ACLU: Killing US born al-Quieda

[cranis]

This is pure bullcrap!! Even Ron Paul said it was not right.
This guy was a big threat to national security..
I'm glad they did it..

ACLU objects to killing of al Qaeda leader
By Erik Wasson - 09/30/11 11:54 AM ET
The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the killing of the U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by U.S. forces.

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and the ACLU said President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American without due process of law. The White House confirmed the cleric was killed by a U.S. drone attack.

“The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said. “As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.”

The ACLU said the government only has the authority to kill Americans when a threat is imminent.

“It is a mistake to invest the president — any president — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country,” Jaffer said.

Ben Wizner, litigation director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, added:

“If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.”

Obama’s actions also garnered criticism from GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas).

Comments (27)

 

[EASYTRADER]

War is hell. Ron Paul is right on many things but he is out to lunch on national security which is why he is Un Electable.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[greg334]

You both miss the point and this is the problem, when we start thinking we are a nation of men and not a nation of laws, our society and country is be lost. There is such a blood lust with some of these people it is unreal.

The point of both Paul and the ACLU is simple, the federal government has no right to just kill the guy because he still falls under our constitution.

The nations security risk is not as important as upholding the constitution, no matter how someone wants to spin it and when things like this happen, we can forget the due process part that protects us and the sovereignty of our country and us as individuals. This is what the terrorist want, to have a government run amok and do what ever it can not to protect the citizens but the government first. If you can't figure that out, just look at those good points of the patriot act and tell me if I am wrong.

Putting it another way, you as a citizen supporting this action under the guise of national security lost your fourth, eight and fourteenth amendment rights by their actions and your permission, so the cops can search you, your home and can throw you in jail without a trial.

If you read the entire article from the LA times (the one that popped up first) you will see what Ron Paul is saying and why.

Ron Paul criticizes Obama for U.S. role in killing of Awlaki - latimes.com

The really sad thing is people like perry and I think other republicans are praising this as a great thing when they are trying to run under a conservative banner - which shows me there is no conservatism there at all.

 

[skyraider]

What a can of worms we have here, my my. Poor little
Al gets killed. I am sure that the drone aircraft strike most likely was a mistake and the 2 planes that crashed into the twin towers was pilot error dont you? Thats it , all these terrible things were errors in judgement.......................ok, now everyone go back to work, Wally World has some specials u need

 

[cranis]

You both miss the point and this is the problem, when we start thinking we are a nation of men and not a nation of laws, our society and country is be lost. There is such a blood lust with some of these people it is unreal.

The point of both Paul and the ACLU is simple, the federal government has no right to just kill the guy because he still falls under our constitution.

The nations security risk is not as important as upholding the constitution, no matter how someone wants to spin it and when things like this happen, we can forget the due process part that protects us and the sovereignty of our country and us as individuals. This is what the terrorist want, to have a government run amok and do what ever it can not to protect the citizens but the government first. If you can't figure that out, just look at those good points of the patriot act and tell me if I am wrong.

Putting it another way, you as a citizen supporting this action under the guise of national security lost your fourth, eight and fourteenth amendment rights by their actions and your permission, so the cops can search you, your home and can throw you in jail without a trial.

If you read the entire article from the LA times (the one that popped up first) you will see what Ron Paul is saying and why.

Ron Paul criticizes Obama for U.S. role in killing of Awlaki - latimes.com

The really sad thing is people like perry and I think other republicans are praising this as a great thing when they are trying to run under a conservative banner - which shows me there is no conservatism there at all.

You are right i beleive to a point , but, would he have been tried in a military tribunal or a regular court? The thing is this guy was not a 'citizen' that got killed in the US, but in a compond that was full of terrorist so he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.. **** if you do and ****ed if you don't.

 

[moose]

One of the problem in ANY western democracy is the un-justification of WAR by courts.

here are just 2 examples of this last few weeks.

* Israeli Supreme Court granted Mustapha Dirranny, a known terrorists, 6 million shekels (routhlly 1.5 mil.$) for his kidnapping and imprisonment. (an act of war)

* a U.K, London's court awarded Raad Salah a rewards this week, for his latest imprisonment, after illegally entering England despite an active immigrations ban, prohibiting him from entering the U.K .
(not to enter the US as well, BTW)
(on a side note, UK officials are still puzzled about how he could enter Hethrow airport... )

 

[greg334]

You are right i beleive to a point , but, would he have been tried in a military tribunal or a regular court? The thing is this guy was not a 'citizen' that got killed in the US, but in a compond that was full of terrorist so he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.. **** if you do and ****ed if you don't.

It wouldn't matter where he was tried, I think the military court is off limits for him because he is a citizen and not a military member. As some are making him out to be, a combative, he doesn't even come close to falling under that definition - he is a citizen.

