ACLU: Killing US born al-Quieda

[skyraider]

Betch'yah the drone took that Oath !

the person flying the drone did for sure

 

[layoutshooter]

the person flying the drone did for sure

And lived up to that oath.

 

[RLENT]

Well Bubbie,

How's about it ?

Can you .... or, for that matter, any of the other little chest-thumpers in here .... answer my question in a responsive manner ?

Which is senior and controlling - the AUMF .... or the Constitution ?

Can Congress legitimately pass laws which are in direct violation of the Constitution ?

Can the Executive act in a manner which is in direct violation of the Constitution ... simply because it is expedient and doing so makes life "easier" ?

Are you really a true friend of the Constitution .... or just a fair-weather one ?

 

[RLENT]

Oath of Enlistment

Well, okey-dokey ..... thanks for the historical context .... and to others for their little sentimental stroll down memory lane, recounting the "good ol' days" ....

Hopefully, you - and anyone else, citing a military oath - are not trying to take the position that it justifies any conduct - or that any and all conduct is permitted in executing a defense of the Constitution .... simply by virtue of having sworn such an oath.

A sworn oath is not a license for completely unrestrained and lawless action, and is certainly not senior to the Constitution itself - and it's certainly true that under the UCMJ one can be held accountable for following an illegal order.

Those guys in the dock at Nuremberg tried that idea .... and it didn't end up working out so well for 'em .... since most of 'em wound up swingin' from an end of rope.

Any member of the US armed forces who would act to deprive a United States citizen of their rights - including the right to Life - in direct violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not "defending" the Constitution - they are, in fact, violating it.

And since, in my book, a crime by the State against a single citizen is actually a crime against all citizens, such a person, or persons, is actually an enemy of the citizens of this nation, and of the Constitution itself.

Enlisting, swearing an oath, putting on a uniform, and picking up arms doesn't make anyone a hero nor a patriot .... in fact, in some cases, it might only mean one is just a fool or a sucker ....

It's what ya do after that that truly counts.

 

[greg334]

It's NOT assassination, it's war...you know "War on Terror"!

What is a war on terror?

How do you have a war on terror?

who fights that war on terror?

Do you know that we haven't declared a war on terror?

Do you also know that having the FBI search through your records, wire tap your phone and read your email doesn't make you any more safe just as you fighting a war on terror?

Who is this country called terror?

Is it in the CIA world book and how many people live there?

 

[skyraider]

I just love it when a plan comes together, the joys of freedom of speech, thank u USA Military so we can all express our opinions and love of country, because all of us in here love America, we just have different viewpoints of expressing it.amen


If we did not love this country, we would be leaving for another.

 

[layoutshooter]

What is a war on terror?

How do you have a war on terror?

who fights that war on terror?

Do you know that we haven't declared a war on terror?

Do you also know that having the FBI search through your records, wire tap your phone and read your email doesn't make you any more safe just as you fighting a war on terror?

Who is this country called terror?

Is it in the CIA world book and how many people live there?

IF an man were to tell me that he hates me and my family and is going to take steps to kill us, I AM going to kill him first. It IS that simple.

This recently dead dude did EXACTLY that, we killed him, and that is a GOOD thing.

Terrorism has to be paid for. Who is paying for it? Iran? Likely with help from China and Russia.

My son, nephew AND his wife, all who spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, OR BOTH, tell the exact same story. The vast majority of "bad guys" they killed or captured were of either Iranian, Syrian or Saudi nationalities. They also said that the vast majority of the "parts" used to make IED's were of Chinese, Russian or Iranian origin. The WMD war heads that were found in Iraq were primarily of Russian manufacture.

You can play word games if you chose, I think that is a VERY dangerous thing to do. The threat is REAL. Burying our heads in the sand, so to speak, will not make it go away.

 

[Turtle]

Which is senior and controlling - the AUMF .... or the Constitution ?

They are equally senior and controlling, actually. All laws passed under the Constitution become the law of the land, same as the Constitution. The Constitution and all laws become one in the same. It is only when a law is in conflict with the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court, that the Constitution becomes senior and controlling.

