# US citizen & Al-Qaida leader al-Awlaki killed...hmmm



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not sorry the guy's dead.  But I do have some uneasy thoughts about the entire thing...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=240029



> US official confirms al-Qaida's al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
> By REUTERS
> 09/30/2011 14:00
> 
> ...



Whilst I have no problems with the US targeting and killing terrorists wherever in the world they may hide, this was a US-born citizen.  When he was put on the 'kill list' by the Obama White House last year, I was bothered by it.  We have a long tradition of our citizens, even the bad ones, being entitled to due process.  That generally means capture, try, and then if found guilty, punishment.  If they're killed while resisting arrest, that's one thing.  Just bombing them from above is a bit different.

To me, a door has been opened, a threshold has been crossed, and I'm not sure it's a good one.

In theoretical terms, if you can put one American citizen on a 'OK to kill without trial' list, you could put any American citizen on that list.  Whilst I do not believe that our government is evil or capricious enough to start killing political dissidents or protesters or even people it just doesn't like, there is now nothing stopping that from happening.  This was not the result of some court process; it was a simple decision made (presumably) by the President of the USA.  This president, or some future president, could presumably wake up one morning and decide that I was a person who needs killing.  Reality?  It probably won't be seriously misused.  Theoretical?  It could now happen to any one of the citizens of the USA, terrorist or not.  Remember, if you think the government would never target a US citizen for killing who isn't a terrorist, you are basically saying that we should trust the government without limit that they won't do the wrong thing.  Has that ever been a good idea?

I also wonder what's to stop the government now.  If we can kill US citizens outside the USA who are terrorists or who otherwise end up on the "OK to kill" list by the White House, what's to stop us from killing people who are currently inside the USA?  We shoot missiles from unmanned drones into vehicles and houses outside the USA now; collateral damage is limited, but people other than the target do get killed.  What happens when the house next door to yours gets blown up some night by our own government, because someone inside it is believed to be a terrorist, and you are injured or killed?  Will that be acceptable to you?  Is it OK, in the War on Terror, if the government starts killing designated enemies inside the USA without trial?

Yes, I'm imagining scenarios that don't exist, and they may never exist.  I certainly hope not.  My concern is that now that this line has been crossed, the erosion will begin, little by little, until in twenty years we do end up with such a nightmare scenario on our hands; and it started with this.

I am glad a threat to our nation is ended.  I am not sorry that this man is dead.  I'm concerned that the ends in this case many not have justified the means.  The fact that he was our enemy is one thing.  The fact that he was a US citizen, born here, and was killed on an order from our President without due process...that's something else entirely.

So I am of mixed opinions here.  What say you?


----------



## granfire (Sep 30, 2011)

That thresh hold has been crossed a few years back. 
due process has been thrown out with the patriot act and Gitmo. 

I do think there is a clause somewhere in the 'enemies, foreign and domestic' part...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> That thresh hold has been crossed a few years back.
> due process has been thrown out with the patriot act and Gitmo.
> 
> I do think there is a clause somewhere in the 'enemies, foreign and domestic' part...



I agree that the Patriot Act and Gitmo, etc, were destructive to our civil liberties, no matter how much they are intended to 'protect us'.

The quote you gave is also from the Oath of Enlistment into the US military, though.  It refers to defending the CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic; not the country, but the Constitution.  That would put it against the concept of extra-judicial killing of American citizens, wouldn't it?


----------



## Balrog (Sep 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Don't get me wrong; I'm not sorry the guy's dead. But I do have some uneasy thoughts about the entire thing...
> 
> http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=240029
> 
> ...


I don't think this was the case.  Yes, he was an American citizen.  But he was in bed with a gang of terrorist thugs, actively plotting the deaths of other American citizens.  His own actions constitute treason and I believe the he forfeited any rights that his citizenship might have brought him.  

The sad thing about killing him is that it is like killing a cockroach.  Yes, we are better off because we have one less cockroach.  But we didn't wipe out the nest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

Balrog said:


> I don't think this was the case.  Yes, he was an American citizen.  But he was in bed with a gang of terrorist thugs, actively plotting the deaths of other American citizens.  His own actions constitute treason and I believe the he forfeited any rights that his citizenship might have brought him.



Well, from my point of view, that's exactly the problem.  You *CANNOT* _'forfeit any rights'_ as a citizen.  It's not possible.  That's the kind of rationalization that Lynch mobs make.  Only if one believes that the ends justify the means can this be OK, and that's exactly what I'm afraid of.  Today we say it's OK because this guy was as dirty as they come.  Tomorrow?  Twenty years from now?  We have a system of laws and civil rights that apply to ALL citizens, end of sentence.  If they don't apply to all of us, then I'm afraid they may apply to none of us.

If the President can say X is a bad person even though a citizen and order him killed without trial today, can you promise that tomorrow the next president or the one after that won't order Y killed and claim the same thing, except maybe he's not a bad person after all?  Once that door is opened, and no judge, no jury, and no due process controls the president ordering the killing of citizens, there is no mechanism to stop him from killing anyone he wants dead.


----------



## Carol (Sep 30, 2011)

Balrog said:


> I don't think this was the case.  Yes, he was an American citizen.  But he was in bed with a gang of terrorist thugs, actively plotting the deaths of other American citizens.  His own actions constitute treason and I believe the he forfeited any rights that his citizenship might have brought him.



I was wondering about that as well, so I did some digging.  It is the Nationality Act of 1940 that puts forth the provisions that we see on our passport.  Treason is one of them, but merely calling something treason is not enough.

Chapter IV, Sec. 401 covers loss of nationality.  Part H says:



> Committing an act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow or bearing arms against the United States, provided he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.



Has there been a conviction by court martial or court of competent jurisdiction?

Source:
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1940_naturalization_act.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

Carol said:


> Has there been a conviction by court martial or court of competent jurisdiction?



I think you nailed it.  The problem is that I fear many people cannot make a distinction between a court of law and the court of public opinion.

Let's take an example.  Many years ago, a young boy was allegedly molested by his karate instructor.  The instructor was arrested and extradited from the state he had moved to.  As the police were escorting him through the airport, on the way to jail and eventual trial, the boy's father, who had been pretending to talk on a pay phone, pulled a gun out of a paper bag and shot the alleged rapist dead, live on national television.  He was himself arrested and tried.

The court of public opinion basically made the man a hero.  He had done what the courts had not (although the karate instructor never got to defend himself in court, it was taken as 'proven' that he had molested the young boy).  They did not like the fact that the father was on trial for doing what any father would have done (although no, not any father would do that, but many would understandably want to).  The father received a very light sentence.  The karate instructor?  Well, he remained dead - and unconvicted of any crime.

Now, was the karate instructor guilty?  I would say based on what I've read that yes, he was.  And is such behavior deserving of a death penalty?  Again, I don't really have a problem with that either.

The problem is that some people stop right there.  Was he guilty?  Yes.  Should such people die?  Yes.  OK, then, that's all I care about.  A guilty bastard died.  Good.

But that is not how our nation is designed to operate.  If it is OK for parents to take revenge whenever they feel something horrible has been done to their child, then eventually someone is going to kill an innocent person; and we'll never know, since that person will never get a trial.  And frankly, any parent could take it upon themselves to shoot anyone dead and claim that the person had molested their child and get away with it.  That's why we have laws, that's why we have rights, that's why we have due process.

So when the President of the United States can say X is a bad guy, so kill him, and he's right that X really is a bad guy, some people say that's great, super, wonderful, yay for our President!  But when that precedent is established, someday some president will do the same thing, except Y might not be a bad guy.  What then?  We can't return his life to him.  We can't even know if he was or was not a bad guy; like the karate instructor, he's dead and can no longer defend himself in court.

Kill terrorists?  I'm all for it.  Even if they are US citizens?  Yes, especially if they are US citizens!  But US citizens have rights; so we have to observe them.  If we don't observe them for X because he's a bad guy, then they don't have to observe them for YOU or for ME.  Are we bad people, deserving of death without due process?  Well, it doesn't matter; the President can order our deaths if he wants to, apparently.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 30, 2011)

I understand your uneasiness with killing American citizens.  It cracks open a door that might be better off left shut, even if it means someone like this goes unpunished.  On the other side of the same coin, I am not sure being an American citizen should shelter you from sharing the same fate as your non-American terrorist bretheren.  If a person actively pursues goals which include the killing of innocents, I am uneasy with nationality shielding them from retribution.  I guess I can see both sides of this and I honestly do not know which arguement is stronger.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I understand your uneasiness with killing American citizens.  It cracks open a door that might be better off left shut, even if it means someone like this goes unpunished.  On the other side of the same coin, I am not sure being an American citizen should shelter you from sharing the same fate as your non-American terrorist bretheren.  If a person actively pursues goals which include the killing of innocents, I am uneasy with nationality shielding them from retribution.  I guess I can see both sides of this and I honestly do not know which arguement is stronger.



I understand what you're saying.  Let me put it this way; if it were a military action and the person was killed fighting, no problem.  We shoot people dead all the time who resist arrest here in the USA, regardless of their citizenship.  Even as a citizen, you can't resist lawful apprehension inside or outside the country.  So if OBL had been born in the USA, I'd still have no problem with the way he was taken out.

And I definitely don't think that being a citizen should shield one from the fruits of their crimes; they did the dirty, let them swing for it.  No problem.  If anything, I'd want them punished even more harshly for taking up arms against their own countrymen.  

But I'd want that punishment to come from a legal court.

And I don't think that this means bad guys have to go unpunished.  If we could draw a bead on this guy with a Predator drone, we could also put people in to take him down (or out if he resisted).  It would take longer, cost more, and potentially endanger the lives of our troops, which is not a good thing; but we have rule of law in the USA; or do we?