The thing is he is a citizen, he was on foreign soil and if it was the Yemenis who went after him and killed him, then OK that's that but that is different seeing it was his own government and the constitution is clear, that our rights under it are protected from the government regardless where we are. The issue is the limitation of the government and the safeguards that are in place to keep them in check, we are removing those safeguards under the false idea that we need to protect the country when we don't need to trash the very thing that limits the government into our lives.

 

[moose]

The thing is he is a citizen,.

When a one becomes a Traitor ?

Samir Khan: Proud to be an American traitor - CNN.com

 

[tbubster]

It wouldn't matter where he was tried, I think the military court is off limits for him because he is a citizen and not a military member. As some are making him out to be, a combative, he doesn't even come close to falling under that definition - he is a citizen.Really not even close????? For the most part even though we disagree alot I think you are a smart man yet you are very wrong on this point.Put him on trial in a civilan court he gets of because his right were violated when he was kidnaped to be brought to justice.You know as well as everyone else the yeman government was letting this guy come and go as he pleased.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-enemy-combatant.htm

The thing is he is a citizen, he was on foreign soil and if it was the Yemenis who went after him and killed him, then OK that's that but that is different seeing it was his own government and the constitution is clear, that our rights under it are protected from the government regardless where we are. The issue is the limitation of the government and the safeguards that are in place to keep them in check, we are removing those safeguards under the false idea that we need to protect the country when we don't need to trash the very thing that limits the government into our lives.

Again he gave up his rights as an american when he started preaching jihad against the USA.He gave up his rights as an american when he joined the enemy.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-08/...peals-court-hamdi-case-third-appeal?_s=PM:LAW

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You have to ask yourself... If I were to be a part of an uprising against the government, would the Constitution protect me? I think not. And that is a dangerous thing.

 

[dieseldiva]

What does the constitution say about treason???

Section 3: Treason

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
“ Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
”
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[13]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
[edit]References

What is the definition of treason??

TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I'm not certain per the constitution and the definition, that Congressman Paul and the ACLU have a legitimate argument. At the same time, it's a slippery slope we start on when we begin to target "American citizens", I use the quotations because this so loosely defines this person.

 

[dieseldiva]

You have to ask yourself... If I were to be a part of an uprising against the government, would the Constitution protect me? I think not. And that is a dangerous thing.

I think you're correct. If you look at some of the definitions of treason........

trea·son   [tree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

and then go to the definition of sovereign....

sov·er·eign   [sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] Show IPA
noun
1.
a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2.
a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3.
a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
4.
a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling: went out of circulation after 1914.

it's easy to see how this could be twisted to include those of us that simply disagree with "the sovereign".....to disagree could be twisted into "harm" and we're up and running!!

 

[RLENT]

Greg said:

"It wouldn't matter where he was tried, I think the military court is off limits for him because he is a citizen and not a military member. As some are making him out to be, a combative, he doesn't even come close to falling under that definition - he is a citizen."

And then Boobala - who apparently considers "www.wisegeek.com" as the truly definitive source for all things in matters of Constitutional Law opines:

Really not even close?????

Well, actually Greg is a precisely, spot-on correct - but I'm not expecting you to "get it" .... particularly given your inclination to cite news coverage of court cases which have been reversed on appeal .....

For the most part even though we disagree alot I think you are a smart man yet you are very wrong on this point.

Well, yeah .... after all, you been reading wisegeek.com ..... and are now an "authority" on all matters Constitutional ...... and clearly your words thus far in the Soapbox have been a real tour de force when it comes to demonstrating your depth of knowledge on a variety of matters ....

Put him on trial in a civilan court he gets of because his right were violated when he was kidnaped to be brought to justice.

Arresting, detaining, and then trying someone for the violation of the law is not the same as kidnapping.

Your premise is quite laughable ... at best ...

Again he gave up his rights as an american when he started preaching jihad against the USA. He gave up his rights as an american when he joined the enemy.

Factually untrue - as the US Government itself clearly outlines on the following State Department webpage:

Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality

There, under the heading labelled "POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS" we find the following, paying particular attention to the last item in the list, no. 6:

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

3. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

4. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

6. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

For the truly dim bulbs in the crowd, there are a couple of points worth noting in the above:

A. "Subject to" means something can potentially happen .... but not that it automatically does .....

B. "Conviction" means duly convicted in a proper court of law ..... it sure as hell doesn't mean "upon on proclamation from the King whilst seated on the royal throne" ....

Then Bubbie cites the following as "evidence" for the above statement:

Americans may be held as 'enemy combatants,' appeals court rules - CNN

The article you cite, which is from 2003 - while correct in depiction of the matter at the time - does not present the complete picture.

Of course you might have known that .... if you had referred to all the relevant data in the case you cite .... rather than just cherry-picking it for that parts which you believe supports your contention.

