ACLU: Killing US born al-Quieda
- Thread starter cranis
- Start date
There's a good article by Prof. John Yoo in today's Wall St. Journal that offers a contrary opinion to this train of thought.
"American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal. President Abraham Lincoln confronted this question at the outset of the Civil War.
Under the Ron Paul-ACLU worldview, Lincoln could not order Union troops to fire on Confederates without a trial and should have released them all from military prison because they remained citizens (a view shared, incidentally, by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the author of Dred Scott v. Sandford)...
Supreme Court opinions have upheld Lincoln's principle. During World War II, the FBI caught eight German saboteurs trying to sneak into the U.S. and at least one of them was a citizen. On reviewing their military trial and death sentences, the Justices declared: "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences" (Ex Parte Quirin, 1942). "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents." A nation at war has the right to kill enemy belligerents in war."
(Emphasis mine)
John Yoo: From Gettysburg to Anwar al-Awlaki - WSJ.com
(Note: this link may not show the entire article without a subscription to WSJ Online)
It's not?? Tell that to the terrorists. The conflict taking place in Afghanistan has always been about the war against Al-Qaeda and its allies - not the Afghans. Keep in mind that the enemy is a radical religious group that does not operate under a nation's flag or wear a uniform. They attack civilians even as they hide among them. They take safe haven in nations that may or may not be allies of the US. It goes back to the emphasis of "due process of war" - a nation has the right to kill enemy belligerents. Even the most liberal president in the nation's history realizes that, and it's highly likely that future commanders in chief will do likewise when faced with wartime situations.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I have come to this conclusion;
When people justify one action of the government without understanding the negitive impact to all of us, then they have no place to b*tch about what other things the government does.
In other words, no one can complain about the FMCSA or other organizations that trample on our rights because at this point those who support the action of the government to do harm to a single citizen supports the action of the government to do it to all of us.
When people justify one action of the government without understanding the negitive impact to all of us, then they have no place to b*tch about what other things the government does.
In other words, no one can complain about the FMCSA or other organizations that trample on our rights because at this point those who support the action of the government to do harm to a single citizen supports the action of the government to do it to all of us.
Well, that may be how YOU see it. I see it this way.
My house is often on the flight path for aircraft going in and out of Detroit Metro Airport. ONE of the duds killed in that drone strike was the man who built the "underwear" bomb. THAT attack could well have killed members of my family. That is all I need to know.
This is NOT an "honored enemy". This is a cowardly enemy who prefers to blow up shopping centers and unarmed buildings full of civilians. They hide in their own houses of worship, and build devices there, to be used to kill innocent people.
How often is YOUR house on a flight path?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry but this goes back to my point - if you are going to stand on the excuses of these positions, you can't complain when someone knocks on your door and tells you to give them your firearms. It is the same thing - no difference. Your rights are the same as his rights and no matter how someone wants to spin it, the laws that our government creates to "protect us" does not override our rights or the limits of our government.
Once you accept the justification of that different by saying he was a enemy, or something else, it puts you in the position of danger because it opens the door for others to do the same thing in the future to people here.
The founding fathers knew that if a government was allowed to do things like this without the checks and balances, under the guise of safety, it would end up being a tyrannical government, much like the one they left behind. I think their wisdom in writing in the constitution a clear path to due process with the upholding it by the SC on several occasions puts the limits of the government into the light for all to see where ever they are. We must also understand that regardless what our collective emotion is, we can't allow one person to deem another person outside the rule of law for any reason and this has been affirmed by the SC.
Furthermore those who keep invoking Lincoln fail to make the case that the SC and congress itself didn't just affirmed his decisions but in many cases limited them and other presidents later on, sometimes overturning both the congress and the president, as in the recent cases over gitmo.
The other part of this is the ignorance that is spread around about terrorism itself, the ones you worry about are the ones we are going after so if you want to win a war on terrorism, you have to be prepared to wipe an entire religion off the face of the earth because there is no way that you can identify a single person outside of those who open their mouths by reading their thoughts or feelings.
So it comes down to what you are willing to do, either give up your liberties to fight something that is not winnable or fight to support and defend the constitution and the country as it is intended to be.
And if was a member of YOUR family killed you would be screaming bloody murder about how the government did nothing to protect them.
No point to this discussion.
No point to this discussion.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
This is the point where one knows that one party has thrown in the towel and is preparing to leave the field of battle ..... as a consequence of being utterly unable to address the argument from the other side in a responsive, substantive, and legally-sound manner ....