I think there is a distinct difference between our President ordering that so-and-so be captured and brought to justice by any means necessary (even if it means he dies resisting apprehension) and ordering what is essentially a 'hit' on an American citizen without trial, without due process.  Just the president saying "I want this guy killed" and it happens?  Hmmm.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 30, 2011)

I agree Bill, that giving a president the power to order a hit on an American citizen screams against my sensibilities.  I think my problem is that I believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Shouldn't being a terrorsit trump nationality?  Why does this person's nationality make a difference in the morality of ordering his assasination?   I understand that in war taking out the enemies command and control is a great way to win a war.  Assasination is a way to effectively remove an enemy's command structure, and so a valid technique in war. Because a member of Al Quida's leadership is an American, does that justify creating greater risk for our soldiers in an attempt to capture him, rather than assasinate him as we would citizens of other countries, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?    

I'm not really arguing against what you have said, but these are questions that bother me.  I just don't know what the correct answer is, if indeed there is a correct answer.   I suppose when it comes to war and killing, we should be uncomfortable with it and should expect very few easy answers.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Shouldn't being a terrorsit trump nationality?



I think Carol said it quite well, above: _"Has there been a conviction by court martial or court of competent jurisdiction?"_

Was he a terrorist?  Sure, absolutely.  Well, wait a minute.  There actually is no allegation he took part in any terrorist activities; he made speeches and encourage terrorism.  But even if he was - we 'known' he was a terrorist, but where is the conviction in a court of law?  Just like the man who blew out the brains of the karate instructor who allegedly molested his son; we 'know' the man was a molester/rapist; or do we?

There is fact and there is proven fact.  A man can be a murderer in fact, but not have been proven guilty of murder in a court of law.  In our system, we only punish the person convicted of the crime.  The fact that they did it is not important until they are convicted.



> Why does this person's nationality make a difference in the morality of ordering his assasination?



From a logical point of view, it doesn't.  An enemy is an enemy.  But from a legal point of view, it does.  And we are a nation of laws.



> I understand that in war taking out the enemies command and control is a great way to win a war.  Assasination is a way to effectively remove an enemy's command structure, and so a valid technique in war. Because a member of Al Quida's leadership is an American, does that justify creating greater risk for our soldiers in an attempt to capture him, rather than assasinate him as we would citizens of other countries, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?



Yes, I believe it does.  If his citizenship means nothing; then neither does yours, or mine.



> I'm not really arguing against what you have said, but these are questions that bother me.  I just don't know what the correct answer is, if indeed there is a correct answer.   I suppose when it comes to war and killing, we should be uncomfortable with it and should expect very few easy answers.



I don't really have a problem with war or killing.  I'm conservative, a veteran, former law enforcement, and I have no problem with the death penalty for guilty people.  What I have a problem with is extra-judicial killings ordered by our President on his say-so.

Bottom line; if he can order a US citizen's assassination for terrorism, he can order your assassination.  We just ceded him that power.  Do you think he should have that power?  Do you believe that power will always be used 'for good' and never 'for evil'?  I don't trust our government that much.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 30, 2011)

I agree with Bill, but will post a counter point.

It's unlikely that he could have been taken alive. It's unlikely that had a trial been held, that he or a representative would have shown up to defend him.
So a trial prior to his execution wasn't going to happen.

As someone actively engaged in potentially treasonable actions, he was aware of the possible fall out.
He wasn't a stupid person.  

As a 'key individual' he was most likely under heavy guard, making any attempt to capture him a high cost mission, with the potential for many US causalities.  Is the life of 1 loyal US soldier worth expending here?  Many would argue no.

So, Awlaki knew the risks he was taking, and paid for it.   While I can see the danger, and the slide to arbitrary executions of US citizens on US soil, this to me is less 'murder' and more the taking out of an enemy commander during combat operations.


Again, counter argument posted, as I agree with Bills concerns.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 30, 2011)

Bill, it absolutley makes me nervous that anyone could order the assasination of an American citizen.  I am not niave enough to think it would never be abused.  I just don't think there are any cut and clear lines here.  What makes it right to assasinate foreign nationals without a trial?  As we have both said in the past, we are a nation of laws.  I understand it may be neccesary, but so may killing an American citizen that is a terrorist.  We are dealing with a lot of grey area here and some of it is morally ambigious.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I agree with Bill, but will post a counter point.
> 
> It's unlikely that he could have been taken alive. It's unlikely that had a trial been held, that he or a representative would have shown up to defend him.
> So a trial prior to his execution wasn't going to happen.
> ...



Thanks, Bob.  I appreciate your points as well.

I'll just add that while I agree it would have probably not been possible to actually apprehend him and bring him to justice, it would have served justice better to have tried and failed than to have ordered his execution.

I won't argue that his death was 'murder'.  You don't see me weeping for him or demanding that President Obama be arrested for homicide.  However, it can't really be denied that this was an extra-judicial killing; it took place outside of the legal system.  While that role does fall to the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, he is also in a dual role; when American citizens are involved and it's not an actual military battle or engagement, he is the head of our Executive branch, which means he has the ultimate responsibility to enforce and uphold our laws.

On a side-note.  Every new term, every new president, we seem to be expending the power of the Office of the President.  Little by little, Congress abdicates their role as law-maker and turns that authority over to the Executive branch.  It does not matter what political party is in office; the power transfer continues year after year.  And the public does nothing about it; in many cases, we applaud it!  This way lies madness.  We're heading directly towards an authoritarian nightmare that will make a mockery of our republic.  Not today, not tomorrow.  But soon.  And when we wake up and find our freedoms gone, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame.  We wanted this; once we have it, we'll be sorry.


----------



## Carol (Sep 30, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I agree with Bill, but will post a counter point.
> 
> It's unlikely that he could have been taken alive. It's unlikely that had a trial been held, that he or a representative would have shown up to defend him.
> So a trial prior to his execution wasn't going to happen.
> ...



He was indeed a key individual, he was travelling in a motorcade when the drone got him.  That to me is a decent indication of how protected he was.   Also, a high cost mission would have also been of cost to Yemen.   I think its safe to say that a surgical strike from an unmanned drone in to a motorcade is perhaps about as meticulous as such a thing can get, with regards to saving the lives of the surrounding Yemeni citizens.  Yemen has not had a cozy relationship with the US, I suspect they might not have been so willing to help had Yemeni forces and citizens been more at risk.

The concerns still bother me...and they dig at me even more knowing that we are on the brink of what will certainly be a hotly contested Presidential election.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 30, 2011)

We should undertand politics definitely had a hand in this too, as much as danger to US personel probably.  A failed capture attempt would be met with calls of not valuing US military lives.  A successful attempt would be met with calls that Obama sent money and risked lives to make himself look good befoe an election, and why wasn't the terrorist killed with a drone.  Everything about this story just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, except that a terrorist has been neutralized.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 30, 2011)

this sums up my feelings and does so better than i could myself



WC_lun said:


> I understand your uneasiness with killing American citizens.  It cracks open a door that might be better off left shut, even if it means someone like this goes unpunished.  On the other side of the same coin, I am not sure being an American citizen should shelter you from sharing the same fate as your non-American terrorist bretheren.  If a person actively pursues goals which include the killing of innocents, I am uneasy with nationality shielding them from retribution.  I guess I can see both sides of this and I honestly do not know which arguement is stronger.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What say you?



When the door is opened, people walk through it.  It's only a matter of time now...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that the Patriot Act and Gitmo, etc, were destructive to our civil liberties, no matter how much they are intended to 'protect us'.
> 
> The quote you gave is also from the Oath of Enlistment into the US military, though.  It refers to defending the CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic; not the country, but the Constitution.  That would put it against the concept of extra-judicial killing of American citizens, wouldn't it?



http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/



> 1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
> 
> 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
> 3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.
> ...


----------



## billc (Oct 1, 2011)

Mark Levin, a constitiutional lawyer and head of the Landmark Legal Institute weighs in on the assasination...

http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/assassinating-a-citizen/436260670945



> Assassinating a citizen?  No, assassinating a terrorist who seeks to murder American citizens.
> 
> Given the debate over a president's power to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen -- but not just any U.S. citizen -- one who has declared war against the United States by his own actions and words in repeated efforts to murder American citizens while hiding out in Yemen, let's turn to Title 8, Section 1481 (a)(3)(A) of the United States Code states:  " A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality &#8212; entering into, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States ..."





> Of course, most terrorists are not serving in formal armed forces of foreign nations; that's why they are characterized as unlawful enemy combatants under relevant Geneva Accord provisions.  That is, they are worse than soldiers in an enemy army.  Nonetheless, the government could go through the formal steps to strip such a terrorist of his U.S. citizenship.  Section 1481(b) provides, in relevant part:  "... Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily."
> 
> If the issue is concern about the power of a president to order the assassination of a citizen, then strip such a barbarian of his citizenship.  But this truly seems like form over substance.


----------



## MJS (Oct 1, 2011)

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...y-kill-a-citizen-overseas-without-due-process

A LEO can shoot and kill someone, which is fine if the circumstances dictate it, yet here we have a known terrorist, who has no interest in America or Americans, and we're worried about whether or not its ok to kill him?  I say **** him!  Once he became a terrorist, and plots to kill Americans and bring harm to this country, then screw him!  Yes, yes, I know, I know...this isn't the popular view.  Thats fine.  Its my opinion, its how I feel, and I'm sticking to it.  

Honestly...we need to do more of these types of things....more drone attacks, more SF missions, and take out all the scum that thrives on causing harm to us.  And yes, I know, its a never ending battle.  Take out one **** bag, and 2 more **** bags will float to the surface.