After the article you cite was written there was this little thing that happened up at the Supreme Court - you know: the highest court and judicial authority of this land, and one of the three co-equal branches of government - most folks know that event as a case called: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

In that case, the ruling of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that you cite in the CNN article was reversed (they were reversed on two different occasions by the Supreme Court in this case actually) .... with the Supreme Court eventually holding that the power of the government to detain enemy combatants is recognized .... but that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.

"Justice O'Connor wrote a plurality opinion representing the Court's judgment, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Breyer and Kennedy. In rendering her opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote that although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status.

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality's judgment that due process protections must be available for Hamdi to challenge his status and detention, providing a majority for that part of the ruling. However, they dissented from the plurality's ruling that AUMF established Congressional authorization for the detention of enemy combatants.

Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, went the furthest in restricting the Executive power of detention. Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus, or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. Scalia wrote that the plurality, though well-meaning, had no basis in law for trying to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi's detention—it was only the job of the Court to declare it unconstitutional and order his release or proper arrest, rather than to invent an acceptable process for detention.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice who sided entirely with the executive branch and the Fourth Circuit's ruling ...."

The full decision with opinions and relevant briefs in the case can be viewed at the following link:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: U.S. Supreme Court Brief Resource Center

So .... in other words ..... yet again: you clearly have no real frickin' clue about what you are (attempting to) flap your gums about.

You are utterly ignant of the law ... but then, anyone reading here who has at least half a clue already knew that ....

 

[RLENT]

The relevant portions of the actual law (TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481) can be viewed at the following link:

§ 1481. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN; VOLUNTARY ACTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTIONS

From that link:

"(a) 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—

<snip>

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."

 

[AmPack]

It's NOT assassination, it's war...you know "War on Terror"!
He wasn't killed while having a nice peaceful dinner with his family...The drone hit their armed convoy of terrorists.
Ron Paul is a douche!

 

[skyraider]

It's NOT assassination, it's war...you know "War on Terror"!
He wasn't killed while having a nice peaceful dinner with his family...The drone hit their armed convoy of terrorists.
Ron Paul is a douche!

+ 1 amen ##################

 

[tbubster]

So paul says he voted to use force against those who attacked us on 9/11.Maybe some of you should really look at this it was called AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORIST.Now Al-Awlaki can in fact be tied to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers.Here are the words that matters in this AUMF act.USE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FORCE AGAINST ANYONE HE (HE BEING THE PRESIDENT)DETERMINED PLANNED AUTHORIZED COMMITTED OR AIDED IN THE 9/11 ATTACKS.Paul voted yes to this.He voted to give the president the power to do this.Paul voted to give the president the power to kill who ever the PRESIDENT DETERMINED.Paul is a smart man PAUL knew what he was doing when he voted to give ONE MAN THIS POWER.So you see this was in fact LEGAL and RON PAUL VOTED TO MAKE IT LEGAL.

Now some will say Al-Awlaki was interviewed by the FBI and released.Im sure there is more to it then we will ever know.Again Ron Paul is one of the people who gave the power to the president to be judge,jury and executioner with out have to show proof to anyone else.Now that the president has used this power he is crying about it.

Now if you want to judge the president for using the powers he has been givin,then you must also judge those that gave the president those powers as well.You see that due process some are crying about inculding Paul.Paul voted to allow the president to take away that due process.Dont forget this is the same Ron Paul who said he would not have ordered the raid to get bin laden.Nor would he had ordered the kill.

 

[skyraider]

Oath of Enlistment

Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Guide Note: There has been some controversy about whether the phrase "So help me God" is mandatory. I have seen officers allow enlistees to omit these words, if they choose, according to their religious preference and beliefs. While federal law does not appear to make any part of the oath optional (see Title 10, Section 502 of the United States Code), military regulations often do. For example, the Army enlistment regulation (see Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 6-18) makes the portion "So help me God" optional.

History of the Oath of Enlistment

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men of the Continental Army.

The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:


I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.

The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:


I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

The 1789 enlistment oath was changed in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment (and current wording) becoming effective in 1962.

.

 

[moose]

Betch'yah the drone took that Oath !

 

[layoutshooter]

I took my oath of enlistment at Ft. Wayne in Detroit on June 28th, 1970. There was a "private" ceremony for 3 of us. Two of us were headed to Ft. Devens and training with the Army Security Agency. The third was heading for OCS. The "draftees" were given the oath in a "group", there were about 200 there the day that I went in. By the way we had flags AND a bible.

I have taken similar oaths on 3 other occasions. Twice when I was with NSA and once when I became a volunteer firefighter.

An oath is sworn for life in my book.

I also never forgot the serial number of my M16 in basic training. It was 000122. A very old Colt. That number was "BURNED" into my brain. I wish I had that rifle now. Imagine what that would be worth with a serial number that low.