General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Day 'Due Process' Under the Constitution Died: Obama, Holder and the End of Unalienable Rights
The Day 'Due Process' Died: Obama, Holder and the End of Rights
by Peter Van Buren
March 7, 2012
Historians of the future, if they are not imprisoned for saying so, will trace the end of America's democratic experiment to the fearful days immediately after 9/11, what Bruce Springsteen called the days of the empty sky, when frightened, small men named Bush and Cheney made the first decisions to abandon the Constitution in the name of freedom and created a new version of the security state with the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, secret prisons and sanctioned torture by the U.S. government. They proceeded carefully, making sure that lawyers in their employ sanctioned each dark act, much as kings in old Europe used the church to justify their own actions.
Those same historians will remark from exile on the irony that such horrendous policies were not only upheld by Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and professor of Constitutional law, but added to until we came to the place we sadly occupy today: the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, publicly stating that the American Government may murder one of its own citizens when it wishes to do so, and that the requirements of due process enshrined in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, itself drawn from the Magna Carta that was the first reflowering of basic human rights since the Greeks, can be satisfied simply by a decision by that same president.
Yesterday will thus be remembered as the day we gave up. No more clever wordplay (enhanced interrogations, "patriot" act, targeted killing, kinetic operations) but a simple declaration that the U.S. government will kill its own citizens when it wishes to, via a secret process we, and our victims, are not allowed to know or contest.
So while the popular media remembers yesterday as the day Rush apologized for calling someone a slut and Republican candidates ignored the wave of history to carp about birth control, historians will look back on March 5, 2012 as the day America gave up on its experiment with unalienable rights, rights that are natural, not given, rights independent of governments, what our Declaration explained to an unsure forming nation as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Read the full article at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/07-0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
FSogol
(45,529 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)So where do you stand on that issue?
Do you defend our Constitution and due process or not?
Yes or no.
I'm listening.
And stop the personal attacks or I'll have to put you on ignore.
This is not a trash talk board that encourages personal attacks. It's a discussion board which encourages robust democratic debate and discussion.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)you are advocating for. I mean, we can all yell and ask for 'due process' but it's generally thought that one should articulate what, precisely, one thinks that is.
To make it easy for you, perhaps you could read the the AUMF of 9-18-2001, and get back to us on what you think Mr. Awlaki was denied.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)How is it due process for a citizen to be marked for killing by the executive branch and no one including the "accused" is allowed any defense, appeal, or even knowledge of how the process worked, prior to or after the event?
Is this really due process? It is basically the grand jury system, where they not only bring charges but pass judgement and provide sentencing all in secret.
How is that different from a dictator?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)His citizenship is irrelevant. That he was engaged in ongoing terror attacks as a member of AQAP allows for targeting....think Yamamoto.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Yamamoto was a uniformed officer in a military aircraft inside of a battle zone in a declared war.
Where is that here? Congress has declared no war. The targets aren't in any uniform, or part of any organized armed forced. They aren't even government agents/actors. They can be anywhere in the world where the executive branch says they can't reach him. The only way anyone knows if these people are particularly a threat to the US is if the executive branch says so.
A declaration of war is due process.
This is one man running the whole show from beginning to end, in secret.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)after in the AUMF of 9-18-2001. Been a lot of SCOTUS activity over that resolution. Look it up.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)the authorized the use of force. And it was against those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. No one has outlined how to bring that use of force against people who weren't involved in the attacks.
We are basically declaring that this "war" is against anyone that we want to attack, anywhere, any time, for any reason, with no recourse nor responsibility.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Are you telling us that every soldier in Afghanistan isn't in a war right now???
Again. It was in all the papers. Lots of SCOTUS decisions on it. It's worth a read.
mackattack
(344 posts)no, they are not.
The last time the US declared war was wwii
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That is all. The Yamamoto example someone used is absurd.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Let 'em know your interesting theory on their war service.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)as is contemplated by the Constitution, and not some open-ended "authorization for the use of military force" (see the Gulf of Tonkin Resoution or the post 9/11 frenzy) was in 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
That is not an opinion. That is a fact and it has nothing to do with the conditions under which any veteran served.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to be on his website???? 'Cause I don't dispute his service.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)responses. Buh-bye.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
Galle
(15 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bush/Cheney were good guys who never told a lie about that war?
THAT is not worthy of DU.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)up Bush and Cheney? Can't you distinguish between the issues?
Regardless of how you feel about the war, don't you distinguish the veterans from the people who started it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)at least two who are the brothers of close friends, and they have no problem with the fact that those wars were illegal nor with the understanding that it takes nothing away from their service.
Talk to some veterans of those wars, or to the Tiller family who also have no problem separating the lies of the 'leaders' from the service of their sons and daughters.
I don't get your point at all. I've never met any family member or veteran who knows they were lied into war and who felt that because of that, they were in any way responsible for the lies, or that it diminished their service in any way.
Are you blaming veterans then? I'm not following your reasoning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to see that you don't conflate those two with veterans.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I doubt I have ever written anything to give anyone that impression. My friend's brother is back in Afghanistan right now. I have another friend who had three sons who have been in both Iraq and Afghanistan several times. Another friend whose brother has been in both of those wars.
Maybe next time, don't ascribe such nefarious motives to people you do not know.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)posts up....I don't know why you did that, but you did.....
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Or to label the War on Terror a police action (unless you feel it is a declaration of war authorizing us to invade the entire Middle East, or even, the entire world, irrespecive of sovereignty?)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)A particularly remarkable thing to say coming from any democrat as this was the main attack made on Democrats who opposed the war by Bush supporters. I've never seen anyone on a Dem board accuse someone of 'not supporting the troops' because they stated factually that the country was lied into the Iraq war.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and then when you could not back it up, pretended that I 'walked it back'. I would say that the best thing you could do right now to regain some credibility would be to delete that false comment, but I would prefer you did not actually. It is better for people to see the entire conversation.
And what does this mean??
Um, because you are the one who inserted Bush and Cheney into the conversation about veterans. Few
posts up....I don't know why you did that, but you did.....
You don't know why I did what??
Did Bush/Cheney lie this country into war or not? Or is it your position that they told us the truth? I am not following this 'logic'. How does one talk about those wars without mentioning Bush/Cheney? And in what way does mentioning them in connection with those wars, mean 'blaming the troops'?? That is a rightwing meme, but certainly never was something Democrats ever claimed. How did you make that leap of logic??
