 2 in the Senate. Subsequently the Constitution in Article II Section 2, grants the power of conduct such wars to the President. And under this grant of power the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in ex parte Quirin that the President under his or her powers as Commander in Chief has to the power and authority to declare an individual or groups of individuals enemy combatants lawful or otherwise under the Laws of War. In so doing, those combatants are deprived of all other rights other than the right of Habeas Corpus and only if they come under the physical control of American authority.

So which compelling Constitutional argument holds greater weight?

If we are to accept the argument as one based upon criminal law and not the Laws of War, again and as William Slaten points out, how does one grant due process to an individual who presents a imminent threat and who will not avail himself of his 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment rights? A criminal indictment is not a license to kill, and it is equally un-Constitutional to try an individual in absentia. So what is the government suppose to do? Sit on its hands when it has an authorization from Congress to do otherwise?

Further Mr. Awlaki, and the Congress for that matter, were informed months in advance of the administrations intentions. This was no secret plot to kill Americans but a rather open and much advertised statement of intent and at any time Mr. Awlaki could have turned himself into any number of impartial jurisdictions (including the International Criminal Court) to press for his rights not only as a citizen but as a civilian covered under a concomitant number of human rights statutes.

Only if you deem the puppet to be free of the puppet masters strings. I don't. An military chaplain who blesses the troops and then sends them off to battle is no less a legitimate military target than the foot soldier he sends off to the battle field with their gods blessing.

Once again you are barking up the wrong side of the Constitutional tree and that is the basis for my consternation regarding this topic. The Constitution DOES NOT distinguish between the due process rights of citizens vs those of non-citizens.

Again:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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 offense 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.
So is the issue up for discussion the propriety of targeted killings or the non-existent issue of the citizenship of those being targeted?

I agree due process is imminently important which is why some will think that it is hypocritical for me to be a proponent of civil trials for captured terrorist while at the same time a proponent of targeted killing, simply stated is because like Justice White in the 1985 Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) there must be a balancing act for government actions when balancing the rights of citizens to be free from harm and the rights of the accused.
Sorry, Dude, but I presume the man was innocent, and the Government guilty.

I don't know HOW I got so biased.

Your comprehension of law, as from your post above, makes you more of a criminal mindset than merely an incompetent farscist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 04:21 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,782,601 times
Reputation: 1182
Sedition and Treason are illegal.
US Citizens that take up arms against the US either at home or abroad are abrogating their rights to due process. They cease to be petty criminals with rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and in point of fact become armed combatants seeking the violent overthrow and or demise of the US Government.

And so therefore they get zapped…

United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Last edited by Happy Cells; 10-03-2011 at 04:25 PM.. Reason: More info.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 04:23 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Cells View Post
Sedition and Treason are illegal.
US Citizens that take up arms against the US either at home or abroad are abrogating their rights to due process. They cease to be petty criminals with rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and in point of fact become armed combatants seeking the violent overthrow and or demise of the US Government.

And so therefore they get zapped…
Sedition and Treason are serious charges.

Who will be the first to bring them?

Oh, and, Get Zapped!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 06:51 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,975,677 times
Reputation: 15038
Switching his hat back to the left...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Cells View Post
Sedition and Treason are illegal. US Citizens that take up arms against the US either at home or abroad are abrogating their rights to due process.

They cease to be petty criminals with rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and in point of fact become armed combatants seeking the violent overthrow and or demise of the US Government.
That is simply not true as I have previously explained. If such a citizen were to fall into the hands of either the U.S. military or law enforcement they would most assuredly be afforded the full measure of their constitutional rights.

see:

http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/enemycombatants.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
I can't believe it. A calm, rational debate on CD. I'm shocked

At any rate, I can understand both sides here. I feel safer with this man in the grave. I feel that he was a traitor to his country, and if trial could have been granted, then he would be found guilty.

But Bonnie and Clyde didn't make it to trial either did they? They were hurting people, and they were put down to make sure they didn't hurt anyone else.

But it scares the hell out of me that my country can pretty much take out anyone, for any reason, without oversite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 07:13 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 3,496,367 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I can't believe it. A calm, rational debate on CD. I'm shocked

At any rate, I can understand both sides here. I feel safer with this man in the grave. I feel that he was a traitor to his country, and if trial could have been granted, then he would be found guilty.

But Bonnie and Clyde didn't make it to trial either did they? They were hurting people, and they were put down to make sure they didn't hurt anyone else.

But it scares the hell out of me that my country can pretty much take out anyone, for any reason, without oversite.
Oversight. This statement is a bit daft. The government doesn't have legal power not precedence to do such a thing. This wasn't some school-teacher in Idaho they dropped a 20lb bomb on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:12 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top