----------



## billc (Oct 1, 2011)

I agree MJS, this guy was over seas conducted terrorist operations against this country.  Killing him, with a presidential order only makes sense.  Now, if he was on U.S. soil, the regular legal code should take over.  Overseas is a different story.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

MJS said:


> http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...y-kill-a-citizen-overseas-without-due-process
> 
> A LEO can shoot and kill someone, which is fine if the circumstances dictate it, yet here we have a known terrorist, who has no interest in America or Americans, and we're worried about whether or not its ok to kill him?  I say **** him!  Once he became a terrorist, and plots to kill Americans and bring harm to this country, then screw him!  Yes, yes, I know, I know...this isn't the popular view.  Thats fine.  Its my opinion, its how I feel, and I'm sticking to it.
> 
> Honestly...we need to do more of these types of things....more drone attacks, more SF missions, and take out all the scum that thrives on causing harm to us.  And yes, I know, its a never ending battle.  Take out one **** bag, and 2 more **** bags will float to the surface.



A LEO can shoot and kill someone; but a LEO cannot walk up to a man wanted for murder and shoot him dead on the spot, can he?

And that's the issue.  Not whether or not a scum bag deserves to die; but the manner in which we uphold our own laws.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I agree MJS, this guy was over seas conducted terrorist operations against this country.  Killing him, with a presidential order only makes sense.  Now, if he was on U.S. soil, the regular legal code should take over.  Overseas is a different story.



Why is overseas a different story?  What is the legal precedent for that?

If we can assassinate US citizens on the President's orders overseas and it is legal, then there is no law that stands in the way of it happening inside our borders.  Once the door is opened to the President ordering the assassination of US citizens, there's no reason he can't order any US citizen killed, anytime, anywhere.  Is that OK with you?


----------



## billc (Oct 2, 2011)

I believe I mentioned that if he was on U.S. soil he would be protected by American Law. I would include overseas, during war time, fighting for the enemy and maybe even include as part of the enemies leadership, which he was.  I think all of those things would help ease the fears of some here.  It is a good time to visit the topic though and if people are concerned, contact your political reps. and get a law put into place that addresses the issue.  As far as anytime, anywhere, on U.S. soil you are protected by the constitution which would make assassination illegal as far as I am concerned.  Do all the things this guy did...and it is open season for the sake of protecting American lives here and overseas. 

Overseas is important because the President has more room for action outside of our borders as commander and chief and the political leader in foreign affairs.   He is hemmed in by the constitution within our borders.  Outside our borders, it is the wild west, except where we intentionally bind ourselves through treaties.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I believe I mentioned that if he was on U.S. soil he would be protected by American Law.



And I ask on what basis you make that statement.  There are no laws that say US citizen's rights end when they leave the country and come back when they return.  Show me any such law.  As far as I can tell, this is your opinion, but unsupported by any legal theory whatsoever.  It's just what you *think* should be the case.



> I would include overseas, during war time, fighting for the enemy and maybe even include as part of the enemies leadership, which he was.  I think all of those things would help ease the fears of some here.  It is a good time to visit the topic though and if people are concerned, contact your political reps. and get a law put into place that addresses the issue.  As far as anytime, anywhere, on U.S. soil you are protected by the constitution which would make assassination illegal as far as I am concerned.  Do all the things this guy did...and it is open season for the sake of protecting American lives here and overseas.



You mean all the things he is accused of doing.  From what I can tell, he was unindicted.  Not formally charged with any crime whatsoever.  Yes, I am fully of the opinion that he did everything he is accused of by public statements and probably much more; I do not doubt he's guilty as hell.  But he was never even charged with a crime formally, much less convicted.

It may seem crystal clear in this guy's case; we all believe he's guilty as charged.  But with that precedent, tell me what keeps it from happening on someone who has had the charged ginned up to make it seem he's a bad guy?




> Overseas is important because the President has more room for action outside of our borders as commander and chief and the political leader in foreign affairs.   He is hemmed in by the constitution within our borders.  Outside our borders, it is the wild west, except where we intentionally bind ourselves through treaties.



No, it's not the Wild West.  The President can't even make war with out the permission of Congress.


----------



## billc (Oct 2, 2011)

Once we are in a war, he has vast powers to conduct that war.  Since congress authorized the use of force, a declaration of war by any other name, that opens up the killing of people like this guy who are aiding the enemy.  Before everyone chimes in that it wasn't a declaration of war, there is no exact phrasing of "declaration of war" that is the official version from the Constitution.  We have some precedent, from WW2, but even more precedent with korea and vietnam.  The president during WW2 knew that we had the German code and every night both he and Churchhill had access to which parts of England were going to be bombed, and they let the bombing happen, without warning the innocent citizens so they could clear out.  The precedent of war time actions by a President are quite substantial.   Someone fighting for an enemy during war would not be under the U.S. legal system anyway if they were caught on the battlefield.   

I will say, this should be cleared up before it is done again, but I am fine with what we did so far.  Two guys I respect Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin, both constitutional lawyers are fine with it, and they are the experts on con. Law. that I trust.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Once we are in a war, he has vast powers to conduct that war.  Since congress authorized the use of force, a declaration of war by any other name, that opens up the killing of people like this guy who are aiding the enemy.



When did Congress authorize the use of force?  I am not saying that the President has to have the approval of Congress to engage in military action, but he certainly needs it to go to war.  You say he has it.  When did this happen?



> Before everyone chimes in that it wasn't a declaration of war, there is no exact phrasing of "declaration of war" that is the official version from the Constitution.  We have some precedent, from WW2, but even more precedent with korea and vietnam.  The president during WW2 knew that we had the German code and every night both he and Churchhill had access to which parts of England were going to be bombed, and they let the bombing happen, without warning the innocent citizens so they could clear out.  The precedent of war time actions by a President are quite substantial.   Someone fighting for an enemy during war would not be under the U.S. legal system anyway if they were caught on the battlefield.



Was he caught on a battlefield?



> I will say, this should be cleared up before it is done again, but I am fine with what we did so far.  Two guys I respect Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin, both constitutional lawyers are fine with it, and they are the experts on con. Law. that I trust.



The White House is saying the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cutive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html



> The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond &#8220;hot,&#8221; or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren&#8217;t shielded because of their citizenship.
> 
> &#8220;As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,&#8221; an administration official said in a statement Friday.



And all I'm saying is this:

a) The assassination authorized by the President was 'extra-judicial'.  That is, it occurred outside of the judicial system.  While killing in wartime of enemy combatants (by our military, not our CIA) is considered legal under general conditions (and regardless of citizenship of the enemy), this was not done on the battlefield against an armed enemy.  It was not done by our military, but by the CIA.  It was not authorized by our judicial system, but by the President acting on his own authority as Commander in Chief.

b) If the President can kill a US citizen on his own authority, and without the consent of Congress or due process, he can kill any US citizen.  Period.

I have asked - and you have refused to answer - what is to stop the President from authorizing the assassination of any US citizen, inside or outside the USA?  If there is some legal principle that allowed him to kill a known terrorist and enemy of the USA who happened to be a US citizen outside the US, what is it?  And how would that principle keep the President from doing the exact same thing inside the USA?  And how would it keep the President from assassinating anyone he didn't like?

I understand that Anwar al-Aulaqi (and Samir Khan, another US citizen killed in the same attack) was a very bad person.  I am not at all unhappy that he is dead.  However, I do not understand the legal authority by which the President can order the assassination of a US citizen without due process.  Yes, I completely understand that we're at war and he is the enemy.  I also understand that he was not engaged in military action on a battlefield against us at the time he was killed.

I truly believe that you're justifying the action because it killed a bad guy.  The problem I have with it is that the ends do not justify the means.  If the President can order assassination of US citizens on his own authority, without trial and without due process, then there is NOTHING that can stop him from ordering the assassination of ANY US citizen, inside or outside the country.

I frankly think you're being penny wise and pound foolish.  If we grant the President this power today, and in ten years we have a President who starts ordering the assassination of US citizens whom he just doesn't think vote the way he'd like them to, it will be the fault of you and people like you, willing to give away the power reserved to the Judicial Branch alone, because you wanted a bad guy killed today and didn't care how it was done.


----------



## billc (Oct 2, 2011)

Here is a wikipedia article on the Declaration of the Use of Force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

I am justifying it based on the War powers of the president to defend the country from attack.  This guy, citizen or not, was outside of the country conducting warfare against the United States, as part of a non-national group.  President Bush received a declaration for the use of force by the duly elected representatives of the people of the United States to conduct military force against our enemies.   This guy was an enemy, overseas, conducting operations of warfare against the united states.  If he had been captured in the continental U.S. he would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the united states.  There are no active U.S. courts overseas, so the Lincoln Habeus Corpus rulings from the civil war probably apply since in one of the civil war decisions there needed to be active u.s. courts in the theater of warfare.  Gotta go.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Here is a wikipedia article on the Declaration of the Use of Force:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
> 
> I am justifying it based on the War powers of the president to defend the country from attack.  This guy, citizen or not, was outside of the country conducting warfare against the United States, as part of a non-national group.  President Bush received a declaration for the use of force by the duly elected representatives of the people of the United States to conduct military force against our enemies.   This guy was an enemy, overseas, conducting operations of warfare against the united states.  If he had been captured in the continental U.S. he would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the united states.  There are no active U.S. courts overseas, so the Lincoln Habeus Corpus rulings from the civil war probably apply since in one of the civil war decisions there needed to be active u.s. courts in the theater of warfare.  Gotta go.





> The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of *United States Armed Forces* against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.



If Anwar al-Awlaki was a 9/11 conspirator, why was he not arrested before 2002 when he was still in the USA?  Or from 2002-2004 when he was in the UK?  He didn't go to Yemen until 2005.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 2, 2011)

Bill, we didn't know that until just now, because not enough guys had had swirlies done on them to make them give up the right names?
Just tossing a guess out there.