Can Congress legitimately pass laws which are in direct violation of the Constitution ?

Sure they can, and they have many times. Any law passed by Congress is absolutely legitimate, and remains legitimate unless or until the Supreme Court or some other lower court says otherwise.

Can the Executive act in a manner which is in direct violation of the Constitution ... simply because it is expedient and doing so makes life "easier" ?

Of course he can. Happens all the time. Bush made a career out of it, but one which pales to some other presidents. FDR censored the media and threw Japanese Americans into internment camps. He pioneered the use of the IRS to harass political opponents.

Lincoln's presidency is practically defined by it. In addition to massive restrictions on free speech, Lincoln declared Martial Law and suspended the Constitution. As a necessary part of that, he suspended habeas corpus and at least 13,000 people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty, held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, publicly stated that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Lincoln did not agree, and simply overruled the decision of the Justice, and then promptly issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney who, fortunately or unfortunately, died before he could be arrested and imprisoned for voicing his legal opinion. It didn't help that Taney was an ardent supporter of State's Rights and his most famous ruling (the 1857 Dred Scott Decision) ruled that blacks could not be citizens because they were inferior at the time the Constitution was created, and that the federal government could not therefore control or restrict the spread of slavery into federal territories. Lincoln had previously accused Taney of previously conspiring with President James Buchanan to undo the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and when Lincoln became president he couldn't pass up the opportunity to silence Taney.

In addition, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than he had in binding China or France to the Union, yet that's precisely what he did when he deemed that the several states had magically surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south and kill American citizens. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the Tenth Amendment and others.

Are you really a true friend of the Constitution .... or just a fair-weather one ?

Oh, me and the Constitution are, like, BFF.

Be that as it may, there are times when following the letter of the law endangers the very things the law is meant to protect. The difference between a good and an unscrupulous leader is whether he/she violates the letter of the law for his/her own political interests, or, to steal a thought from Nixon, for the good of the country. Following the letter of the law regarding Anwar al-Awlaki may have made some people feel warm and fuzzy, but it would have resulted in al-Awlaki being allowed to continue to be actively engaged in promoting and carrying out hostilities towards the United States and its citizens. It's an awfully big gamble to risk warm and fuzzy for cold and dead.

 

[RLENT]

They are equally senior and controlling, actually. All laws passed under the Constitution become the law of the land, same as the Constitution. The Constitution and all laws become one in the same.

LOL ....

Ahhh .... not really ... the Constitution is always the most supreme law of the land - simply by virtue of the fact that the authority for any and all subsequent federal law is contained within it, and proceeds from it - and no federal, state or local law may legitimately violate or contravene it.

The Constitution itself, by it's own construction, constrains the boundaries of all Federal law junior to it. All other Federal laws fall under it, and are ultimately subordinate to it - a fact that you clearly admit in your very next paragraph quoted below.

From Article VI, Clause 2 (known as the Supremacy Clause):

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Some key words in the above are: "shall be made in pursuance thereof"

Made in pursuance of what ?

Why .... in pursuance of the Constitution of course !

The words "shall be" in a legal, statutory context are binding and allow no discretion - compliance isn't an option, but a mandate.

No law may contradict or convene the Constitution - and still be constitutionally legitimate and legally valid.

If that were not the case, it would be impossible for the Supreme Court to find that laws passed by Congress,or acts taken by the Executive under the color thereof, were, in fact, unconstitutional ....

It is only when a law is in conflict with the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court, that the Constitution becomes senior and controlling.

Absolutely false - the Constitution is always senior and controlling.

I have alluded to the error in your observation in my reply above - you have simply focused too closely on the unconstitutional side of the equation, and missed the obvious:

All Federal law beneath the Constitution, is dependant on on the Constitution itself to be legitimate and constitutional.

That fact alone, makes the Constitution senior and controlling.

One thing certainly comes before the other .....