You posted a false accusation with zero reason for your assumptions and now you appear to be attempting to 'walk it back'. Best to just admit it, imho.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to think its possible to discuss veterans without discussing Bush and Cheney. YMMV
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You have attempted to distract from the topic by attempting to and failing to smear people who disagree with you and now you are attempting to make Bush/Cheney the topic of the conversation.
The questions not answered include 'what were the charges against Awlaki'? Does anyone know?
Btw, most DUers are generally willing to apologize when they post false information about another DUer, to their credit.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Are we also in war in Yemen? If so, why haven't the American people been told about it?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)was referring to when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights?
Could you state what you understand to be the unalienable rights to which Thomas Jefferson was referring?
Which of are rights are inalienable? Why?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Let me know when its been codified into statute.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)
Atheism pulled out of a hat as an argument against a liberal viewpoint! Why? Who knows...
Yep, the ultimate progressive viewpoint... (and one that leaves me wondering why atheists
who dislike leftists feel so strongly, since there's nothing God-ordained about jingoism)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm seldom accused of being a progressive on this site.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Don't you trust our leaders today and forevermore to exercise only the best, most prudent judgment about who is a terrorist and a danger to America? They're supposed to protect US, not some quaint old document that isn't durable enough or flexible enough to react promptly to save us from the very, very bad people. It's not like they swore an oath or anything.
Now trim your superannuated ideals to this year's fashion.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)succeeding and being hailed as reasonable.... *sigh*
Didn't we criticize the Bush administration when they did this type of shit?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)had drone struck Bin Laden.
intheflow
(28,504 posts)
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)reads "No person shall be deprived". I know you may disagree with this but you will be in violation of the US constitution if you agreed with killing on OBL without any trial
intheflow
(28,504 posts)But I also would not expect our government to extend due process to a non-citizen/enemy in a foreign country. Doesn't make it ethically correct, but it's not a shocker. However, this thread is about due process with regards to US citizens, domestically and abroad. So any mention of killing OBL is diversionary and off-topic.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Maybe you did. But I would have been glad had he actually done his job.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I believe you would have found him most pragmatic in how he dealt with enemies of his country.
Obama may have similar greatness in him, he is on the right track, he just needs to use his "beyond the law powers" more often.
He is getting better at imprisonment on whim with no proof, but only scores a 2.2 on the kill people at your pleasure without even a mock trial type maneuvers, he needs to do it much more often or advertise it better when civilians get killed, after all a civilian is only a press release away from a terrorist if you need show no proof of it to execute them.
I believe he will get better with practice, we know the next GOPER to get in will be all set up for such "greatness"
I differ in that I believe it is unamerican to grant a ruler power to imprison or kill any he sees fit without trial or proof, some idiots like me even rebelled against England in part because of King's power issues, they should have been pragmatic Torries.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)make that comparison to themselves all the time......
Jeebus.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Kings law is my way of saying "because the leader says so it is law or legal, regardless of proof or lack thereof"
You don't remember the legal defenses Pinochet's law officials/lackeys used do you? Maybe they don't teach that sort of thing any more. I have come to believe they also don't teach about torture and the justifications used by our enemies in WWII that sound just like things I have heard to justify mistreatment of political prisoners like whistle-blowers here.
I guess you either believe in trials before imprisonment or death or you are buying this crap that the king can have anyone locked up or killed without needing to show any proof of crime at all or offering any chance of defense.
Pinochet is on one side of that line I am on the other, where do you stand? Where does Holder stand? (his words imply he stands across from me on the other side rather than with me)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Oh please.....Had Mr. Awlaki wished to conest his status, he could have used his YouTube postings to protest his innocence. He chose to send PETN bombs. He got a drone back.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)a political prisoner?
We are not holding Awlaki at all let alone as a political prisoner, I can't believe you made that mistake innocently, unless you are unaware of who Bradly Manning is and how he is being treated so badly that International representatives are not allowed to inspect him or his health.
In a world of laws and not kings, even Awlaki should have been captured and his mis-deeds proven in a court (in the US or International courts).
I would not shed a tear for a terrorist convicted and punished for his crimes. I will shed a tear now that justice itself is being replaced by kings edicts about guilt without proof or trial. King George never got how that would piss off his subjects, but it did and here we are a different country after such grievances were finally settled via revolution.
There were many here that supported the Crown no matter what, it appears they have ancestors with similar opinions.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)they just don't get special privileges.
Funny how those reps never interviewed his lawyer....
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Or a nation aspiring to become one.
He is a political prisoner, don't kid yourself.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)....the U.N. official overseeing the investigation pronounced that “Bradley Manning was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the excessive and prolonged isolation“ to which he was subjected at Quantico. That official, Juan Ernesto Mendez, heads the U.N. office created by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, bestowed with the mandate “to examine questions relevant to torture.”...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)WhenKn
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
midnight
(26,624 posts)And anyone who falls into this hole. If this American is wrong let us have a trial, and find the facts of his wrong doing... Awiaki may have been many different things... But as an American he is considered to be equally protected under the law....
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Of course we'll never know how bad because of the built in lack of transparency. Do you think that was done on purpose? 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)did not get.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Charged with a crime-nope.
Indicted on charges-nope.
We have to stop there because no other actions are possible without the those.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)are in the same?
Let's make this easy. Mr. Awlaki was targeted under the AUMF of 9-18-2001. Outline the DP rights he has.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)... The phrase "judicial process" does not exist in the constitution. Holder is creating a distinction between "due process of law" and "judicial process" which has no precedent whatsoever in constitutional interpretation.
As for what "due process of law" means, it is not precise, but generally it is understood to mean a judicial proceeding of some sort for which the accused has been given notice and is permitted to present a defense. None of that applies in Holder's definition.
The AUMF to which you refer does NOT trump the Constitution. As Sandra Day O'Connor said in the majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, "... a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens."