The US is at war with 'terrorism'. It's a nice broad declaration, with no real end set, so we'll be 'at war' for years to come.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2011)

At least war is good for the economy...no guys, really it is!

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Oct 2, 2011)

Well the constitution would stop the assassination in the country. There, asked and answered.

--During the Civil War over 250,000 U.S. citizens were killed by the federal government without first being arrested, and  brought to trial, thousands of others had their property destroyed or confiscated, many were held captive and all of this occurred inside the boundaries of the United States, under the protections of the constitution.

--As a former member of the Marine Corps.  you yourself were not protected by the constitution of the United States even though you never surrendered your citizenship.  For example, while doing your job, you could at no time simply quit and say " I've had enough, I'm going home," without fear of imprisonment and in some cases execution.  If you worked at Walmart, you could say at anytime, "I quit, I've had enough," and walked away.

--The case of American Citizens fighting for Germany during WW2, which was also portrayed in the show "Band of Brothers."  Our soldiers were under no special conditions to arrest these individuals for trial to determine if they had in fact committed treason before they fired on them. 

There are many examples of citizens, during wartime not being covered by the protections of the constitution.


----------



## billc (Oct 2, 2011)

They either didn't manage to catch him at the time or he hadn't been committing those crimes or they weren't discovered until he was overseas.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> They either didn't manage to catch him at the time or he hadn't been committing those crimes or they weren't discovered until he was overseas.



He was the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University.

And the Obama Administration is not claiming he was a 9/11 conspirator, merely that he recently crossed the line from rhetoric to actual planning of A-Q operations.  And while I'm sure he was doing that, that's not covered under the 9/11 authorization you cited.  Nor is the Obama Administration claiming it is covered.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill, we didn't know that until just now, because not enough guys had had swirlies done on them to make them give up the right names?
> Just tossing a guess out there.



Take a look...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki



> The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks. [44][1] One detective told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Awlaki "was at the center of the 9/11 story". And an FBI agent said that "if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been" him, since "someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused".[44] One 9/11 Commission staff member said: "Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes. Do I think he was sent here for that purpose? I have no evidence for it."[44] A separate Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks suspected that al-Awlaki might have been part of a support network for the hijackers, according to its director, Eleanor Hill.[44] "In my view, he is more than a coincidental figure", said House Intelligence Committee member Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA).[63]
> 
> ...
> Al-Awlaki was the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association's first imam to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol in 2002.[80][81] The prayers were for Muslim congressional staffers and officials for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).[82]
> ...





> The US is at war with 'terrorism'. It's a nice broad declaration, with no real end set, so we'll be 'at war' for years to come.



I'm hip, and I'm suspicious of both that and the Patriot Act; I see them as massive power grabs and huge transfers of power from the Congress to the President.

I also see conservatives who used to be on the side of the Constitution stand up and cheer when a terrorist is killed by us, NO MATTER HOW WE DO IT.  To hell with the Constitution; a dead bad guy is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than our liberties.  The fact that the President can now order the assassination of any US citizen he wants to, without judicial review, without a trial, and without due process, scares the crap out of me.  The fact that some conservatives are cheering it on makes me both scared and angry.  Freaking morons are going to keep at this until we wake up one day in an autocracy and yes, it will be their fault; they crap on the Constitution and cheer when it is ignored, so long as the right bad guys are getting zapped. Short-sighted morons are going to piss away our rights until we don't have any.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 2, 2011)

So I guess it's then OK for foreign assassins to come into the US to execute 'criminals' that were 'convicted' in other countries?

Goose, gander and all that.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill, we didn't know that until just now, because not enough guys had had swirlies done on them to make them give up the right names?
> Just tossing a guess out there.
> 
> The US is at war with 'terrorism'. It's a nice broad declaration, with no real end set, so we'll be 'at war' for years to come.



This action was based on intelligence provided by the Yemeni government-they told us where to find him.

And...for the second time in recent memory......I completely agree with _-choke!-_ *billi*.

If you think your 'rights as a U.S. citizen don't end at the border, try screaming about them from the basement of a Mexican jail, and see what good it does ya. There's an American girl facing her second murder trial in Italy, under rules where she's presumed guilty until proven innocent-where are her "rights as an American?"

If al-Awlaki wanted to exercise his rights as an American, he should have come back to the U.S., gotten himself lawyered up, and surrendered.

As for the Constitution-that noble, **** smeared document- various government organs and corporations have been wiping their collective behinds with it for so long that it's really just the quaint relic of our founding that I said it would become, and not worth the paper it was printed on.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2011)

Just like the US Dollar, but that is a different story...or is it?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Carol (Oct 2, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> So I guess it's then OK for foreign assassins to come into the US to execute 'criminals' that were 'convicted' in other countries?
> 
> Goose, gander and all that.



Interesting question.  

I hope its not phrased with the backdrop of the United States acting alone?  US-SOF had a great deal of cooperation and help from the Yemeni government.  Al-Awaki was a dual-citizen, both countries were losing a citizen in the operation.


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I agree MJS, this guy was over seas conducted terrorist operations against this country.  Killing him, with a presidential order only makes sense.  Now, if he was on U.S. soil, the regular legal code should take over.  Overseas is a different story.



Let me ask you this.  If he were on US soil, do you think that he'd willingly allow himself to be captured?


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A LEO can shoot and kill someone; but a LEO cannot walk up to a man wanted for murder and shoot him dead on the spot, can he?
> 
> And that's the issue.  Not whether or not a scum bag deserves to die; but the manner in which we uphold our own laws.



Nope, you're right, he can't.  Perhaps my use of example was a poor one.  But much like Bin Laden, its highly unlikely that he'd allow himself to be taken without a fight, ie: resisting, using a weapon, etc.  IMO, doing the more PC thing, would probably be more of a headache vs just killing the piece of ****.  Where would they be tried?  Would there be a risk or the location the POS is being held, being attacked by other POS terrorists?  Do you feel that OBL should have been taken alive vs being shot?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> If you think your 'rights as a U.S. citizen don't end at the border, try screaming about them from the basement of a Mexican jail, and see what good it does ya. There's an American girl facing her second murder trial in Italy, under rules where she's presumed guilty until proven innocent-where are her "rights as an American?"



It's not the US that's holding her.  She has the same rights - as an American citizen in Italy as she does in the USA.  TO the USA.  Not to Italy.  But you knew that.



> If al-Awlaki wanted to exercise his rights as an American, he should have come back to the U.S., gotten himself lawyered up, and surrendered.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/fugitive-hijacker-caught-after-40-years/



> Wright, 68, broke out of a New Jersey prison in 1970 while serving time for murdering a World War II hero, Walter Patterson, during a robbery in 1962.  He then joined up with the Black Liberation Army, hiding out for a couple years.  He allegedly returned to his criminal ways in Detroit in 1972, boarding Delta Airlines flight 841 bound for Miami with several other armed conspirators.  Wright was dressed as a  priest and allegedly carried a hollowed-out Bible with a gun hidden inside.
> 
> When the flight landed in Miami, the hijackers demanded $1 million in exchange for the passengers to be released safely, authorities said.  The ransom demand was one of the largest in its day and one of the most unusual. Suspect Wright and the other hijackers demanded that the FBI agents deliver the ransom in their swim trunks so the hijackers could be sure that the agents were not hiding any weapons as they approached the plane.
> 
> ...



So tell me.  Here's a man convicted of murder in the USA, hijacked a plane and make his getaway.  He was caught; but since we knew where he was, why arrest him?  Why not just issue a Presidential Assassination order?  After all, if he wanted to invoke his rights as a citizen, he should ha


> ve come back to the USA, right?
> 
> As for the Constitution-that noble, **** smeared document- various government organs and corporations have been wiping their collective behinds with it for so long that it's really just the quaint relic of our founding that I said it would become, and not worth the paper it was printed on.



I'm sorry you think that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

MJS said:


> Nope, you're right, he can't.  Perhaps my use of example was a poor one.  But much like Bin Laden, its highly unlikely that he'd allow himself to be taken without a fight, ie: resisting, using a weapon, etc.  IMO, doing the more PC thing, would probably be more of a headache vs just killing the piece of ****.  Where would they be tried?  Would there be a risk or the location the POS is being held, being attacked by other POS terrorists?  Do you feel that OBL should have been taken alive vs being shot?



OBL was not a US citizen.  I also would have had no trouble with his death if he HAD been a US citizen.  It was a military operation, and he refused to surrender and was killed.  Works for me.  And if that's what had happened with Al-Awaki I would have had no trouble with that, either.  This was not a military engagement where he chose to fight instead of surrender.  This was a Presidential order that he be assassinated from a distance and he was.  There's a world of difference there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2011)

MJS said:


> Let me ask you this.  If he were on US soil, do you think that he'd willingly allow himself to be captured?



Is that the point?  Do we shoot escaped murderers here in the USA because we don't think they will allow themselves to be captured, or do we TRY to capture them first, and shoot them if they refuse to give up?

I don't think we have assassination squads in the USA, deciding which criminals probably won't give up and executing them on that basis.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not the US that's holding her. She has the same rights - as an American citizen in Italy as she does in the USA. TO the USA. Not to Italy. But you knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And maybe we could have arrested him, and maybe we'd have had people killed and been unsuccessful. This was successful, and sanctioned by the Yemeni government. All these things went into the decision making about what to do with the intelligence, and the expedient method was chosen-and probably chosen because it was perceived as the least damaging to the administration's image. Troubling? Sure. Worth squawking about? Probably not. See below.




Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry you think that.