As to the next issue you raise, perhaps I should have phrased my question (which was intended to be rhetorical) a little more precisely :

"Can the Executive legitimately and legally act in a manner which is in direct violation of the Constitution ... simply because it is expedient and doing so makes life "easier" ?"

If the answer to the above is yes, then it is certainly true that we are no longer a nation of laws but of men ..... and the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on ...

One might as well rip it up and wipe one's butt with it .... at least in that use it would have some actual value ......

 

[Turtle]

LOL ....

Well, you can laugh all you want, but Clause 2 of Article VI, which you quoted, says precisely what I stated, that all laws passed under the Constitution become the law of the land, exactly the same as the Constitution is also the law of the land. If a law is not judged to be unconstitutional, then the Constitution cannot have some magical additional authority over it, as both the constitutional abiding law and the Constitution itself are now on equal footing as the law of the land. It is only during the legislating process, or when a law contravenes the Constitution, that the Constitution has supreme authority. My answer was based solely on your question, and how the question was phrased. To wit, if the AUMF is not judged to be unconstitutional, then the Constitution cannot be more controlling or more senior, as both are equally laws of the land. In the abstract, clearly the Constitution is more senior and more controlling than the laws enacted under it, because they must be enacted according to the Constitution. But once a law becomes the law of the land, any controlling advantage of one over the other ceases, as plainly stated in Aritcle VI: "...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No law may contradict or convene the Constitution - and still be constitutionally legitimate and legally valid.

True dat.

If that were not the case, it would be impossible for the Supreme Court to find that laws passed by Congress,or acts taken by the Executive under the color thereof, were, in fact, unconstitutional ....

Correct, or rather, true dat2. But when the Supreme Court affirms the constitutionality of a law, then the law becomes the law of the land, no different than the Constitution itself, equally controlling, equally senior, equally valid.

Absolutely false - the Constitution is always senior and controlling.

When enacting laws, sure, but not after those laws have been judged to be legitimate and constitutional. Once that happens, the laws of the land are the laws of the land, all equally.

I have alluded to the error in your observation in my reply above - you have simply focused too closely on the unconstitutional side of the equation, and missed the obvious:

Actually, I focused on the constitutional side, because once a law has been deemed constitutional, it's game over. It is only the unconstitutional laws which the constitution has control over.

As to the next issue you raise, perhaps I should have phrased my question (which was intended to be rhetorical) a little more precisely :

"Can the Executive legitimately and legally act in a manner which is in direct violation of the Constitution ... simply because it is expedient and doing so makes life "easier" ?"

Which is why, of course, I answered the way I did.

Just keepin' ya on yer toes.

 

[greg334]

Turtle, my good shelled friend, the problem with your position is that there is a direct conflict with the AUMF and the constitution in this case and if there is a need to justify it, Obama has to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to justify the killing under the AUMF. In order for him to suspend it, it has to be either under an invasion or rebellion - outside of that, all US citizens are off limits to open killing unless they take up direct arms against the US, which this clown didn't.

The problem is that not all laws become supreme laws and the right of the government to use force against a civilian who is a citizen is limited to due process under the constitution. There is no way around it no matter how you look at it.

IF the government targeted him under the AUMF law that was passed with a single purpose in mind, the law is limited to foreign nationals by the articles of the constitution that governed all the laws of the nation and more importantly the bill of rights which govern and limit the government.

 

[greg334]

Oh and the recent SC case of Hamad v. Rumsfeld also points to the problem that the president and military acted illegally. In that case the SC ruled that every citizen has the right to a writ of habeas corpus even if they are deemed an enemy combatant.

in this case, maybe a Habeas corpus ad prosequendum was the right step.

 

[chefdennis]

Now everyone here knows that a have no use for barry at all..and while i agree that this was an unconstitutional act by barry himself and his admin and that they acted illegally, it just ain't so...

You see a while back regulations put n place by the Treasury Dept named certain individuals and US citizen, "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," and that made it illegal for Lawyers to provide legal services to those individuals...so there was no way he could get "due process" in our court system....
UNLESS the Tresury gave a lawyer a "special licence to represent those individuals..and the Treasury Dept was the one to decide f the licence was to be issued....