This is an absolutely SHAMEFUL episode about which ALL Democrats should be rightly outraged.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It doesn't. Mr. Awlaki would have had the protections of Hamdi had he turned himself in. Heck, if he'd shown up in court on the Yemeni murder conviction we wouldn't have been able to drone strike him. But he chose to live in the mountains and send PETN bombs. Do that, and it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)one. Where is this mythical battlefield? The sly of hand that the treasonous congress gave to Bush the lesser
Was not a Declaration of WAR and did not negate the constitution, in spite of how much the authoritarians wish it had.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhetorical. My suggestion to you is that you read Hamdi and comment on the enemy combatant designation discussion contained within....if the court is wrong, tell us why.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)discuss this particular case does not invalidate my point. I am not interested in abiding by the limits you want to impose.
You never answered "Who determines whom is an enemy combatant?"
Where is the "battlefield" mentioned?
What constitutes "War" absent the required Congressional Declaration?
As long as the decisions are entirely up to the Executive, without notice or review,
they are in my opinion illegal and unconstitutional.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)do I think it applies to non-custodial prisoners. But Hamdi and progeny do outline challenges to ec status through the courts. The thing is, Awlaki chose
not to partake in that process. I suggest you read Judge Bates' opinion--Mr Awlaki had notice, and review. He chose not.to use it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Judge Bates documented Mr. Awlaki's options. I would read his opinion.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)A country with wide-spread judicial corruption...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Yemen
http://report.globalintegrity.org/Yemen/2008/notebook
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_system_of_Yemen
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Mr Awlaki died because he liked to send PETN bombs, and directed other mayhem. I wish Mr. Bush had been that proactive.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)based on secret evidence that we are barred from seeing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Who knows? We are not allowed to know. A secret panel using secret evidence made that decision and Obama has claimed that based on that secret evidence he was Alwaki's judge, jury, and executioner.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)When you say 'secret evidence' I'm just flabbergasted.....do you never listen to the BBC????
What the hell is secret about email read in open court????
Do you know who Stephen Timms is???
You think Rajib Karim was railroaded???
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's how we got mixed up in the War in Iraq -- because Bush believed bogus reports about WMDs in Iraq. They did not exist.
This is insane.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Are you suggesting that the emails between him and Awlaki were faked by the Brits???
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)citizens without due process, and that the Constitution also established a separation of powers granting certain powers to the courts and separate powers to Congress and separate powers to the president.
If you play chess, you have to learn the rules and play the game according to the rules. In the case of Yemen, it sounds to me as though we should declare war or associate ourselves with the government in Yemen to fight a war with the terrorists there. That would comply with our Constitution.
Deciding to order the death penalty for an American citizen without affording due process or declaring war disrupts the fabric of our Constitution, the weave of the separation of powers and the limitations of our government that the Constitution recognizes.
Again, how would you define our inalienable rights? That is a key question here.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bombing, where he apparently orchestrated Fort Hood and Times Square and the PETN bombs...
And the government of Yemen didn't want him as a guest any longer, particularly after their attempts to capture him failed. You note that not a single AP state had a problem with this, right???
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Gulf of Aden is swarming with AQAP. We are at war with AQAP. They are no joke.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Why?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)How the hell is something published in every major British newsaper a godamn secret???
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When were PETN bombs sent by Al Awalaki to the US?
Assuming that PETN bombs were sent, how can you be sure they were sent by Al Awalaki? Have you personally seen the evidence?
Has any court of law seen the evidence?
How can a legal fact be ascertained without the presentation of evidence to a court?
And if this man was sentenced under Sharia law in Yemen, why is the US military enforcing Sharia law? That is not our law.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)but Yemeni charges aren't good enough. Nor is evidence from a British court. And his own Youtube postings, claiming responsibility aren't good enough. Nor is the allocution of his co-conspirator regarding theDetroit attempt.
There isnt any evidence you would accept. Nor would you, I suspect, volunteer to head up the team to capture him. So you'll just have to mourn his death.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There is no arguing about whether it applies. The Constitution prohibits the government from denying it.
The evidence was most likely compelling, but without due process, the assassination violated the Constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=401513
Please see my response No. 1.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cite the relevant law?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I suggest you go read up on who Rajib Karim is....and read up on the emails between him and Awlaki...
That's the tip of the iceberg, apparently, and it was presented in open court.
How dd you miss this story???
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)against him.
Thanks but no thanks.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)As for 'confronting the evidence' do you realize that Mr. Awlaki routinely posted on Youtube???
I'll bet that if you had emails published as 'yours' where you detail blowing up planes, and they weren't yours, wouldn't you be on YouTube proclaiming to the world that you were being framed????
Wouldn't you disavow Rajib Karim and his crazy plans???
Wouldn't you ask a British solictor to advocate for your interests in court?
Or would you post YouTube videos encouraging someone to stab Stephen Timms????
Look, this wasn't some poor misunderstood cleric who's a bit off...I'd save my handwringing for his victims.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)we are not allowed to examine justified by a legal decision that we are not allowed to see and by a panel comprised of people whose identity we are not allowed to know.
How would we know that the U.S. relied on these emails at all? And if the U.S. relied on these emails, how do we know how the U.S. determined that these emails are authentic?
So,no. I do not admit that I was wrong.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Okay....so now, you think the British railroaded some dude?
I'm still flabergasted that you didn't know who Rajib Karim is.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Every person accused of a crime is entitled to due process.
Even the worst criminals are entitled to due process. That is government by laws not by men. The assassination of Al-Awalaki, no matter how despicable and dangerous he was, is government by men, not by laws.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)enemy combatants be prosecuted in Article 3 courts.
Mr Awlaki could have invoked said protections. He chose not to.
SCOTUS has litigated the AUMF. Tell me how they are wrong.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Constitution prohibits the US government from denying us our inalienable rights.
Please define what you believe to be our inalienable rights.
That is the starting point -- our inalienable rights. Not withstanding the Supreme Court, no president, no Court, no human being has the right to deny us the inalienable rights guaranteed in the US Constitution and for which our brave forefathers fought in the American Revolution.
What are our inalienable rights? That is the starting point for assessing the assassination of this American citizen -- terrorist or not.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)penalty from the Executive Branch of Government without charges? Stressing 'executive branch of government'. Can you cite some law that gives the executive branch the right to adjudicate cases and make judicial decisions followed by the sentencing??
Edited to add 'with or without charges'.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Article III courts do not apply to non-custodial enemy combatants.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)As Democrats argued during the Bush years, a president could declare anyone an 'enemy combatant'. For any number of reasons this power was opposed vehemently by Democrats during the Bush era.