Out of ammo ?
Tactic of extreme emotional hysteria not working ?
RETREAT !!!
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Not that Herman is all groovy (he believes spying on Americans is okey-dokey, and thinks the Fed doesn't need audited), but props where props are due:
Link to original article:
Herman Cain: Spying on Americans Is Okay, But Not Assassinating Them
Link to original article:
Herman Cain: Spying on Americans Is Okay, But Not Assassinating Them
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
The D13, nee the D12, is now the D14. Welcome to the club, such as it is.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Why is it you think we dont understand.Could it be we just disagree with you.Its funny the only ones that seem to be b*tching about this TERRORIST BEING KILLED is you and a couple of others.So maybe it is you that does not under stand that untill the supreme court says otherwise what the government did and how they did it to this guy is in FACT LEGAL.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
How can I?
Realistically, how would I know when the government can or can't protect me or my family?
Do you actually depend on your government to protect you from people living around you who may break into your house, do they actually setup a road block and screen everyone going down your road?
I mean look around and see what's going on when you are at the border, do you actually think that they are doing the best they can do or are they doing what they need to do to appear to do something?
When you are standing in line at the airport going through the security check line, do you actually think they are capable of detecting someone through reading of minds or thought transmissions to know what their intent is or how they feel about the country?
Actually do you think they are capable of stopping things from getting through in the first place seeing that so many have actually gotten stuff past them?
If you are the type who thinks that they can stop, I mean actually stop someone from taking out a number of people, then I can b*tch when they fail under your definition of safe. But until then, I have faith in our military to protect us from other countries but I do not for a minute put that faith into the federal or state government to do the same with any and all terrorist because they simply can't until they come up with a pre-crime program and look into the future.
Maybe the blood lust blinds too many people and the collective emotion has taken over the country?
Maybe it is the lack of clear understanding and the lack of a clear composed logical defense based on yours and others beating up the president for everything BUT this. Amazing that you support this and scream about his other actions.
It doesn't bother me to be one of the few but then I am one of the few who think that conservatives are nothing more than liberals with a different mascot.
Maybe sitting through a few discussions with very conservative/libertarian legal profesisonals who also see what I see is motivating me to speak up, when one citizen can decide what another citizen is without afford them their legal rights, we are all in danger - maybe that's the part none of you seem to get because you can't get past the emotion of a "terrorist".
Sorry dude, the sc already ruled on this issue a few times, a citizen is not just bound by the legal process to face their crimes but the government has a limit to what they can do. I was going to cite the cases that are relative to this issue and one of them was a recent case but decided against it because it is an emotional issue for most here and you all can do the research.
As someone posted a case of saboteurs who were captured, the problem is that there is a bit of a difference, one being even though two of them were US citizens fighting for a foreign country during a declared war, so the comparison is they were afforded a trial through a military court - meaning due process - and the other was they were not executed but their sentence was 30 years for one and life for another. They did not go through a summary execution, or hidden away from the world off shore but it was done with a tribunal and FDR didn't demand that there was a law made to make anyone a combative. To put this in perspective, the issue is the same in form, a US citizen aiding and abetting in a treasonous action when the constitution, not a legislated law or a court ruling, has defined it in both form and punishment under the process the constitution also defines - due process. Very few exceptions to these things, treason is one. Pretty d*mn sad when people forget that there is a law that actually is written for this purpose and it is ignored in order to feed some blood lust need.
By the way I will repeat this, I am glad he is dead.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Bubbie,
Seriously ?
You - of all people - are gonna act as "spokesperson" on this one ?
Put down the shovel, climb out of the hole, and just walk away .....
No.
(That's not to say that you don't disagree - you clearly do .... but it's not "just" that that is the problem here.....)
Wrong - this issue - that of an American citizen - who is alleged to be a terrorist - being executed without due process of law - is now being discussed far and wide, and is being given at least some of the attention that it so justly deserves .....
People are starting to ask questions ..... and then questions about the answers to the original questions ..... questions about consequences of bad precedents .... rather than just simply swallowing wholesale the standard government propaganda line that is being mouthed by much of corporate media .....
A line has been crossed, and despite the protestations of the many cowards - who are so utterly terrified that they can find no crime on the part of the government in this farce called "the war on terror" that is so heinous that they can bring themselves to condemn it .... there are a sufficient number of true Americans that still possess enough awareness, to understand the real and present danger we now face ....