This came to light when Al father and the aclu ccr tried to sue the Fed gov to get a restraining order to stop them from killing Al...The Treasury dept hung their feet until he was killed, LOL...then gave hi dad the ok to sue....

So, you can look at it in this light (i am sure its unconstitutional also, but it never has been challenged in court, so until it i, it legal) and go from there...legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional hes dead...is that a bad thing? that just depends on what camp you are in and whos agenda you chose to push...

ACLU, CCR seek to have Obama enjoined from killing Awlaki without due process

August, 2010
By Glenn Greenwald
ACLU, CCR seek to have Obama enjoined from killing Awlaki without due process | Center for Constitutional Rights

A major legal challenge to one of the Obama administration's most radical assertions of executive power began this morning in a federal courthouse in Washington, DC. Early last month, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights were retained by Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Obama assassination target U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com (and U.S. citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki, to seek a federal court order restraining the Obama administration from killing his son without due process of law. But then, a significant and extraordinary problem arose: regulations promulgated several years ago by the Treasury Department prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with individuals labeled by the Government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," and those regulations specifically bar lawyers from providing legal services to such individuals Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: without a special "license" from the Treasury Department specifically allowing such representation.

On July 16 -- roughly two weeks after Awlaki's father retained the ACLU and CCR to file suit -- the Treasury Department slapped that label on Awlaki. That action would have made it a criminal offense for those organizations to file suit on behalf of Awlaki or otherwise provide legal representation to him without express permission from the U.S. Government. On July 23, the two groups submitted a request for such a license with the Treasury Department, and when doing so, conveyed the extreme time-urgency involved: namely, that there is an ongoing governmental effort to kill Awlaki and any delay in granting this "license" could cause him to be killed without these claims being heard by a court. Despite that, the Treasury Department failed even to respond to the request.

Left with no choice, the ACLU and CCR this morning filed a lawsuit on their own behalf against Timothy Geithner and the Treasury Department. The suit argues that Treasury has no statutory authority under the law it invokes -- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- to bar American lawyers from representing American citizens on an uncompensated basis. It further argues what ought to be a completely uncontroversial point: that even if Congress had vested Treasury with this authority, it is blatantly unconstitutional to deny American citizens the right to have a lawyer, and to deny American lawyers the right to represent clients, without first obtaining a permission slip from Executive Branch officials (the Complaint is here). As the ACLU/CCR Brief puts it: "The notion that the government can compel a citizen to seek its permission before challenging the constitutionality of its actions in court is wholly foreign to our constitutional system" and "[a]s non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights, Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to represent clients in litigation consistent with their organizational missions." The Brief also argues that it is a violation of Separation of Powers to allow the Executive Branch to determine in its sole discretion who can and cannot appear in and have access to a federal court.

Today's lawsuit seeks, on an emergency basis, an Order declaring the Treasury Department's asserted power to be without statutory authority and/or in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and to bar the U.S. Government from imposing any penalties whatsoever (criminal or otherwise) on the ACLU and CCR for providing legal representation to Awlaki. Assuming the court issues such an order, the next step will be for a lawsuit to be quickly filed on Awlaki's behalf to enjoin his targeted assassination.

It's rather amazing that the Federal Government asserts the right to require U.S. citizens and American lawyers to obtain government permission before entering into an attorney-client relationship -- all because these officials decided on their own, with no process, to call the citizen a "Global Terrorist." It's difficult to imagine a more blatantly unconstitutional power than that. What kind of an American would think the Government has the power to decide whether citizens may or may not be represented by lawyers? Then again, this is an administration that asserts the power to choose American citizens for targeted killings far from any battlefield with no due process of any kind -- and plenty of its supporters are perfectly content with this -- so nothing should really be surprising.