Where is the proof that eg, the 15 year old son of Awlaki was an 'enemy combatant'? His grandparents say he was just a kid doing nothing wrong.
So far, we have nothing to justify him being called an enemy combatant. So, where is the proof this was an enemy combatant, and if not, why was he killed?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)
of him, either....and frankly, I don't see how you argue that Awlaki isn't a member of AQAP...I mean, you aren't arguing that, are you?
As for his son, I think it was terrible that Ibrahim al-Banna chose to stay around children, knowing he was a target. I can't imagine what the grandparents must feel--I wonder if they tried to get custody after the father's death. Horrible, all around.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I asked you some questions since you put yourself forward as an expert on the subject. But I know as much now as when this discussion started, which is nothing.
I was going to add to my last comment that the only defense I've seen for the killing of a teenager is that 'it is the fault of his father and/or whoever else that he was in the wrong place'.
I was also going to ask since you just confirmed for me that this is the only defense for that killing, is this some new legal defense now? A child is killed and the killer blames his family member or friend for being in his company? I wonder how well that would go across in a court of law, assuming they don't become obsolete in the near future?
A tragedy, yes. And a needless one. His grandparents may sue but their only recourse would probably be the ICC and since the US decided it would be committing crimes it preempted any chance of being held accountable when Bush withdrew US participation in the ICC. A sure sign at the time, as many Democrats pointed out, that war crimes were about to be committed.
This law is a travesty and our only hope is that one day the rule of law will be restored and all Bush policies and twisted laws will be rescinded. And until that happens, people will condemn them as we did under Bush no matter who likes it or not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Internet.
As for the son, the only people I blame are Awlaki himself and Ibrahim al-Banna--both adults who obviously didn't care about this child. I think it's terrible that a teenager died. Horrible.
Do you know who Rajib Karim is now?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the only people responsible are the parents or whoever was with the child when he was killed? Has this argument ever prevailed in a courtroom anywhere?
As for what Awlaki knew, I have no idea what he knew. He certainly could not have been expected to 'turn himself in' since he was not charged with any crime. People don't generally walk into police stations and say 'arrest me, there are no charges against me, but some people are saying nasty things about me so they must be true'.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And not for anything, but Mr. Awlaki was a fugitive, convicted of murder in the very country he was hiding out. He chose not to answer those charges. He chose to send PETN bombs, he got a drone strike back.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How can someone be a fugitive when they are not charged with any crime? I know I asked this before, and your response was that there was no need for charges. Now you appear to be saying he was charged????
We are not talking about his problems in Yemen. You have now switched from the US Government's killing of Awlaki to accusations in Yemen. Are you saying the US Government killed him on behalf of the Yemeni Government? I am getting more confused with each new response.
And you do know that the Yemeni government is not exactly credible do you not?
But back to the original topic. The US killed a US citizen in Yemen. They have provided no evidence to the American people to justify that killing.
I have concluded from this discussion that you are attempting to defend the indefensible, not a good position to be in, which is why it is best always not to try to do so. You have presented no argument to justify that killing. You have added no evidence of a crime. No charges.
Who was he a fugitive from? Was the US acting on behalf of the Yemeni Government, who btw, lied to their own people regarding drone attacks conducted by the US, agreeing to tell the Yemeni people that those attacks were conducted by them. Any wonder their own people have risen up against them.
When you have to turn to a totally discredited dictatorship to try to make a case, a case totally separate from the one under discussion, maybe it's time to give up?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)preaching....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2030914&mesg_id=2031464
Are you still assserting he was here recently????
I don't think any evidence would convince you that this is someone other than some zany cleric.
Do you at least know who Rajib Karim is now????
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from the argument. I wish I could say you figured as prominently in my memory as I apparently do in yours. But then I focus on issues, not people generally.
I guess you have nothing more to add to THIS discussion then, cannot address the issues raised? That's fine, and I promise, six months from now, no, six days from now, I will probably not remember this conversation. Although I have a feeling you are taking notes and will remember it a year from now. I truly am flattered, seriously. I had no idea I was so memorable and so much important than the issue raised in this OP
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If you truly think he's non-violent, then NOTHING offered to you will justify a drone strike.
And if you think he was here in the US "recently," well, cripes. I don't wanna end up in the CS forum.
You wrote---
Yeah---that's the problem. I don't think you've been talking about the right guy. Maybe an issue, but not the right guy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If you want to talk about Awlaki himself, rather than the issue at hand, start an OP. I will be happy to discuss the US's relationship with him going back over one decade.
But this topic is not specifically about the man himself, it is about whether or not the US President should be granted the powers of a king, just as it was during the Bush era.
I notice you have not responded to my points and as I said already, I assume that is because you cannot. I don't frankly, understand why you are attempting to make the case that Bush made regarding the rule of law, the balance of powers, the checks and balances inherent in our system, the transferring of those powers to the Executive Branch. Did you agree with Bush then? I ask because I never met a Democrat during those years who did. But then, as I said, I do not always remember those I interact with on the internet, my bad I guess, unless they impress me in some way. IF you were making the arguments you tried to make today when Bush was president, then at least you would be consistent.
I do get a kick out of the rightwingers I used to argue with when THEY were defending these policies under Bush, who are now arguing against them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)When was he last in the US?
If you think he was non-violent, then there really isn't any justification for a drone strike that you will listen to.
If you think he was in the US recently, well, that's a whole other can of worms.
I'm still not convinced you and I are talking about the same person.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)Question 1: did Holder's speech consist of a single sentence that went something like this "Awlaki deserved to die"?
Question 2: did Holder's speech say more than that?
Question 3: did Holder's speech have relevance to any issue/issues that are completely independent of Awlaki?
I have a question #4, but I'm not allowed to ask it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)isn't a particularly effective method of cross.
Didn't we alread do this on another thread??? Did you read any of the cases I suggested to you?
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)and dishonest in that thread as you have been in this thread.
It's just painful to watch you waste someone else's time. You refused to stay on topic, you completely made up what my position was, and... oh forget it. I really don't have any interest in going down this road or any road with you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to avoid answering the questions you were asked several posts ago. You apparently have been busy digging through months of posts and have decided that 'someone was wrong on the internet months ago' and that that takes precedence over the issue that is the topic of the OP.
I rest my case.