Sorry, that's not the way it works Sport - the absolute best thing you can say about it is that ..... it hasn't yet been found by a court of jurisdiction to be illegal or unconstitutional.
If your premise were true, then it would be impossible for the Supreme Court to find any act by the Executive, or law by the Legislative, illegal and unconstitutional.
The fact of illegality or unconstitutionality must exist prior to the finding of it - it just doesn't magically come into being at the point where the US SC issues a ruling.
One thing (illegality or unconstitutionality) is a CAUSE.
The other thing (a ruling, or holding of, either illegality or unconstitutionality) is an EFFECT.
Causes always precede the effect(s) that they create.
Last edited:
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
quote from greg
The founding fathers knew that if a government was allowed to do things like this without the checks and balances, under the guise of safety, it would end up being a tyrannical government, much like the one they left behind.
Yet the founding fathers did just that.They looked the other way when men and women who were born in this country were killed.They even concidered it a persons right to do this.The thing is those being killed,traded,Raped Even though they were born here were denided there due procces No matter how simple the crime may have been, by our founding fathers just because they were black.Its funny how when people talk about what the founding fathers ment when writting the constitution they seem to forget that they if fact did not look at all men as being equal nor did they belive all people who were born in this country should be afforded the same rights.Though some were not most were slave owners.
The founding fathers knew that if a government was allowed to do things like this without the checks and balances, under the guise of safety, it would end up being a tyrannical government, much like the one they left behind.
Yet the founding fathers did just that.They looked the other way when men and women who were born in this country were killed.They even concidered it a persons right to do this.The thing is those being killed,traded,Raped Even though they were born here were denided there due procces No matter how simple the crime may have been, by our founding fathers just because they were black.Its funny how when people talk about what the founding fathers ment when writting the constitution they seem to forget that they if fact did not look at all men as being equal nor did they belive all people who were born in this country should be afforded the same rights.Though some were not most were slave owners.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Oh that's right throw up the slavery thing, so let's look at that for a moment.
The founding fathers seemed to be split, morally and ideology on the issue, with some like Jefferson seeming not to want to free his slaves but espousing the freedoms of man. The problem is the slave, like the native American were not men, they were either savages or property. The black from Africa for decade before were sold by their fellow blacks in Africa as a way of life over there and by all accounts were sub-human. The native American was also viewed as a savage but also practice in some parts of our country at one time slavery.
We tend to fall the revised history about the issue, forgetting how it worked and what it was about. We look at things today from one point of view that all of it was bad but the truth is far from that view we have.
Applying this to today, it really doesn't matter, slavery and indentured servitude was "abolished" after a war between the states where we started to see our rights diminished. But alas it also takes place today, our righteous society ignores the slavery issue altogether while clinging on to a past that has not affected one living person.
So back to the subject at hand, the founding father were not talking about the citizen as in all peoples but as what they deemed as citizens and rightfully so, it was their country they were forming out of a system that used class to determine one's station in life. Their point was and still is for that matter that we have a constitution that is written with the intent to limit the government, not make kings and for the power to go from God to the people to the states to the federal government, not from God to the president to the states to the people - a very important point. They also lived under the tyranny of a king who viewed them as sub-standard citizens and their point of making sure we are all equal under the law.
So again it is simple, either you stand to support the entire constitution or you don't and if you don't then don't complain when people are knocking on your door to take something from you or put you in prison because they already decided you are guilty.
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
So back to the subject at hand, the founding father were not talking about the citizen as in all peoples but as what they deemed as citizens and rightfully so, it was their country they were forming out of a system that used class to determine one's station in life.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of HappinessWritten 11 years befor this
THE CONSTITUTION
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Spin the history as you see fit Greg.however it does not change the fact that looked at certian people of haveing no rights.You dont think that the terrorist are looked at as being savages?
Applying this to today, it really doesn't matter, slavery and indentured servitude was "abolished" after a war between the states where we started to see our rights diminished.
But it does matter Greg.When one feels the need to point out what the founding fathers were thinking or what they ment when they were forming this country.Cause you know the founding fathers had nothing to do with the civil war that happend almot a hundred years after the constitution was written.Well they did really as to the war was about changing this country from what the founding fathers created.
Now lets look at another peice of history shall we?
The mans name was Boston Corbett.Though some know who this man is, most forget who he is after grade school.He is the man that fired the shot that killed John Wilkes Booth.Though he was arrested for doing so the charges were later dropped and he was givin part of the reward money.For as EDWIN M. STANTON the SEC OF WAR put it. The rebel is dead. The patriot lives."