Well, I'm tired, Bill. I squawked, loudly and long, about the PATRIOT Act-until I was finally told to shut up _by my employers_. I was told that it was a necessary, temporary measure that closed some loopholes. I was told that it would never be used on U.S. citizens.The last bit of crap I managed to say about it was, well, _How will you feel about it when Hilary is President?_ 10 years later (this month), the damn thing is the law of the land, _Obama_ is President, the end of the law and the "WOT" are nowhere in sight, and we've got a collection of corporate shills and lunatics vying for the Chief Executive office. The Constitution has been undermined by executive orders, abuse of the war powers act, and various extra legal stratagems-and it started long before 9/11; 9/11 only served to accelerate the process. It'll stand as "the law of the land," but when it really counts, there's a way around it, and that isn't going to change. In fact, it won't be long at all before we're all under drone surveillance.

Frankly, I think it's what we all deserve, in the end.


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OBL was not a US citizen. I also would have had no trouble with his death if he HAD been a US citizen. It was a military operation, and he refused to surrender and was killed. Works for me. And if that's what had happened with Al-Awaki I would have had no trouble with that, either. This was not a military engagement where he chose to fight instead of surrender. This was a Presidential order that he be assassinated from a distance and he was. There's a world of difference there.



And it was a Presidential order to send the Navy Seals in to take out OBL.  IMO, the only difference here, is this guy was taken out by a drone, not a live person.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Is that the point? Do we shoot escaped murderers here in the USA because we don't think they will allow themselves to be captured, or do we TRY to capture them first, and shoot them if they refuse to give up?
> 
> I don't think we have assassination squads in the USA, deciding which criminals probably won't give up and executing them on that basis.



So basically, your main issue with this is that they didn't try to take him alive first.  Am I correct in saying that?  So had they made the attempt, but he resisted, then, American citizen or not, you'd be fine with them killing him, either by a drone strike or someone shooting him?  

Like I said in my OP Bill...my opinion is this...the guy, regardless of where he was born, IMHO, gave up all his rights.  He's a dirt bag terrorist, who has no remorse or respect for anything American.  **** him!  I'm glad the ****er is dead, and frankly, I dont care how they did it!  

See, IMO, this is yet another damned if ya do, damned if ya dont, situations.  I'd be willing to bet, had they not attempted to take the guy out, when they had the chance, someone wouldve said, "Gee, you guys had the chance and you didn't act?  Yeah, good job."  Yet they act, and because the guy is "a citizen" now its wrong.


----------



## granfire (Oct 3, 2011)

I think it would be hypocritical to demand citizenship rights from a country you are actively plotting against.


However, there are a few legal scenarios thrown out there that muddy the waters:
Any person on US soil is subject to US laws. 

That means that a German fellow for instance may find himself faced with the death sentence for commiting a violent crime, though his home country does not allow for such punishment. (Diplomatic channels will probably work hard to avoid the death penalty, but that is a matter of courtesy, not law)

On the other hand, a US citizen will be subject to the laws of the foreign nation they set foot on. I do believe it is international custom to give foreigners access to their diplomatic representatives, in order to assure due process, but that may also be a courtesy act more than law. 



On the other hand, terrorists?
If you can catch them, fine, haul them in, try them and throw them in jail (or in front of a firing squad).
If not...the OP sollution works, especially in this day and age I suppose.

However. 
The bigger problems that I am seeing with this is not the citizenship rights etc, it's the rights of the sovereign nation that allows (more or less) the action to go through.
Like in the Bin laden situation. Does that give other countries the right to attack people hiding out in the US?


A little bit of history though in terms of terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

MJS said:


> And it was a Presidential order to send the Navy Seals in to take out OBL.  IMO, the only difference here, is this guy was taken out by a drone, not a live person.



OBL was indicted, wanted by the FBI.  OBL could have surrendered to the SEALS.  You can't surrender to a missile fired from a drone.



> So basically, your main issue with this is that they didn't try to take him alive first.  Am I correct in saying that?  So had they made the attempt, but he resisted, then, American citizen or not, you'd be fine with them killing him, either by a drone strike or someone shooting him?



That is not my primary problem with this, it's a symptom.  But to answer question, yes, if they had tried to apprehend him and he resisted and got shot dead, I have no problem with that.

My primary objection doesn't have anything to do with attempts at apprehension or Predator missiles per se.  It has to do with 'due process' and being an US citizen.  Like it or not US citizens are deserving of certain rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and it applies to all US citizens, even the horrible ones.  Or it applies to none of us.



> Like I said in my OP Bill...my opinion is this...the guy, regardless of where he was born, IMHO, gave up all his rights.  He's a dirt bag terrorist, who has no remorse or respect for anything American.  **** him!  I'm glad the ****er is dead, and frankly, I dont care how they did it!



I keep reading about how the guy _'forfeited his rights'_ and how he _'gave up all his rights'_.  And that's frankly ********.  *Sez who, you?*  You cannot _'forfeit your rights'_ without due process FIRST.  Popular opinion does not cause anyone to lose any rights - if it did, I'd be marked for death right now.  _"He gave up his rights when he did X,Y,Z,"_ is the kind of crap that comes out of the mouths of Lynch mobs.  Nobody gives up their rights without due process, and you cannot wave that away because you personally want him dead.

And like I said, I'm certain he was a dirtbag terrorist, and I'm also not sorry he's dead.  But I do care how they did it, only because he was a US citizen by birth.  What you're saying is precisely what I said I worried about; to you, the _'ends justify the means'_.  When you disregard the rights that a US citizen has because it gives us a sense of satisfaction, you can disregard ANY citizen's rights.  You've set the precedent.

If in say 20 years, we get to a point where the CIA just drops missiles into people's houses inside the USA, and the President just shrugs and says "Well, he was a dirtbag terrorist anyway, so I ordered his execution," and we don't know if he was or if he wasn't, then you can't complain, because you approved it.

It's no different than vigilante justice.  We *know* that Joe Schmucatelli is guilty as hell, and the wheels of justice are moving too slowly for us, so we storm the jail, haul him out, and hang him from a tree.  A dirtbag is dead, who cares if he got the due process that belongs to US citizens?

Why don't the police just execute people they arrest for capital crimes, especially if they actually witnessed the crime in question?  I mean, if the President can order the execution of a US citizen on his own authority, there is really no reason why a cop who witnesses a murder being committed can't just take justice right then and there, right?  If the guy surrenders, shoot him anyway!  HE WAS A DIRTBAG.

That's where this leads to.



> See, IMO, this is yet another damned if ya do, damned if ya dont, situations.  I'd be willing to bet, had they not attempted to take the guy out, when they had the chance, someone wouldve said, "Gee, you guys had the chance and you didn't act?  Yeah, good job."  Yet they act, and because the guy is "a citizen" now its wrong.



It's wrong because US citizens, no matter how slimy, are US citizens.  And US citizens get due process.  It's in the Constitution, perhaps you've heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_process_clause

_"There is debate over whether or not the Obama administration violated this clause by assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan[30][31][32]._"

http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/

"_It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.  No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was &#8220;considering&#8221; indicting him).  Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki&#8217;s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were &#8220;state secrets&#8221; and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki&#8217;s inclusion on President Obama&#8217;s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that &#8220;it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing._"

http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/

"_It&#8217;s clear that Awlaki was an avowed enemy of the United States, actively inciting others to inflict harm on Americans, and perhaps inspiring at least one mass killing on our soil. But as civil libertarian absolutists like the Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald note, the government can&#8217;t simply execute someone for exercising his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech. Moreover, all U.S. citizens enjoy due process under the Fifth Amendment, and Awlaki was never charged in a court of law. Obama, Greenwald argues, acted as &#8220;judge, jury and executioner.&#8221;_"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"_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._"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"_Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. _"


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> I think it would be hypocritical to demand citizenship rights from a country you are actively plotting against.



Civil rights are not something a citizen demands.  They are something a citizen has.



> However, there are a few legal scenarios thrown out there that muddy the waters:
> Any person on US soil is subject to US laws.
> 
> That means that a German fellow for instance may find himself faced with the death sentence for commiting a violent crime, though his home country does not allow for such punishment. (Diplomatic channels will probably work hard to avoid the death penalty, but that is a matter of courtesy, not law)
> ...



Yemen did not execute him.  If they had, I'd have no objections.  He was in Yemen, and the government there can do what it wishes to people inside its borders.  This was a US citizen executed by the US government; it does not matter where he was (with the sole exception of being on a battlefield in military action against the US).



> On the other hand, terrorists?
> If you can catch them, fine, haul them in, try them and throw them in jail (or in front of a firing squad).
> If not...the OP sollution works, especially in this day and age I suppose.



If the President can order the assassination of a person designated a 'terrorist' today, he can order the assassination of ANY citizen.  I'm not sure how it is people don't get that.

We know this guy was a dirtbag terrorist, right?  And the the next time?  The President tells us so, but do we know it?  And the time after that?  And the time after that?  We just trust that the government would not lie to use; if they execute someone without trial on the President's order, we just nod our heads and say _"Well, I guess the President knows best.  If he says the guy was a terrorist, I guess he was a terrorist."_  That's OK with you?



> However.
> The bigger problems that I am seeing with this is not the citizenship rights etc, it's the rights of the sovereign nation that allows (more or less) the action to go through.
> Like in the Bin laden situation. Does that give other countries the right to attack people hiding out in the US?



It's a side-question, but a good one.  There is evidence that the USA has allowed operatives of foreign nations we're friendly with to carry out lethal operations inside US borders in the past, going back to the Cold War.  However,  we would not, (I bloody well hope) allow Israel to shoot missiles into cars on the highway carrying someone on their hit list, for example.

I mean, is anyone here OK with that?  If your son or daughter was in the car behind them and killed accidentally, it's OK with you because Israel (or whomever) is our friend?  You really don't have a problem with that?