If one really thinks about it, it's an incredible spectacle that a lawsuit is being filed with the aim of having Barack Obama enjoined by a Federal Court from killing an American citizen, far away from any battlefield, without any due process whatsoever. That such a suit was never filed during the Bush years, but is now necessary under the rule of this Constitutional Scholar almost a decade after the 9/11 attack, speaks volumes about many important facts.

The Awlaki lawsuit, if it can proceed, will likely face serious obstacles, beginning with the same warped tactic which both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly invoked to shield illegal surveillance and torture from judicial scrutiny: first, refuse to confirm whether such a program exists (notwithstanding public admissions that it does) on the ground such matters are "state secrets," and then, with Kafkaesque perfection, insist that the lawsuit must be dismissed because (thanks to the Government's refusal to acknowledge it) there is no evidence that Awlaki is subject to such an assassination program and thus lacks "standing" to sue. It's also possible that a federal judge will be highly reluctant to restrain the President from targeting alleged Terrorists, or will view the AUMF as constituting Congressional authorization for the President to kill anyone who is allegedly associated with Al Qaeda no matter where they are found (on the ground that the whole world is a "battlefield"), particularly if they're alleged (without proferred evidence) to be involved in ongoing, imminent Terrorist plots.

But whatever anyone thinks of those issues, it should offend every American that the Government purports to have the power to ban lawyers from representing citizens without its permission, which (as it's doing here) it can withhold without explanation and in its sole discretion. Does any American want the Government to have that power with respect to citizens: to bar lawyers, under the threat of criminal prosecution, from representing you if the Government calls you a Terrorist? That's the power the Obama administration is asserting and, in this case, actively wielding. A court will now decide if it has the legal authority to do that, and if the court decides it does not, the next step will be a lawsuit brought on behalf of Awlaki contesting Obama's authority to order American citizens killed without any criminal charges or due process. The Obama administration should be very proud of itself.



UPDATE: Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that the administration has magnanimously deigned to grant permission to the ACLU and CCR to represent Awlaki's father (and Awlaki's interests). The primary effects of this decision are two-fold: it (1) moots the ACLU/CCR's legal challenge to the administration's licensing scheme, thus enabling them to avoid this legal challenge (and thus continue to wield this asserted power until someone else challenges its legality), and (2) ensures that the ACLU and CCR will now promptly file the lawsuit seeking to enjoin the administration from killing Awlaki without criminal charges or any other due process of any kind. Gerstein is a good reporter and his article on the administration's response to this lawsuit is worth reading.

 

[RLENT]

Now everyone here knows that a [I ?] have no use for barry at all .... .and while i agree that this was an unconstitutional act by barry himself and his admin and that they acted illegally, it just ain't so...

Dennis,

Could you clarify the "it just ain't so" portion - you agree that it was unconstitutional ....... and that they acted illegally ?

But .... it just ain't so ?

That statement seems to be inherently and internally inconsistent ...

You see a while back regulations put n place by the Treasury Dept named certain individuals and US citizen, "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," and that made it illegal for Lawyers to provide legal services to those individuals ... so there was no way he could get "due process" in our court system ... UNLESS the Tresury gave a lawyer a "special licence to represent those individuals .... and the Treasury Dept was the one to decide f the licence was to be issued....

Factually untrue (the highlighted portion above) - as anyone has the right to represent themselves pro se or propria persona:

"The right of a party to a legal action to represent his or her own cause has long been recognized in the United States, and even predates the ratification of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court noted that "(i)n the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation.

Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.'"

In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings."

One of the most fundamental rights anyone has, is the right to speak and defend oneself when accused by the state.

At the point where we lose that, then we're long past "Katie bar the door" .... and the curtain of the endless night has indeed fallen ....

And that doesn't even address the issue of 1st Amendment rights of any lawyers that might be involved ....

This came to light when Al father and the aclu ccr tried to sue the Fed gov to get a restraining order to stop them from killing Al ... The Treasury dept hung their feet until he was killed, LOL ... then gave hi dad the ok to sue....

Sorry, but your wrong - Politico reported that the Treasury Department actually gave the ok to sue back on August 3rd 2010 - over a year prior to his assassination.