You see greg through out history the american government has not had a problem with the killing of its own citizens With out giving them their due procces.when there was reason to do so.My point is greg that in the eyes of the founding fathers all men were not equal.Do you really think that the terrorist of today the founding fathers would extended the rights of all men to.I dont.When it comes down to it,it does matter how they looked at slaves and how the constitution was written by them.For in fact born here or not if they felt you were below them they had no problem with denying due process.
As for the AUMF and the supreme court did you mean this one
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? This case only cites AUMF and is not about it.It was about the tribunals being held at GITMO.As you well know there is not a supreme court case that addersses the AUMF soley nor is there a case from the supreme court were they say the AUMF is unconstitutional.By the killing of this terrorist it is a far fetched idea that now men in black suits are going start coming and taking and anything they want away from us without cause to do so.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of HappinessWritten 11 years befor this
THE CONSTITUTION
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Spin the history as you see fit Greg.however it does not change the fact that looked at certian people of haveing no rights.You dont think that the terrorist are looked at as being savages?
Applying this to today, it really doesn't matter, slavery and indentured servitude was "abolished" after a war between the states where we started to see our rights diminished.
But it does matter Greg.When one feels the need to point out what the founding fathers were thinking or what they ment when they were forming this country.Cause you know the founding fathers had nothing to do with the civil war that happend almot a hundred years after the constitution was written.Well they did really as to the war was about changing this country from what the founding fathers created.
Now lets look at another peice of history shall we?
The mans name was Boston Corbett.Though some know who this man is, most forget who he is after grade school.He is the man that fired the shot that killed John Wilkes Booth.Though he was arrested for doing so the charges were later dropped and he was givin part of the reward money.For as EDWIN M. STANTON the SEC OF WAR put it. The rebel is dead. The patriot lives."
You see greg through out history the american government has not had a problem with the killing of its own citizens With out giving them their due procces.when there was reason to do so.My point is greg that in the eyes of the founding fathers all men were not equal.Do you really think that the terrorist of today the founding fathers would extended the rights of all men to.I dont.When it comes down to it,it does matter how they looked at slaves and how the constitution was written by them.For in fact born here or not if they felt you were below them they had no problem with denying due process.
As for the AUMF and the supreme court did you mean this one
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? This case only cites AUMF and is not about it.It was about the tribunals being held at GITMO.As you well know there is not a supreme court case that addersses the AUMF soley nor is there a case from the supreme court were they say the AUMF is unconstitutional.By the killing of this terrorist it is a far fetched idea that now men in black suits are going start coming and taking and anything they want away from us without cause to do so.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OK I guess you missed the point altogether, even though I tried to put it in context during a pre-coffee morning.
It does not matter what the founding fathers meant by the equality of men what matters is they lived in a time where a tyrannical king was out of control and they were not represented in their system of politics or law. They took from a lot of sources to write what they thought was the means to live a free life without having to answer to a king or higher authority in government in order to live that free life. Slavery, indentured servitude, Indian issues all are not the scope of the issue at hand and have little to do with the evolution of the system we live under today but one thing that does is clear to many who see the real underlying threat to our country and our individual sovereignty - the idea that our president has the power to be judge, jury and executioner of any citizen regardless of their actions.
You know I have about 40 cases that are cited that counters every point you are trying to make and these cases all point to the same thing, the constitution does not allow a king.
No matter how you are trying to justify it, there seems to be more of a legal consensus that points to the fact that no one man can be judge and jury and order the execution of any one citizen. It does not matter what the congress approved, unless there is a declared war, meaning a declared war or a rebellion, the government is limited to what they can do. In this case the constitution is clear, it overrides the AUMF and other laws passed to give powers to the president on the issue of Treason. No matter how you want to spin it, cite what ever you want, it is the supreme law of the land and that law says clearly not just about the process but also about the punishment to any citizen who commits a treasonous act.
As for the civil war, I would suggest that you do a bit of research about the reconstruction period after the war because it seems like there was a lot of activity over the 14th amendment and due process and how the different ideas of procedural due process and substantive due process were applied to the rights of the individual. It wasn't a good time, federalism got a good strong foothold for ripping down individual rights and Lincoln pushed a lot of things to see which one worked and didn't work. In that time we have had different problems facing us, from communist who wanted to overthrow out government by violent acts to a government out of control to make people feel good about their safety.