And even more important, My Cousin Vinnie is on TV, everyone here is telling me, and there is no way I am going to miss that. So, if I do not get back to you right away, it is because I am otherwise occupied for the next couple of hours or so. Lol
Maybe by then you will have answered my questions, and/or started a topic on Awlaki and his relationship with the US which I will be more than happy to rec and discuss.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Again, are you stll claiming that Awlaki is "non-violent?" That he was in the US recently?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Too funny, almost as funny as My Cousin Vinnie.
Start on OP on Awlaki and I will be more than happy to discuss him there, this topic is not about one man, it is a policy which it is clear you no longer wish to discuss. I will look for your OP on Awlaki, I think it is a subject that needs to be discussed, jus not in this thread which is about a different subject.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)that is Eric Holder's contribution to the U.S. You won't be the last one to use that argument.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Did you ever read the Constitution? Did you ever read the Bill of Rights? Have you read the 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 happiness. . . . . The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
. . . .
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
. . . .
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm
And the US Constitution
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The Constitution grants to each of us the right to due process. And the most fundamental principles of due process is defined in the amendments I have quoted from the Constitution.
Holder and his supporters are talking through their hats. They are talking legal nonsense. As someone said, they are making it up as they go along. They will regret it. A nation of laws and not men is inconvenient and dangerous. That is the price of freedom -- inconvenience and danger.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Really, he got none. At BEST he got a grand jury. That jury, under the control of the executive branch, no only "brought charges" but "passed judgement", "entered a sentence" and "executed the sentence". Oh, by the way, all in secret without any chance for appeal, or to face accusers, or to bring evidence, or have a jury of his peers......
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Kindly look at the relevant AUMF and tell us what due process it demands. Where, for instance, does it say people we have declared war against get a grand jury???
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I didn't ask for "judicial" process. I suggested that this is a process completely under the control of the executive branch, in secret, without the accused having any basis for appeal, or facing accusers, or presenting evidence.
There is no declared war, that would involve another branch of government. There is no uniformed officer being targeted, that would be a person openly establishing themselves as a member of an armed force in a war. There is no other government at all here. There is no country, no battle space, no uniforms, no oaths, NOTHING except the word of the executive branch, and that word can be in secret.
There is no due process OF ANY KIND here, judicial or otherwise. It is one person making the judgements, and executing them, in secret, with no consequence of their actions.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It was in all the papers. Lots of supreme court cases about it. Look it up.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . and the full phrase is "due process of law," which has historically been understood to mean some sort of judicial proceeding for which notice is given and in which the accused has the right to defend himself/herself against the charges. The attempt to create some kind of distinction between "judicial process" and "due process [of law]" is a complete legal fiction. And as for your last question, I refer you to the Supreme Court majority opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which Justice O'Connor wrote, "...a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens."
Look, the problem here is that once a doctrine like this is accepted, it becomes entrenched policy in future administrations. I don't think anyone here seriously thinks President Obama has any intention of arbitrarily targeting U.S. citizens. But that's not the point. The point is, President Obama will not always be President, and if we have learned anything from his predecessor's administration, it should be that we should never simply assume that any given Administration will exercise its powers prudently or with appropriate restraint. That's why we should ALL be very alarmed by this!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FYI---check out Boumendiene....
Enrique
(27,461 posts)nor to the public.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)and now you are arguing that they dont need due process.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Article III court, nor public opinion.
Custodial would be different.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)involved.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It is a very sad day especially since we were promised that once the Republicans were defeated, all of these Bush era attacks on rights would begin to be restored.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"Imagine if Bush had done this?"
...did do it.
President Bill Clinton lifted the ban on CIA assassinations in 1998, but limited their use to specific targets, such as Osama bin Laden, and only if capture was not “feasible.” George W. Bush dropped the “feasible” limitation and eliminated the need for a specified list of targets. The first CIA drone killing took place in Yemen on November 5, 2002, and included the death of an American citizen, Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish.
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obamas_Secret_Assassination_Program_111229
Beyond that, Holder is reiterating the position related to those engaged in terrorists activities.
Human Rights Watch, 2003:
The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.
- more -
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as it is now, under Bush. We know what Bush did, we were supposed to be reversing the damage, not solidifying it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He did, and the left was outraged, however it was not codified into law"
...the left was outraged about the incident that HRW cited?
The left was never outraged when Bush went after terrorists. In fact, there were a lot of incidents joking about him inflating the numbers.
Take issue with the policy, but do not claim that people would have a different opinion if Bush had done this.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Only kings can declare someone an 'enemy combatant' and order their assassination without due process or even without charges. Maybe you were not around during that time?
Amazing that you do not recall the years long fight over the Bush Administration's claims that all these powers were to be given to one man/woman.
Only kings can declare someone an 'enemy combatant' and order their assassination without due process or even without charges. Maybe you were not around during that time?
Amazing that you do not recall the years long fight over the Bush Administration's claims that all these powers were to be given to one man/woman.
....nonsense! I remember clearly the issues with Bush, and pursuing terrorists was not one of them. In fact, his incompetence, his negligence, and his distortions and his illegal war were the issues.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Accusations of terrorism were never enough for the President to skip all due process and issue a death sentence.
How do you know someone is a terrorist? Because Bush said so? We did not think so then, has that changed now? Was Bush right after all?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you don't remember the controversies over Bush's 'Unitary Executive' claims?"
This has nothing to do with 'Unitary Executive.' The President has authority to establish this policy under the 2001 AUMF and existing laws dating back to Clinton.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The President does not need to do anything more than declare someone to be an enemy combatant, no charges, no evidence. It could be, eg, a political opponent travelling abroad eg. All the POTUS has to do is say 'he's a terrorist' and everyone just says 'yes sir, if you say so'??
You really have forgotten the objections and the reasons why, to any one person having these kinds of powers?
"Then Bush was right after all?"
...that's not what I said. You may want to reread my comment.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I was also there when this issue was argued during the Bush administration. All Democrats that I knew at that time vehemently opposed the powers claimed by Bush for the Executive Branch. This is a step further than Bush took. If you opposed it under Bush, you oppose it now. If you supported Bush's claims, then there would be some consistency in not opposing it now.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)because you are an unapologetic defender of all things Obama.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)fact that the poster does appear at least, to be a defender of all things Obama.
Only her logic or facts need be trusted or not trusted when regarding her posts.