And it's important to understand why the Treasury relented and gave the ok - they were attempting to avoid having the regulations being found to be unconstitutional .... they didn't want to chance it.

It's indicative of a cynical and corrupt regard for the law .... treating it as a toy, a mere plaything ..... of a willingness to pervert justice .... and of a complete and utter hatred of the rights of the citizen ...

So, you can look at it in this light (i am sure its unconstitutional also, but it never has been challenged in court, so until it i, it [is] legal) and go from there ... legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional hes dead ... is that a bad thing?

His being dead is not inherently a bad thing .... in fact, I would argue that it is a very good thing on the whole - not only for the United States - but for the entire global population ....

The problem is how one gets there .... and the precedent that it sets ....

And I have absolutely no doubt that you fully understand the significance of that

that just depends on what camp you are in and whos agenda you chose to push...

I'm in the camp of the rule of law, not of men .... and the United States Constitution ....

How about you ?

 

[chefdennis]

Yeap i was wrong on the time they took in giving the permission to his father....

And yes he could have defended himself, if caught and brought to trial, but the chance of tht were pre-determined as to not happening by the Fed Gov, he was never going to be given that chance, and he certainly wasn't about to turn himself in so he could stand trial and defend himself...As to being at the point of not being able to "defend ones self against your accusers, and "Katie Baring the Door"...how does the old saying go, some are more equal then others"...especially when defending against a government that wants you dead...

Rlent wrote:

The problem is how one gets there .... and the precedent that it sets ....

And I have absolutely no doubt that you fully understand the significance of that

Yes I do... And the fact that he is dead, while i personally don't
appreciate how it was done by barrys people as Turtle pointed out, the following the "letter of the law" can sometimes be a problem, and I really have no issue with his death...

As for us being a "Country of Laws" and not a "Country of Men"...while i would totally agree and be in that camp with you, the fact is the "Men" we continue to elect have for more years then any of us care to think about have been walking on those laws in whatever fashion suits them, and that has been taken to a new level of "foot stomping" with the current WH occupant....

As for my "it just ain't so" comment...yes I agree what they did is and was illegal and unconstitutional...in my and more then a few opinions...but that comment goes to the Treasury Dept putting the "regulation' in place naming certain individuals and US citizen, "Specially Designated Global Terrorist,"...in that vein, the Fed gov has put in place away around the law...and while that regulation in itself would also appear to be unconstitutional, until it is challenged, it is what it is...and that also answers as to why the Treasury Dept gave the father the ok to sue...they don't want it challenged....

Rlent wrote:

It's indicative of a cynical and corrupt regard for the law .... treating it as a toy, a mere plaything ..... of a willingness to pervert justice .... and of a complete and utter hatred of the rights of the citizen ...

And whie I totally agree, you and i and most others realize that that is nothng new and to be expected from our Government...and again, it is my opinion that it has gotten considerably worse under barry and his minions...

 

[Pilgrim]

An excellent article by Peter Finn offering more food for thought regarding the successful Al-Awlaki drone attack. Evidently, the powers that be felt certain they had their legal ducks in a row when they placed this guy on their capture or kill list.

"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 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.
“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration..."

For the entire article: Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi - The Washington Post

One would think that most reasonable people would recognize that expatriates who conspire with enemy combatants to commit acts of war against their native country should not be allowed to cloak themselves in the constitutional rights of that country. This is especially true when they hold dual citizenship with another antagonistic country in which they can hide and avoid capture or arrest. Of course this can be portrayed as a gray area from a strictly legal standpoint by the ACLU and their ilk, but the crux of the matter was well stated by the anonymous official quoted above, who said "...this case is a due process in war".

 

[aristotle]

The drone attack was a win-win situation. A combatant is dead and the US Constitution lives!!

Our Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. US Presidents have broad latitude to execute war as they see fit. Some members of Congress will raise a hue and cry, but most MOC understand and support the need for effective war-making by our Commander-in-Chief. If a US President truly oversteps his bounds, impeachment would be forthcoming quickly. On this matter, Barack Hussein Obama has no worries. By continuing in the stalwart ways of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, Obama is becoming an adequate war fighter.