The real issue here is that the supreme court has already ruled on this issue, do the research, and the AUMF law is used to ignore those rulings - justifying Obama's actions to put it correctly. From the justification of the use of force without due process, we are are opening the doors for this to be abused by the government - regardless what the ends they are trying to reach. When I said that this was part of the thing that the founding fathers were warning us about, you mocked the warning by bringing up all these trivial issues and missed the point that a tyrannical government doesn't start out as one large government but grows into one. If you are keen on the civil rights history between 1890 and 1924, you will see how we went through that time with rights being trampled on by two administrations, both were acting as kings and not as presidents and eventually we went back to a better time with more understanding on how to defend those freedoms we almost lost. I have to wonder if without understanding that history you and others want to return this country to a worse time by limiting our rights and freedoms all because of the need to feel safe but not actually being safe.
See when you just focus on the emotion of the issue and not the actual problems solutions present, the problems are thrown out of any coherent argument and only the outcome is focused on and demanded. In this case, many are too emotional about terrorist without the logic, hatred clouds their vision and prevents them from seeing what's happening but more importantly allowing those who hate us to make their point. These emotional people want not just to be protected but the blood of those who may harm us, not just harmed us. This I think goes to support our critic's point and makes us look like idiots and fools to everyone. It also helps those who are recruiting people to harm us by using our actions and our own redefining of our culture and country to fit the times and the fear.
As I said, if you want to support the constitution, then great but if you want to justify the action of this president and others within his administration under the guise of a 'war on terror" then you can't support the constitution.
It does not matter what the founding fathers meant by the equality of men what matters is they lived in a time where a tyrannical king was out of control and they were not represented in their system of politics or law. They took from a lot of sources to write what they thought was the means to live a free life without having to answer to a king or higher authority in government in order to live that free life. Slavery, indentured servitude, Indian issues all are not the scope of the issue at hand and have little to do with the evolution of the system we live under today but one thing that does is clear to many who see the real underlying threat to our country and our individual sovereignty - the idea that our president has the power to be judge, jury and executioner of any citizen regardless of their actions.
You know I have about 40 cases that are cited that counters every point you are trying to make and these cases all point to the same thing, the constitution does not allow a king.
No matter how you are trying to justify it, there seems to be more of a legal consensus that points to the fact that no one man can be judge and jury and order the execution of any one citizen. It does not matter what the congress approved, unless there is a declared war, meaning a declared war or a rebellion, the government is limited to what they can do. In this case the constitution is clear, it overrides the AUMF and other laws passed to give powers to the president on the issue of Treason. No matter how you want to spin it, cite what ever you want, it is the supreme law of the land and that law says clearly not just about the process but also about the punishment to any citizen who commits a treasonous act.
As for the civil war, I would suggest that you do a bit of research about the reconstruction period after the war because it seems like there was a lot of activity over the 14th amendment and due process and how the different ideas of procedural due process and substantive due process were applied to the rights of the individual. It wasn't a good time, federalism got a good strong foothold for ripping down individual rights and Lincoln pushed a lot of things to see which one worked and didn't work. In that time we have had different problems facing us, from communist who wanted to overthrow out government by violent acts to a government out of control to make people feel good about their safety.
The real issue here is that the supreme court has already ruled on this issue, do the research, and the AUMF law is used to ignore those rulings - justifying Obama's actions to put it correctly. From the justification of the use of force without due process, we are are opening the doors for this to be abused by the government - regardless what the ends they are trying to reach. When I said that this was part of the thing that the founding fathers were warning us about, you mocked the warning by bringing up all these trivial issues and missed the point that a tyrannical government doesn't start out as one large government but grows into one. If you are keen on the civil rights history between 1890 and 1924, you will see how we went through that time with rights being trampled on by two administrations, both were acting as kings and not as presidents and eventually we went back to a better time with more understanding on how to defend those freedoms we almost lost. I have to wonder if without understanding that history you and others want to return this country to a worse time by limiting our rights and freedoms all because of the need to feel safe but not actually being safe.
See when you just focus on the emotion of the issue and not the actual problems solutions present, the problems are thrown out of any coherent argument and only the outcome is focused on and demanded. In this case, many are too emotional about terrorist without the logic, hatred clouds their vision and prevents them from seeing what's happening but more importantly allowing those who hate us to make their point. These emotional people want not just to be protected but the blood of those who may harm us, not just harmed us. This I think goes to support our critic's point and makes us look like idiots and fools to everyone. It also helps those who are recruiting people to harm us by using our actions and our own redefining of our culture and country to fit the times and the fear.