> A little bit of history though in terms of terrorism:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181



I'm not sure what that has to to with this.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OBL was indicted, wanted by the FBI. OBL could have surrendered to the SEALS. You can't surrender to a missile fired from a drone.



True.  And I'm sure there're other terrorists that're wanted.  They could all surrender and change their way of life, any time they want.  They dont want to.  So, whatever method is necessary then....Navy Seal or missile.  Sorry, when you lead that lifestyle, those are the risks you take.  





> That is not my primary problem with this, it's a symptom. But to answer question, yes, if they had tried to apprehend him and he resisted and got shot dead, I have no problem with that.
> 
> My primary objection doesn't have anything to do with attempts at apprehension or Predator missiles per se. It has to do with 'due process' and being an US citizen. Like it or not US citizens are deserving of certain rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and it applies to all US citizens, even the horrible ones. Or it applies to none of us.



But what about the due process then?  How is it suddenly right to blow the guy to bits if he runs, but doing a sneak attack is wrong?  Either way, you're not giving the US citizen his 'due process'.  





> I keep reading about how the guy _'forfeited his rights'_ and how he _'gave up all his rights'_. And that's frankly ********. *Sez who, you?* You cannot _'forfeit your rights'_ without due process FIRST. Popular opinion does not cause anyone to lose any rights - if it did, I'd be marked for death right now. _"He gave up his rights when he did X,Y,Z,"_ is the kind of crap that comes out of the mouths of Lynch mobs. Nobody gives up their rights without due process, and you cannot wave that away because you personally want him dead.
> 
> And like I said, I'm certain he was a dirtbag terrorist, and I'm also not sorry he's dead. But I do care how they did it, only because he was a US citizen by birth. What you're saying is precisely what I said I worried about; to you, the _'ends justify the means'_. When you disregard the rights that a US citizen has because it gives us a sense of satisfaction, you can disregard ANY citizen's rights. You've set the precedent.
> 
> ...



My posts Bill, are simply my opinion, to which I'm entitled to, just like you, whether you or anyone else likes it.   We all have our views and opinions, and like 'em or not, it is what it is.  I'm not offended if you disagree with me Bill.   I still enjoy discussing topics with you and everyone else.  I think the issue here, is that its unlikely the CIA is going to drop a bomb on you or me or anyone else.  Now, if we were terrorists, well, that'd probably be different. 

In the end, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.  I have to compassion or sympathy for anyone who wishes to do what these people, if thats what you want to call them, do to the US.  They can take their due process and stuff it up their hat.  

I think it was mentioned, but I'll ask again....lets say this guy was caught.  Where would he be tried?  Over there or in the US?  Do you think that there would be a constant threat to the building and/or people, where this trial is being held?  I highly doubt this would be some classified, secret trial.  It'd be broadcast on every tv station and in every paper.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

MJS said:


> But what about the due process then?  How is it suddenly right to blow the guy to bits if he runs, but doing a sneak attack is wrong?  Either way, you're not giving the US citizen his 'due process'.



Authorized use of deadly force in the attempt to apprehend a suspect does not violate due process.  The due process is actually being applied by attempting to arrest him. But all law enforcement officers know this.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/force/useof.htm



> My posts Bill, are simply my opinion, to which I'm entitled to, just like you, whether you or anyone else likes it.   We all have our views and opinions, and like 'em or not, it is what it is.  I'm not offended if you disagree with me Bill.   I still enjoy discussing topics with you and everyone else.  I think the issue here, is that its unlikely the CIA is going to drop a bomb on you or me or anyone else.  Now, if we were terrorists, well, that'd probably be different.



Who decides who is a terrorist?



> In the end, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.  I have to compassion or sympathy for anyone who wishes to do what these people, if thats what you want to call them, do to the US.  They can take their due process and stuff it up their hat.



Many feel the way you do.  I believe we will come to regret that mentality, and sooner rather than later.  I, like you, have my opinion.  And in my opinion, when it comes to pass, I will blame you and all those who think as you do on this subject.  It will absolutely be your fault.



> I think it was mentioned, but I'll ask again....lets say this guy was caught.  Where would he be tried?  Over there or in the US?  Do you think that there would be a constant threat to the building and/or people, where this trial is being held?  I highly doubt this would be some classified, secret trial.  It'd be broadcast on every tv station and in every paper.



I really don't know where he would be tried.  I'm really not certain that is germane to the topic.

I suppose if I wanted to dive into the arena of this particular dirtbag, I'm seeing more and more to dislike.  It appears - and I am only partially aware of the situation, but it appears - that this guy was thought to be a 9/11 conspirator, but the US not only didn't have enough evidence to charge him with, but they didn't have enough evidence to keep him from becoming, post-9/11, the Muslim Chaplain to George Washington University and from speaking to CONGRESS as if he were a 'moderate' Muslim, for God's sake.  Then he went to the UK and lived there for many years - obviously we could have had him arrested if we had wanted to, but for whatever reason, we didn't - I have to wonder if it's because we could not prove anything in court.  Then he goes to Yemen and becomes a Youtube sensation, preaching hatred and Jihad, and apparently 'advising' both the Army Muslim shooter and the Detroit underwear bomber via email.  It was only (again, apparently, I'm just getting into this)  recently that the US stated that he was actively involved in planning operations for A-Q, rather than simply being a venom-spouting anti-US hate-monger.  And all we have as evidence of this is that the White House says so.  And it was after this that he was put on the Presidential hit list.

So it would appear that he didn't fit under the authorization for use of force by Congress, because that is only for 9/11 conspirators and if he was one; well, we seem not to have done much about it when he was actually talking to CONGRESS about 9/11, which seems a little bit of an oops, huh?  If indeed he did take up operational day-to-day planning of A-Q operations, all we have is the White House's word for it.  If, and I am just saying if, he did not actually do that, then it would appear that we officially assassinated a US citizen in Yemen for saying mean things about us on Youtube and encouraging others to harm the US with terrorist attacks.  That's kind of WOW.  It is a crime to incite to riot and so forth, of course, but for some reason, we didn't bother charging him or issuing a warrant.  We just killed him, point blank.

In any case, I don't want to get sidetracked into whether or not this guy was really the dirtbag the White House says he was.  I'm perfectly happy to assume he was the worst of the worst and absolutely deserving of death.  I just do not think the ends justify the means; ignoring due process for US citizens when it is convenient to do so will lead to other abuses.  It blows my mind that people can't or refuse to see that.  It will come back to haunt us, and we will be sorry.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/



> Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."
> 
> Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.
> 
> Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions _without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny_. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."



I think the Obama Administration is afraid they are on shaky legal ground, so they are refusing to disclose the exact justification used to authorize the assassination of a US citizen.

And let me just pose a hypothetical.  It's obviously not the case, but just play along for the sake of argument.  Let's say that al-Awlaki was NOT a 9/11 conspirator, and that his only crime was ranting and raving via YouTube about how terrible the US is, and how we all ought to be killed.  Same result, he is assassinated on the orders of the President.  Is it still OK with you, or would that be a bad thing?  The reason I ask is because it appears the only evidence we have that al-Awlaki did these bad things is because the White House says so - now.  They apparently did not say so before, when he was in the US and the UK for years after 9/11.  So they are telling us the truth - and we believe that why?

I'm not saying al-Awlaki was innocent; I believe he was knee-deep in terrorist activity against the USA.  I'm saying that since he didn't get due process, we'll never know, will we?  And the next time President Obama decides to execute a US citizen without due process, we'll still believe him as to his reason.  And the time after that?  And the time after that?  Because we know the government never lies to us.  Right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 3, 2011)

I'm with Bill on this.


----------



## billc (Oct 3, 2011)

The legal precedent for the killing might be found in the case of the German Saboteurs during world war 2.  Two of the German's were American citizens.  When they were captured with the other 6, they also were denied trial by jury in front of civillian courts.  Haupt, was executed as a spy even though he was an American citizen captured on American Soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius




> [h=2]Agents[/h] Recruited for the operation were eight Germans who had lived in the United States. Two of them, Ernst Burger and Herbert Haupt, were American citizens. The others, George John Dasch, Edward John Kerling, Richard Quirin, Heinrich Harm Heinck, Hermann Otto Neubauer, and Werner Thiel, had worked at various jobs in the U.S.





> Lawyers for the accused, who included Lauson Stone and Kenneth Royall, attempted to have the case tried in a civilian court but were rebuffed by the Supreme Court of the United States in _Ex parte Quirin_, a case that was later cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States. The trial was held in the Department of Justice  building in Washington. All eight defendants were found guilty and  sentenced to death. Roosevelt commuted Burger's sentence to life and  Dasch's to 30 years, because they had turned themselves in and provided  information about the others. The others were executed on 8 August 1942  in the electric chair on the third floor of the District of Columbia jail and buried in a potter's field called Blue Plains in the Anacostia area of Washington. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on the condition that they be deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The legal precedent for the killing might be found in the case of the German Saboteurs during world war 2.  Two of the German's were American citizens.  When they were captured with the other 6, they also were denied trial by jury in front of civillian courts.  Haupt, was executed as a spy even though he was an American citizen captured on American Soil.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius



"_All eight defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death._"

Whether the trial was a military tribunal or a civilian court, they were arrested, tried, and convicted before being executed.  That's due process.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Oct 3, 2011)

I'm all for the President doing whatever he wants, when he wants, how he wants, as long as he's not having me shot.  If he does, that bastard better give me a full trial, a foot rub, and while he's at it, a reach around, but only if he's a Dem. I don't want no smelly GOPPER touching me. That would be wrong.


----------



## cdunn (Oct 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> "_All eight defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death._"
> 
> Whether the trial was a military tribunal or a civilian court, they were arrested, tried, and convicted before being executed. That's due process.