An American-born individual who takes up arms against the USA belongs in a special league of treachery. John Walker Lindh comes to mind.

 

[chefdennis]

So barrys Justice dept said they had their ducks in a row...again, i have not a bit of a good feeling about barry and his admin and that goes for his justice dept also....there way around this was to use the "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," regulation put in place before they were there by the Treasury dept...and their use of that is a bit of a stretch also...as i said, i don't for moment have a problem with him being killed, but don't it was a puddle of water that got my foot wet when you are zipping up your pants....just do it and keep it quiet...

 

[greg334]

One would think that most reasonable people would recognize that expatriates who conspire with enemy combatants to commit acts of war against their native country should not be allowed to cloak themselves in the constitutional rights of that country.

Well reasonable people would also want to make sure things are done according to the laws of the nation and those laws that limit the government.

The other part of that is reasonable people already have decided that chasing down US citizens is not outside our constitution and those people make the determination based on our supreme law.

This is especially true when they hold dual citizenship with another antagonistic country in which they can hide and avoid capture or arrest.

Well sot of true but we are not bombing Yemen or capturing people to get info from, we allow immigration from Yemen and have extradition agreement with them.

Of course this can be portrayed as a gray area from a strictly legal standpoint by the ACLU and their ilk, but the crux of the matter was well stated by the anonymous official quoted above, who said "...this case is a due process in war".

But it isn't a gray area, with the four or five rulings from the SC and the constitution being clear about the limits of the Feds, it is a black and white issue but gray to those who want to sidestep the legal process and kill who ever they want to see killed.

By the way, We are not at war any more. Iraq has a standing government and Afghanistan is the same.

The drone attack was a win-win situation. A combatant is dead and the US Constitution lives!!

Nope it died with this and a number of other things, pretty sad funeral too.

Our Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. US Presidents have broad latitude to execute war as they see fit. Some members of Congress will raise a hue and cry, but most MOC understand and support the need for effective war-making by our Commander-in-Chief.

So I have to ask, what if this was on our soil, would our also justify the action of the feds?

This is not a war, no longer that excuse can be used because the two countries we invaded are no longer our enemies but allies.

If a US President truly oversteps his bounds, impeachment would be forthcoming quickly. On this matter, Barack Hussein Obama has no worries. By continuing in the stalwart ways of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, Obama is becoming an adequate war fighter.

Well I would have agreed with you five years ago but not now. See I think that Bush didn't have the inclination of what to do and the laws were made to allow him to pretty much try different things to find a way to fight this "war on terrorism" but in truth he wasn't leading and neither was his administration. We have been in country for too long, the results are too little in that time and we haven't even come close to crushing any terrorist organization or their supporters. Instead there is talk about making deals with the Taliban, having a Pakistani named as a terrorist group who are supported by our ally and we still are not safe enough to justify any of the laws that have been trashing our rights.

An American-born individual who takes up arms against the USA belongs in a special league of treachery. John Walker Lindh comes to mind.

I agree but like that idiot, he should have been captured first and given the rights he had under our laws. Unlike he should have been executed without a lot of fan fare or appeals.

 

[aristotle]

Congressman Ron Paul is such an insufferable old fool and hypocrite. Ron Paul is little more than a poster boy for "Blame America First." By badmouthing America 24/7 and talking down our country, Ron Paul has drawn a small coterie of fringe-based support. Moreover, Ron Paul has no special insight into the US Constitution. If he truly believed killing this American born cleric was unconstitutional, Paul would file articles of impeachment wouldn't he?

Why doesn't Ron Paul file articles of impeachment? Like most every protest that comes out of his mouth, he has no grounds to do so. Thank God, Ron Paul is retiring soon. Who will take up his mantle as chief America-basher? Rosie O'Donnell? Whoopi Goldberg? Harry Belafonte? Peter Arnett? Keith Olbermann? Barack Obama? There are so many contenders.