As I said, if you want to support the constitution, then great but if you want to justify the action of this president and others within his administration under the guise of a 'war on terror" then you can't support the constitution.
Last edited:
In spite of all the constitutional discussion regarding Al-Awlaki's killing, what's missing in all these posts are examples of what this guy was saying and doing that made him dangerous to the point of being guilty of treason. Everyone seems to have forgotten his support of and involvement with Maj. Nidal Hassan of the Ft. Hood massacre.
"Awlaki told al-Jazeera after the November 2009 attack: 'Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
My support to the operation was because the operation brother Nidal carried out was a courageous one."
BBC News - In quotes: Anwar al-Awlaki
There was also an interesting article in Time World that offers a different viewpoint to this whole situation. Remember about a year ago when it was revealed by WikiLeaks that the US was secretly collaborating with Yemeni leaders and conducting clandestine strikes against Al Qaeda but local forces were being given credit. Suppose this effort to eliminate Al-Awlaki was at the direct request of the Yemeni govt, who was obviously a willing accomplice in this whole venture? There are a lot things in play that the general public is not aware of for good reason, not the least of which is the culture in Yemen that very few of us in the US understand.
"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."
Should the Obama administration tried him in absentia? Maybe so, but that presents the problem of the ACLU and other allies of Al-Awlaki's using the proceedings as a stage to promote his anti-American rantings. Personally, I think it's a due process of war, always has been, always will be - period. Maybe the Justice Dept should make public all their memos supporting the decision for the attack. Or, maybe some of our outraged members of Congress should demand or even sue for their publication. Better yet, some of our constitutional heroes like Ron Paul should bring articles of impeachment - as earlier suggested in this thread. But of course there's not nearly enough support from the public or anywhere else for something like that - it's better for the liberals and anti-war activists to have the issue to bleat about during an election year.
"Awlaki told al-Jazeera after the November 2009 attack: 'Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
My support to the operation was because the operation brother Nidal carried out was a courageous one."
BBC News - In quotes: Anwar al-Awlaki
There was also an interesting article in Time World that offers a different viewpoint to this whole situation. Remember about a year ago when it was revealed by WikiLeaks that the US was secretly collaborating with Yemeni leaders and conducting clandestine strikes against Al Qaeda but local forces were being given credit. Suppose this effort to eliminate Al-Awlaki was at the direct request of the Yemeni govt, who was obviously a willing accomplice in this whole venture? There are a lot things in play that the general public is not aware of for good reason, not the least of which is the culture in Yemen that very few of us in the US understand.
The governments of both countries of Al-Awlaki's dual citizenship obviously wanted this guy dead, and the US Govt had the means to do the job. For those not familiar with Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
"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."
Should the Obama administration tried him in absentia? Maybe so, but that presents the problem of the ACLU and other allies of Al-Awlaki's using the proceedings as a stage to promote his anti-American rantings. Personally, I think it's a due process of war, always has been, always will be - period. Maybe the Justice Dept should make public all their memos supporting the decision for the attack. Or, maybe some of our outraged members of Congress should demand or even sue for their publication. Better yet, some of our constitutional heroes like Ron Paul should bring articles of impeachment - as earlier suggested in this thread. But of course there's not nearly enough support from the public or anywhere else for something like that - it's better for the liberals and anti-war activists to have the issue to bleat about during an election year.
Well, while we are trying to figure out legality to kill or not to kill a former or existing national who is aiding and abetting the terrorist in Yeman or where ever, the bad guys or terrorist are still planning to blow our what nots off. Now we can sit back and let this happen on our shores or find these dudes with all the means available to us and get them before they get us or our kids or what have you. You can argue over search and seizure, warrants, and so forth, but a terrorist is not going to show up for trial on his own, nor does a terrorist give a flying middle finger about our way of life.
The Constitution is our way of life here, but a terrorist plays by a different set of rules, mostly kill all of us, the h@ll with our rules is what they are saying IMHO> I'm for any drone attack that gets rid of any of those b.tards in these trying times of terrorism.. Now hand me the ammo so I can reload.
God bless the USA, we aint perfect, but he knows that.
The Constitution is our way of life here, but a terrorist plays by a different set of rules, mostly kill all of us, the h@ll with our rules is what they are saying IMHO> I'm for any drone attack that gets rid of any of those b.tards in these trying times of terrorism.. Now hand me the ammo so I can reload.
God bless the USA, we aint perfect, but he knows that.