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.
Which of Al-Awlaki's Constitutional rights was NOT violated? Any?
Does this mean that if you go to, say, Canada, American military forces, under the command of the Commander in Chief, can go into Canada and simply murder you, and justify it by saying "Well, we had unilaterally (without any due process) put his name on a kill-or-capture list, which means the military had a right to go into any country in the world (read: any US colony) and just bomb him".
Now, do you feel safer?
Exactly.
For the record, i'm glad the scumbag is dead. I would have pulled the trigger myself had I been given the option. But this goes beyone one person and one President. We should all be worried about this development, but none of us should be surprised.
For the record, i'm glad the scumbag is dead. I would have pulled the trigger myself had I been given the option. But this goes beyone one person and one President. We should all be worried about this development, but none of us should be surprised.
If he is responsible for what they say he is responsible for, then I would agree with you. The problem is that we will never know for certain because now he is dead and all evidence against him will be deemed classified. I see a huge potential for abuse. There has to be checks and balances. No one person should have that much power without some checks and balances.
He was born in the U.S. Please cite where he was not a U.S. Citizen. Just saying you are no longer a U.S. citizen does not mean that you give up those rights, maybe it should but that is not the law.
If the police have probable cause to believe that you committed a crime, they could go in front of an impartial judge and present affidavit supporting their beliefs and the Judge could grant a search warrant to search the house. This is the requirement of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
You begin your argument upon a faulty premise because it relies on the belief that this is a purely civilian criminal matter. What you have neglected to consider are what rights extend to an American citizen acting as an un-lawful enemy combatant.
It is clear that the President of the United States has the power to declare an American citizen an enemy combatant, see ex parte Quirin and having done so the issue moves from one of simple law enforcement to an issue of international law.[/quote]
I wasn't thrilled with the wording of this post and believe that it deserved being reposted rather than simply edited.
The question that needs to be considered is whether or not targeted killing of terrorists are governed by the rules or war or those governing human rights, i.e. the U.S. Constitution. The issue of citizenship, in my opinion, isn't the governing issue because the Constitution and subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court do not bifurcate constitutional protections between citizens and non-citizens. If the issue is governed under the Constitution and particularly the 4th Amendment, killing of a suspect are severely restricted, but not prohibited (TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) 471 U.S. 1.
If the issue is governed by the rules of war and international law then there is significant precedent which grants far greater latitude in the use of deadly force against those conducting armed acts against a sovereign nation, which includes the use of deadly force against both lawful and unlawful enemy combatants (Article 51 of the United Nations Charter).
In this case it is clear that the President of the United States has the power to declare anyone, citizens included, as enemy combatants (ex parte Milligan and ex parte Quirin). As a result, any discussion of this issue requires a determination of how to war against al Qaeda is to proceed, as purely governed by the Constitution or under existing international law, or some hybrid of both.
Personally, I would argue that we should proceed as we have under a mix of the two. When pursuing members of al Qaeda outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, I believe that international law, i.e. the rules of war should take precedent and if an when a terrorist suspect is either confronted or captured that we proceed under the rule of prevailing criminal statutes with reliance on the Constitution and prevailing Supreme Court decisions, with some exceptions.
What I think is important to keep in mind is that the Constitution is not as cut and dry as far too many pretend that it is, for example the 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
defining what is or what is not "reasonable" opens the door and necessitates an evaluation based upon the particular facts of the case. It requires that the Constitution be weighed against individual rights and compelling state interest. In this case if we apply the human rights construct, is it reasonable to grant full 4th Amendment protections. In the striking down Tennessee's statute allowing the use of deadly force to apprehend and fleeing felon the Court noted:
Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)471 U.S. 1
The Court in the majority while striking down the us of deadly force for all fleeing suspects did not:
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face[the use of deadly force]. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
It's not my preferred method.....I prefer that he is dead...... but it is in fact the legal, Constitutional method.
I reject the notion that non-U.S. citizens and enemy combatants should be afforded Constitutional rights.
Quote:
And if you recall, its Obama that i'm sure you voted for who is in fact the one who believes that reading rights....US Courts..etc. are the way to handle terrorists.
Not sure if sarcastic, or actually think I voted for Obama...
I reject the notion that terrorists should have their acts of war adjudicated in civilian U.S. courts.
Quote:
So he puts forth an Executive Order to circumvent his own policies. How could you forget this small detail?
I didn't ignore it. I just don't care about it. It is irrelevant.
Quote:
The hypocrisy is astounding, and you support it.
I don't support and never have supported affording Constitutional rights to terrorists, enemy combatants, former U.S. citizens that have renounced their citizenship and engage in treasonous activity, or Sean Penn.
You have me confused with someone else.
Quote:
How's that mouth-breathing working out for you?
The breathe-right strips help somewhat, but this ragweed is killing me. Thanks for your concern.
Well, now, (in southern drawl) yew just don't seem to grasp the difference between "execution" and "assassination".
Yew need to review the fine points of the Constitution.
O'Bama is a scholar.
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.
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.
Obama assassinates American born citizen w/o trial