That being said, the logic being employed regarding this topic is making me dizzy rather than showing me any light or reason, stretching reality like putty doesn't impress me. (we on DU were 90% in agreement against "King Bush" if I recall correctly)
Complete logic failure unless one agrees with Bush's views in 2001 (which kinda makes one a Republican like critter).
I prefer due process and some sort of rule of law.
Not a king that can decree anyone anywhere die by his command alone (without need to show proof of any kind).
I'm a Democrat for Christ's sake!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You simply can't be trusted on these matters..because you are an unapologetic defender of all things Obama."
...does trusting me have to do with anything?
You trust Ron Paul.
I think he's a clown
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002397282
You trust Kucinich.
He voted to "kill the First Amendment"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002391918
It's not about trusting me. I don't have to buy into every lunatic conspiracy, and I can interpret the facts on my own. You can disagree.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I wish Bush had used this option frequently against AQAP, and at Tora Bora. It might have saved lives.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He was also not a US citizen.
What were the charges against Awlaki and his teenaged son?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That is not what you are saying, right? I want to be clear on your statement of law here....
Also, you seem to be making the argument that a US citizen has more due process rights then let's say an undocumented person. Is that what you were claiming? You are not being very clear.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Let me ask you this. Do US citizens lose all of their rights as soon as they leave the country?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Maybe you want to ask more precise legal questions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Do US Citizens lose all of their rights as a US citizen as soon as they leave the country?
You're talking about people respecting the laws of other countries when they are visiting there. That is a totally separate issue and has little to do with the question I asked which you have not answered.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)What 'rights' are you speaking of?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)choice.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)possibilities is vast. Jeebus. Right to do what, precisely?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that American citizens living out side the US have no rights. I, apparently like you, do not agree with that. So what rights do they have since I am assuming you disagree with those claims?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It's kind of impossible to answer your question without specifics.
Looking downthread, I don't see the assertion that US citizens have no rights abroad.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Is it such a difficult question? You gave the impression that you were fully competent to answer that question. If so, then please do, if not this is a waste of time and I will simply continue to believe that Bush was wrong as I always have, and that there is no justification whatsoever for continuing those policies we opposed so strenuously under Bush, now under a Democratic administration.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the US? The country apparently doesn't matter, the claim is they have no expectation of any kind of normal legal process once they leave the country and a head of state decides they are a criminal. Remember? Bush?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)from the State Department....
American citizens are subject to the laws of the countries they visit. I don't have special rights in other countries by virtue of my citizenship.
If American citizens abroad find themselves in trouble with the US authorities, they have a choice.....if they wish to avail themselves of the rights of due process, they must submit to US jurisdiction. If they wish to tough it out, they run the risk that their host country isn't interested in having them, either...they can always fight extradition, and hope the host country keeps them. A common argument for those wishing to avoid US jurisdiction is the inadequacy of due process. Ask Ira einhorn and Charles Ng how that eventually worked out for them. But, Awlaki could have tried this route. He didn't. He might have had a shot had he tried an EU, or AP country. He didn't.
The fugitive cannot both flee, and avail himself of judicial due process. This point was emphasized in Judge Bates's decision on Awlaki's father's case. You have a choice when the law pursues you--submit to jurisdiction, or face the consequences of being a fugitive. Awlaki chose the former, and thus, doesn't get the latter. And that is the law around the world.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)US charges against him, how does a person who is not charged with a crime avail themselves of our judicial system? Do they have to ask to be charged?
And are you now changing your argument and agreeing that a US citizen DOES have rights, as the SC ruled btw, from your original argument that Awlaki had no rights and was justifiably killed without judicial review?
The US law was not pursuing him, unless you are now claiming he was charged with a crime, which you have denied already and stated that it was not necessary for charges to be filed against him in order for the US Government to kill him?
Frankly I think you do not have anything to offer this debate. The US SC disagrees with your assertion that US Citizens do not have rights even when out of the country. Maybe you should leave this to the experts.
This will not go away as it is and always was, since Bush first attempted to assert that the Executive Branch supercedes all other branches of government, a major issue that strikes at the heart of this country and what it is all about. So long as the Bush doctrine is in effect there will be challenges until the rule of law is restored.
Edited to add we are not arguing about 'other countries' laws'. We are arguing about US law. Please try to stay on topic.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Um....are you talking about the same guy?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Do you have any response to the points raised in the comment you have attached this totally off topic comment to? I'm assuming you do not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm not changing the subject, but at this point, truly wondering if you know who I am talking about.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2030914&mesg_id=2031464
When the heck was Awlaki in the US recently???? And non-violent???
So did the Brits frame Rajib Karim with fake emails???
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)him there.
THIS topic, which for some reason you are desperately trying to derail, is not specifically about Awlaki, it is about whether or not the US President has the right to be the judge, jury and executioner of American citizens.
I asked you some questions which you have yet to answer. I realize you are fascinated with me, but really, I am not all that interesting.
While I am truly flattered to be of so much interest to you, this topic is not about ME. Although how great would that be? A whole topic about ME?
But back to the topic of the OP. What were the charges against Awlaki, where is the evidence, what were the charges against his 15 year old son, and where is the evidence?
Why are Democrats now arguing in favor of Bush policies? Why am I making the same arguments on a Democratic Board that I made against Rightwingers during the Bush era?
Can you answer any of those questions?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I can't wait for the expose on his CIA connections....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)when he insisted that Awlaki's YouTube recruitment videos be taken down....
And the testimony in Rajib Karim's trial? Faked. Someone else was in contact with him via email...he'd never plot to blow up a BA airliner.
The allocution of the Christmas underwear bomber? A lie, obviously. Awlaki would never try to blow up a plane.
Fort Hood? Obviously the shooter was in contact with someone other than Awlaki. Those 18 emails betweeb Hasan and Awlaki were faked.
Molly Norris was threatened with death by someone else. That cartoonist was obviously faking it.
Stephen Timms? Awlaki's not to blame for his stabbing.
Times Square??? Awlaki's not to blame for his contacts with the bomber.
The PETN bombs? Pure coincidence that they came from AQAP.
Obviously, the UN is in on the slander, too...including him in Resolution 1267's AQ list is evidence of a nefarious plot against him.
Yes, Sabrina, he was probably a "non-violent" cleric just hangin' in the Yemeni mountains, unfairly convicted of murder by the Yemeni courts....