That's pretty much it, right there.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Authorized use of deadly force in the attempt to apprehend a suspect does not violate due process.  The due process is actually being applied by attempting to arrest him. But all law enforcement officers know this.
> 
> http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/force/useof.htm



Can't view this at work.  I'll have to read it later.  As for the process being started during the capture attempt...I didn't know that.  See, I guess you learn something new every day. 





> Who decides who is a terrorist?



I guess anyone that falls into the definition of one.





> Many feel the way you do.  I believe we will come to regret that mentality, and sooner rather than later.  I, like you, have my opinion.  And in my opinion, when it comes to pass, I will blame you and all those who think as you do on this subject.  It will absolutely be your fault.



Ok...then blame me.  I dont give a ****.   Should I blame you and those who think that you do, when it comes to being a sheep instead of a lion, when it comes to SD?  Yeah, I know its a different topic, just sayin'. 





> I really don't know where he would be tried.  I'm really not certain that is germane to the topic.



Sure it is.  



> I suppose if I wanted to dive into the arena of this particular dirtbag, I'm seeing more and more to dislike.  It appears - and I am only partially aware of the situation, but it appears - that this guy was thought to be a 9/11 conspirator, but the US not only didn't have enough evidence to charge him with, but they didn't have enough evidence to keep him from becoming, post-9/11, the Muslim Chaplain to George Washington University and from speaking to CONGRESS as if he were a 'moderate' Muslim, for God's sake.  Then he went to the UK and lived there for many years - obviously we could have had him arrested if we had wanted to, but for whatever reason, we didn't - I have to wonder if it's because we could not prove anything in court.  Then he goes to Yemen and becomes a Youtube sensation, preaching hatred and Jihad, and apparently 'advising' both the Army Muslim shooter and the Detroit underwear bomber via email.  It was only (again, apparently, I'm just getting into this)  recently that the US stated that he was actively involved in planning operations for A-Q, rather than simply being a venom-spouting anti-US hate-monger.  And all we have as evidence of this is that the White House says so.  And it was after this that he was put on the Presidential hit list.
> 
> So it would appear that he didn't fit under the authorization for use of force by Congress, because that is only for 9/11 conspirators and if he was one; well, we seem not to have done much about it when he was actually talking to CONGRESS about 9/11, which seems a little bit of an oops, huh?  If indeed he did take up operational day-to-day planning of A-Q operations, all we have is the White House's word for it.  If, and I am just saying if, he did not actually do that, then it would appear that we officially assassinated a US citizen in Yemen for saying mean things about us on Youtube and encouraging others to harm the US with terrorist attacks.  That's kind of WOW.  It is a crime to incite to riot and so forth, of course, but for some reason, we didn't bother charging him or issuing a warrant.  We just killed him, point blank.
> 
> In any case, I don't want to get sidetracked into whether or not this guy was really the dirtbag the White House says he was.  I'm perfectly happy to assume he was the worst of the worst and absolutely deserving of death.  I just do not think the ends justify the means; ignoring due process for US citizens when it is convenient to do so will lead to other abuses.  It blows my mind that people can't or refuse to see that.  It will come back to haunt us, and we will be sorry.



Whats interesting is how you make it sound so easy to arrest these people to ensure they get their due process.  But whatever...like I said, you have your opinion, I have mine.  I respect yours, you dont respect mine, probably because it differs from yours but thats fine.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 3, 2011)

You can hold a trial in absentia. 

The end point is, an American Citizen was killed by a branch of the American Government, -without- being due process of law.

He may have renounced his citizenship. Doesn't matter.  Unless he's filled out the right forms, filed, etc, it's invalid.
Ask the IRS about that.

He may have been involved in plots, 9/11, etc. But there's no proof offered, no charges, no conviction, no trial.

When he was within reach, he was allowed to go roam free.

So again, you have an American Citizen was killed by a branch of the American Government, -without- being due process of law.

What is there to stop -any- sitting President from doing this again?  I'm rather critical of the US Government. Should I worry about a drone hit on my Prius when I'm taking my grandfather for a hot dog? 

That's Bills point I think. It is mine in any case.

Show me the safeguards in the system now to prevent a non-convicted US Citizen from being executed without a fair trial by the US Government, since it's quite clear that USC Article III Section 2 & 3 no longer are the law of the land.



> [h=3]Article III - The Judicial Branch[/h]  *Section 1 - Judicial powers*
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> *Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials*
> _(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)_ *(This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)*
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

MJS said:


> I guess anyone that falls into the definition of one.



That's not really an answer.  I asked WHO decides who is a terrorist.  If I 'define' you as a terrorist, are you?  No.  But if the president does, then it's true?  Do you really trust the Oval Office that much?  I'm not asking what a terrorist is, I'm asking who gets to decide who a terrorist is.



> Ok...then blame me.  I dont give a ****.   Should I blame you and those who think that you do, when it comes to being a sheep instead of a lion, when it comes to SD?  Yeah, I know its a different topic, just sayin'.



Sure.  But here's the difference.  If I am a sheep instead of a lion regarding self-defense; I hurt myself, or perhaps my family.  When you toss away our rights so long as a bad guy gets zapped, you damage the entire fabric of society.   I can live when any errors I commit that harm only me and mine.  Disregarding liberty to make sure a bad guy gets what he has coming to him sans due process doesn't just affect you.  It affects all of us, and forever.



> Whats interesting is how you make it sound so easy to arrest these people to ensure they get their due process.  But whatever...like I said, you have your opinion, I have mine.  I respect yours, you dont respect mine, probably because it differs from yours but thats fine.



I do not think it is easy to arrest these people.  I think I've made it clear that I don't think he would have come along quietly.  I've also said that if he's killed in the process of being arrested, I don't have a problem with that.

I think maybe we just don't agree on what the term 'due process' means.  It does not mean you absolutely get your day in court.  Bad guys get shot dead all the time by the police before they get their day in court, and that's the way it goes.

Due process means pretty much just that.  Before the government can take your property, or your liberty, or your life, there is a process that must be observed.  The government is not permitted to just decide to kill a citizen and then go do it.

In the case of taking a citizen's property away, there are a number of things that have to happen before your property can be seized. The mayor of your town can't just eyeball your property and say _"Wow, that's a nice place, I think I'll take it."_

In the case of taking a citizen's liberty away, there has to be a trial and a conviction and a sentence lawfully applied.  A judge can't just say _"Never mind the trial, I can see this guy's a scumball, so twenty years for him!"_

In the case of taking a citizen's life, it becomes even more important that they receive due process, because unlike the other two, where they can petition the government for redress, once they're dead, that's it.

However, the court also understands that the government has to do the job of enforcing the law.  Before they can bring someone to trial, they must capture that person.  And many times, such persons do not want to be caught, and will not come along quietly and peacefully.  But the law requires that they submit to lawful authority; if they refuse to do so, the police are required to effect an arrest, and necessary force is authorized to the limits of that particular crime (the police can't shoot a jaywalker resisting arrest, for example, but they can shoot a murderer fleeing the scene).  When this happens, the suspect still got their due process; the police tried to apprehend the suspect to bring him to justice and the suspect resisted, leading to his death.

If they had done an OBL type insertion into Yemen to get this guy, and he resisted and got two between the running lights, he got due process.  He could have surrendered, he didn't.

But as I mentioned, you can't surrender to a missile.  He was not given due process because he a) was not charged with a crime and b) was not given the opportunity to surrender to face the charges.

What was he charged with?  What crime, specifically?  "Being a scumbag" is not a crime.  Even "being a terrorist" is not a crime in specific.  WHAT was the crime he was to answer to?  OBL was on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list with a reward for his capture; he was charged with crimes.  What charge was al-Awlaki charged with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



> 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.



In the case of OBL, who was NOT a US citizen, he got due process anyway.  There was an indictment.  We did attempt to apprehend him.  If he had surrendered, we would have captured him alive and he would have received a trial of some kind (what kind, I have no idea).  Al-Awlaki, a US citizen, did NOT get due process.  No indictment.  No attempt to apprehend him.  The President ordered him assassinated and he was, by a missile, which he could not surrender to even if he had wanted to.

It's like shooting a man dead whom you know to be armed, and then claiming self-defense.  The cops say _"Well, was he pointing his gun at you?" _ And you say _"No, but he was going to!"_  Well, we'll never know, will we?  We can say al-Awlaki would never have surrendered.  Probably true, too.  But we'll never know; we did not indict him, we did not try to apprehend him.  And our own Constitution says we can't do that to our citizens.  If our President can order him killed without due process, he can order you or me killed without due process too.  Would he?  No, of course not.  But now there is nothing to stop him from doing it he feels like it.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm with Bill on this.



Don't get me wrong-so am I. I just have a hard time mustering up a shred of give-a-**** for this particular U.S. citizen. As for our eroded rights, and the nice slow ride to hell in a hand basket, well, it's not like I don't care. It's not like I think for a minute we can keep it from happening, or slow things down, or turn this thing around. Hell? We're already there. Best to keep your heads down, now-don't say anything, and have your papers ready at all times, 'mkay?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Don't get me wrong-so am I. I just have a hard time mustering up a shred of give-a-**** for this particular U.S. citizen. As for our eroded rights, and the nice slow ride to hell in a hand basket, well, it's not like I don't care. It's not like I think for a minute we can keep it from happening, or slow things down, or turn this thing around. Hell? We're already there. Best to keep your heads down, now-don't say anything, and have your papers ready at all times, 'mkay?



I feel like that on bad days.  Other times, I just get angry that so many of our fellow citizens not only can't see the path we're heading down, they want to speed things up.