As for his son, I am sorry to see any teenager die, bu I blame the AQAP terrorist who used him as a shield.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Was the little smiley laughing at the FBI and the Pentagon, or at anyone who posts that information, or both? Don't forget, the Intel agencies back then still had many Clinton appointees. Were you laughing at them? Because it was they who determined he was no only not violent, but a promising liaison between the US Govt and the Muslim World.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
librechik
(30,676 posts)Obama just handed a fait accompli he could do very little about. Not that that's an excuse. In an ideal world he would have trashed his term to stand against such abuses. And open the door for even worse abuses after he left.
So I'm glad he's there to nudge thriough half measures. We are lucky to have those.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)librechik
(30,676 posts)eavesdropping, which is still going on today? Remember Michael Hayden insisting to a confused reporter that there absolutely is no "probable cause" clause in the fourth amendment, and then saying he (the chief of intelligence ) ought to know more than a reporter about it? Which he absolutely did not?
And that is only the beginning of the collapse. Remember the Patriot Act? Remeber Obama drone-killing first one troublesome American citizen "terrorist" and then for good measure killing the terrorists 16 year old son too? Just in case?
IMO, these things have been going on for years to the point where we can't escape. Even Obama can't escape, and I counted on him to be the one to blast away these chains we have grown since Nixon's shame made the Repubs determine to revenge themselves on the American People for exposing his crimes. And they have.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Yup... the day finally comes when even this ruling is rationalized by so many in the name of party politics.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)to which he's entitled. I'm just giving him what's coming to him. See the smileys? Rarely have I seen him put it to Obama so well, you know? Surely, if he keeps this up, some worthy challenger will rise to defeat him at the Convention this year. Yes, indeed...a job well done! 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)already in people's minds. I hope they ask Dennis about it first, though, before posting lots of ideas on DU.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Now that DK is freed from the constraints of reelection, I can't wait to see all the legislation he's gonna propose.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)his goal. Didn't matter to him which Dem lost.
Wait, surely you are not pleased at the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)district.....I think it would have been horrible to lose the only minority-controlled district in Ohio.
Williams said Kucinich called her after state legislators proposed adding more of Kaptur's base to the redrawn district, which initially appeared to favor his re-election. Those changes and others were made to attract enough Democratic support to avoid a voter referendum.
The congressman's reaction to the news, according to Williams' recollection of the telephone call: "Either you switch my district back or I'm going to run against Marcia Fudge."
Williams said she replied: "Do what you got to do."
Then, she said, "I hung up the phone and called Marcia Fudge and told her what he said."
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/01/key_redistricting_negotiator_s.html
Threatening Marcia Fudge was pretty nasty....shame on DK.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Again, a Democratic seat was lost, John Boehner won. Not something to celebrate or try to justify in any way, imho, especially on a Democratic forum.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern noted those efforts Tuesday.
"I'm not surprised," he said, when asked about the phone call Williams described.
Kaptur spokesman Steve Fought criticized Kucinich for openly favoring the first version of the map, drawn in a process driven by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.
Not happy about losing Dem seats, but I'll support Kaptur and Fudge over DK and Boehner, anyday.....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Kucinich knew that as did Marcy Kaptur. Republicans erased a Dem seat and forced two good Democrats to have to fight for the one left. There is absolutely nothing to cheer about in this.
And given the choice, like Grayson, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Barney Frank, whose opinions are worth more than someone on the internet, being that they see how Congress works, I supported and will continue to support Kucinich. If they believe that Kucinich was a great colleague for them in Congress, I don't think there is any doubt about it.
Marcy while a great person, takes too much money from Corporations and that is the poison that is destroying this democracy. .
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't see what you appear to see in the OP. Where does he, eg, indicate that he is hoping for a primary challenger to the President?
I have reread the OP and see an article about the recent law signed by the President and opinions as to why it is a bad law. I see nothing else.
What is your opinion of what is actually in the OP?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I even used multiple smileys to make it more clear. My opinion of the OP is that BBI has outdone himself. I am a convert, now.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
Post removed
FSogol
(45,529 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)So what are you views on defending due process and our Constitution?
I'm listening.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's a serious question. Lots of folks are up in arms shouting irrelevant things like "US CITIZEN!!!".
But if you are outside US territory, why do you expect the Constitution to apply? Are you going to try to assert your 5th amendment rights if arrested in France?
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Do you really believe an American surrenders their U.S. constitutional rights once they cross over ocean or border?
Now you know we are not talking about actions taken by other nations against U.S. citizens.
So what is your point?
That the U.S. government can use drones or hired gunmen to kill Americans without judicial process when they are outside U.S. territory?
Well, that is the argument put forward by the administration and probably supported by reactionary judges.
The Constitution is suspended whenever they say it is.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or are you arguing we should have given Nazi and Japanese soldiers trials during WWII? If you're going to say "well, they were soldiers!" how about the citizens of Dresden and Tokyo?
Yes. There are no special due process protections for citizens. The same due process rights apply to everyone. And we've assassinated people long before now.
No, the constitution is moot because you aren't in US territory or under US control. Just like you don't have 5th amendment rights if the French arrest you. (France doesn't have protections against self-incrimination).
The killing is an act of war. It's up to the foreign country where the killing takes place to do something about it, if they are so inclined.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)see Reid v Covert...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Reid was in US custody so she had to be given a jury trial.
We're talking about people not in US custody.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)are excluded from Constitutional protections abroad.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Constitutional-Rights-for-Non-Citizens
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html
Reid v Covert:
...The rights and liberties which citizens of our country enjoy are not protected by custom and tradition alone; they have been jealously preserved from the encroachments [p7] of Government by express provisions of our written Constitution. [n6]
Among those provisions, Art. III, § 2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are directly relevant to these cases. Article III, § 2 lays down the rule that:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury, and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Fifth Amendment declares:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; . . .
And the Sixth Amendment provides:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. . . .