If I asked most of these "Yeah, kill the bastard" people if they'd trust the President to decide who could own guns or not on his say-so, they'd scream bloody murder.  Yet they're willing to put the actual power of assassination into the hands of the White House, without judicial review, without an indictment, without due process, just judge/jury/executioner all wrapped up on one President and they're fine with that.  They refuse to think that power might be used for someone who is NOT a terrorist at some point in the future.  That's scary stuff, man.  These men's men have no idea what they just traded away for nothing but a warm feeling that a bad guy is dead.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 3, 2011)

We did it to ourselves, Bill. Most of us went right along with the program, smiling and nodding-a bunch of us are *still* smiling and nodding. And we live with the _illusion_ of rights, free to exercise them as long as they don't own the machine-which is really the whole ball of wax, btw-the media: mainstream, liberal and conservative. THe energy companies: for "drill here, drill now," and importing oil, and "green energy." The banks. The government. A giant meat grinder bent on the consumption of what remains of the middle class, and exerting more and more control over everyone: the TSA can reach up little girl's skirts, the police can listen to us whenever they like, and not one shred of your life is as private as you think, _thanks to the very technology we're using right now_,while they smile and nod the whole time. Not wasting my breath on that, anymore......suggesting that you don't either, really. Waste of breath either way, I suppose.....


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's not really an answer.  I asked WHO decides who is a terrorist.  If I 'define' you as a terrorist, are you?  No.  But if the president does, then it's true?  Do you really trust the Oval Office that much?  I'm not asking what a terrorist is, I'm asking who gets to decide who a terrorist is.



Dont know.  Someone must be in charge of making up rules, policies, etc.  The govt, the President, Congress, etc.  Just like the Chief of a PD makes up the policies for their dept, as long as they are somewhat in line with what the State dictates.  





> Sure.  But here's the difference.  If I am a sheep instead of a lion regarding self-defense; I hurt myself, or perhaps my family.  When you toss away our rights so long as a bad guy gets zapped, you damage the entire fabric of society.   I can live when any errors I commit that harm only me and mine.  Disregarding liberty to make sure a bad guy gets what he has coming to him sans due process doesn't just affect you.  It affects all of us, and forever.



Do you really think that if the govt is allowed to do as they choose, that you or I would actually be at risk of having a drone drop a bomb on us?  





> I do not think it is easy to arrest these people.  I think I've made it clear that I don't think he would have come along quietly.  I've also said that if he's killed in the process of being arrested, I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> I think maybe we just don't agree on what the term 'due process' means.  It does not mean you absolutely get your day in court.  Bad guys get shot dead all the time by the police before they get their day in court, and that's the way it goes.
> 
> ...



So, in a nutshell, as long as an initial attempt is made to capture first vs just dropping bombs, then you're ok with that, and the due process goal was reached?  You do realize how easy that is to get around though, dont you?  I mean, you're a former LEO IIRC, right?  I see it all the time....officer finds the smallest thing to allow them to pull the car over, ie: failure to signal on a turn.  Stupid reason to make a stop?  Sure, but its a valid excuse nonetheless.  So now, they can see into the car, possibly smell something illegal in the car, run everyone in the car, etc.  

So, all the govt has to do, is make the slightest attempt to physically capture the guy, it fails, now they can drop bombs, and that'll satisfy the DP fiasco that we're having in this thread.





> In the case of OBL, who was NOT a US citizen, he got due process anyway.  There was an indictment.  We did attempt to apprehend him.  If he had surrendered, we would have captured him alive and he would have received a trial of some kind (what kind, I have no idea).  Al-Awlaki, a US citizen, did NOT get due process.  No indictment.  No attempt to apprehend him.  The President ordered him assassinated and he was, by a missile, which he could not surrender to even if he had wanted to.
> 
> It's like shooting a man dead whom you know to be armed, and then claiming self-defense.  The cops say _"Well, was he pointing his gun at you?" _ And you say _"No, but he was going to!"_  Well, we'll never know, will we?  We can say al-Awlaki would never have surrendered.  Probably true, too.  But we'll never know; we did not indict him, we did not try to apprehend him.  And our own Constitution says we can't do that to our citizens.  If our President can order him killed without due process, he can order you or me killed without due process too.  Would he?  No, of course not.  But now there is nothing to stop him from doing it he feels like it.



Ok.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 4, 2011)

Just playing devil's advocate here for a second...

How many people would still be ok with this military action if he had been targeted downtown Toronto or London?  Are we "ok" with this action because it was in a "terrorist country"?

It wasn't too long ago that the CIA was in the business of carrying out assassinations.  In fact, one of the SEALS first jobs under Kennedy was to work with the CIA and carry out assassinations.  We decided back then that we wouldn't do it and we were "at war" with communism around the world.  What has changed now?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Dont know.  Someone must be in charge of making up rules, policies, etc.  The govt, the President, Congress, etc.  Just like the Chief of a PD makes up the policies for their dept, as long as they are somewhat in line with what the State dictates.



That's a problem for me.  We have three branches of government for a reason.  Giving the power of judge, jury, and executioner to one man is not one of our basic precepts.



> Do you really think that if the govt is allowed to do as they choose, that you or I would actually be at risk of having a drone drop a bomb on us?



In reality?  No.  However, once precedent is set, there nothing saying it can't happen.  It would be like agreeing to register all guns, and trusting that there won't ever be a mass confiscation.  Once they have the power, you don't know what might happen next.  Giving the President the authority to order the assassination of a US citizen he deems a 'terrorist' is fine when one thinks that's all it will ever be used for.  But I've never trusted power not to be abused.  I think there's even a saying about that...



> So, in a nutshell, as long as an initial attempt is made to capture first vs just dropping bombs, then you're ok with that, and the due process goal was reached?  You do realize how easy that is to get around though, dont you?  I mean, you're a former LEO IIRC, right?  I see it all the time....officer finds the smallest thing to allow them to pull the car over, ie: failure to signal on a turn.  Stupid reason to make a stop?  Sure, but its a valid excuse nonetheless.  So now, they can see into the car, possibly smell something illegal in the car, run everyone in the car, etc.



Sometimes the appearance of legality is all we have, sure.  I don't know whether or not the SEAL guy who dropped the hammer on OBL would have accepted his surrender if he had offered it; but I'm willing to believe he would have.  It is at least plausible.



> So, all the govt has to do, is make the slightest attempt to physically capture the guy, it fails, now they can drop bombs, and that'll satisfy the DP fiasco that we're having in this thread.



Pretty much.

I read this news article this morning.  I think it says a lot:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...y-as-a-ci/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS



> Taking Anwar al-Awlaki alive would have presented a difficult challenge for U.S. government prosecutors seeking a terrorism conviction, legal experts say.
> 
> For one, the New Mexico-born al-Awlaki, as a U.S. citizen, would not be eligible for trial by a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where scores of foreign terrorism suspects are awaiting trial. The law establishing the commission system stipulates non-U.S. citizens only.
> 
> ...



In other words, our President may have ordered him assassinated because we didn't think we could get a conviction in a civilian court.  Woah.  We don't have enough evidence to convict you, but we don't like you, so we're going to kill you.  In the case of this dirtbag, I think his evil is clouding the issue.  Just pretend it's some dumb schmuck who has run afoul of our government, enough so that he is truly hated.  Still seem like a good idea?

Here's another interesting piece from yesterday:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/3/obamas-illegal-assassination/



> Democrats argue that in the long run, these terrorist killings will inoculate Mr. Obama from the traditional Republican argument that Democratic presidents are weak on defense.



Wow.  Really?  We killed him to boost President Obama's reelection chances?



> The Justice Department reportedly wrote an advisory memo on the legality of targeting an American citizen with lethal force absent a trial or other due process, but the administration has kept the memo classified. Keeping the legal rationale secret amplifies the voices that argue that Mr. Obama assassinated an American citizen.



And the reason that our own government refuses to state what a memo on the legality of killing a US citizen says because why?


> Al-Awlaki&#8217;s killing stands in contrast to the obsessive White House drive to extend full constitutional rights to foreign-born terrorists. In July, the administration skirted the clear intent of Congress by indicting small-time Somali terrorist Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame in a federal court simply to establish the precedent of federal terror trials. This is the troubling standing image of the terror war in the age of Obama: A foreign-born jihadist is given a Miranda warning by the FBI, while the CIA kills an American citizen without warning.



That DOES seem a trifle odd, doesn't it?

And of course, this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...l_clerics_death_could_be_impeachable_offense/



> MANCHESTER, N.H.&#8212;Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is suggesting that President Barack Obama could be impeached for the killing of an American born al-Qaida operative, though he says he isn't going to pursue it.



Now here's one of the darlings of the Tea Party stating what I'm saying, but suddenly the TP is breaking ranks with the whole idea of Constitutional Law and jumping on the _"I don't care just so long as a terrorist is dead"_ bandwagon. _ "Rights?  Liberty?  Never heard of it.  Come talk to me when the President kills a GOOD GUY and maybe we'll talk.  As long as he's murdering bad guys, I don't care if he shoots nuns in the National Cathedral."_

That irks me.  The Tea Party is all about the Constitution, they claim, until it gets in the way.

Current GOP darling, Herman Cain?  Flip-flop...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ped-on-the-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki/246084/



> In early May, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain said it would be illegal for the Obama administration to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and suspected Yemeni terrorist known to be included on a "kill list" maintained by U.S. military and intelligence branches.
> 
> "In his case, no, because he's an American citizen," Cain said after a nationally televised presidential debate on May 5, when asked specifically about the Obama administration's targeting of al-Awlaki. "If he's an American citizen, which is the big difference, then he should be charged, and he should be arrested and brought to justice."
> ...
> ...



Huh.  He was against it before he was for it.  Wonder where I've heard that before?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2011)

This is why Ron Paul really isn't a Republican.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------