The language of Art. III, § 2 manifests that constitutional protections for the individual were designed to restrict the United States Government when it acts outside of this country, as well as here at home. After declaring that all criminal trials must be by jury, the section states that, when a crime is "not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." If [p8] this language is permitted to have its obvious meaning, [n7] § 2 is applicable to criminal trials outside of the States as a group without regard to where the offense is committed or the trial held. [n8] From the very first Congress, federal statutes have implemented the provisions of § 2 by providing for trial of murder and other crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of any State "in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought." [n9] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, like Art. III, § 2, are also all inclusive with their sweeping references to "no person" and to "all criminal prosecutions. "
This Court and other federal courts have held or asserted that various constitutional limitations apply to the Government when it acts outside the continental United States. [n10] While it has been suggested that only [p9] those constitutional rights which are "fundamental" protect Americans abroad, [n11] we can find no warrant, in logic or otherwise, for picking and choosing among the remarkable collection of "Thou shalt nots" which were explicitly fastened on all departments and agencies of the Federal Government by the Constitution and its Amendments. Moreover, in view of our heritage and the history of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it seems peculiarly anomalous to say that trial before a civilian judge and by an independent jury picked from the common citizenry is not a fundamental right. [n12] As Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries:
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)oh my my
this is what I've been insisting all along...
even a monster like Yoo acknowledges the above
apparently, the crazy pills weren't in my breakfast...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Here's what happened in the Reid case:
1) Woman gets arrested in the UK.
2) There's an agreement where the US says it'll take care of prosecuting citizens arrested in the UK.
3) Woman is turned over to US authorities.
4) Woman is tried by a military tribunal instead of a jury.
Supreme court says can't do #4 and you have to do a jury trial.
The only relevancy of citizenship in Reid is that it triggered #2. Absent such an agreement, she would have been tried in a British court with British due process - The reason I keep bringing up France is they don't have any protections against self-incrimination. In fact, if the French arrest you and you don't cooperate in their investigation, you can be charged with another crime. It doesn't matter that you are a US Citizen and you'd have 5th amendment protections if you were tried by the US - you are being tried by France.
The reason this decision doesn't apply is #1-3 didn't happen. The victim was not arrested. He was not in Yemeni custody. He was not turned over to US custody. There is no agreement between Yemen and the US for the US to prosecute violations of Yemeni law by US Citizens.
Finally, Ried doesn't apply because this was not a prosecution. It was an act of war. And just as Private Smith didn't need to convene a jury before shooting a German soldier in WWII, the President doesn't need a jury to assassinate someone if Congress has declared war or authorized hostilities under the War Powers Act. Which Congress did in a massively over-broad AUMF right after 9/11.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, while I'm agreeing with Holder that the current situation allows the President to assassinate people in foreign countries, I don't think that's a good thing. But claiming it's already unconstitutional is not the right way to handle the situation.
If it's already unconstitutional, then there's no need to change law or the Constitution to prevent it. Which means the status quo continues and the President can keep assassinating people. Instead of trying to argue that it's already unconstitutional, we need to put our energy into changing the law or amending the Constitution so the President can't assassinate anyone on a whim.
The fastest route would be for Congress to reign in it's AUMF to something not insanely broad. But it would also be good to put some sort of due process in place - I'm not going to argue assassination should never, ever, ever be used. But there's got to be more checks than the current process.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)but affirmed more broadly on Constitutional rights for citizens abroad outside of the boundaries of that case. (They have a tendency to do that - it is actually their job.)
Lord.
I do not have the time or inclination to do this with the two of you today or any other day in the nearby future.
But if you *still* haven't noticed that even Holder, himself, believes that the "US CITIZEN!!!" thing is relevant to the issue/debate/legality of what Holder covered in his speech, apparently nothing will ever sink through.
ALL sides of this debate acknowledge that a citizen has special standing with regard to his or her own government - anywhere. They find and believe there are justifications that override this standing, but people who agree with Holder and disagree with Holder have all fixed on the issue of the inherent rights of a citizen - INCLUDING HOLDER.
Here's a serious question: why is Holder discussing "irrelevant things like 'US CITIZEN!!!'"???
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Please provide the location in the Constitution where US Citizens are given additional due process rights over non-citizens.
If you want me to save you the time, there isn't.
People on the right started shouting "US Citizen" in an attempt to blunt what they saw as Obama's "successes" in the GWOT. People on the left took up the cry because we're not particularly fond of assassination. Yet there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents assassination on foreign soil.
About the best one can do is claim assassination is an act of war, and thus requires Congress to authorize it. But Congress issued a pretty broad authorization for the use of force for the GWOT, thus authorizing this assassination.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)
like I said, however, I am not going down this endless path with you or msanthrope.
However, if for a broader quotation of Holder's remarks, as well as another lawyer who quite specifically does not find my connection of habeas corpus jurisprudence to the issues surrounding the topic to be absurd or, more accurately, even off-base in the slightest, please see: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eric-holder-yes-we-can-kill-american-citizens-without-trial/
The article has a typo that shouldn't be there, but I am otherwise in accord with most of what is said there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were defending Bush's claims of extraordinary powers for the Executive Branch. People on the Left, were doing what people on the Left are still doing, disagreeing with these claims.
People on the Right tend to argue for their team, when THEIR team is doing it, it's okay, the fact that some of them are now arguing AGAINST what they argued when Bush was president, should be no surprise.
Of course we have a few people on Left who do the same thing. But generally this topic was argued by the Left as it is now being argued, by the Left, in this thread, when Bush was president. We have not changed. Except of course, for a few.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)another country, the President doesn't have to bother anymore with charges, with extradition treaties etc., s/he can just send a drone and kill you now?
I don't recall as long as I can remember, that a US citizen accused here of a crime, living in another country, being assassinated based on just such an accusation.
Normally, there are charges filed, this country has extradition agreements with other countries and after it is determined where the suspect is, this government tries to arrange for the capture and extradition of the suspect.
Accusations alone however, have never been enough to extradite someone let alone kill them. The reason for that seems obvious. Anyone can accuse anyone of a crime. Our system of due process has always required some evidence that those accusations have some merit. Do you disagree with our system of due process? I agree with it, always have and with the reasons why we have a system of laws.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you are not in US territory or in US custody, it's silly to demand the US constitution apply.
The due process parts of the Constitution do not specify they are only for US Citizens. Have you heard of people living in other countries being assassinated by the US? They have the same due process rights as US Citizens.
Because the CIA never assassinated anyone.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Can you link to something that backs up this assertion? I was not aware that if someone went on vacation eg, as soon as they land in another country they have no more rights as a US citizen, seriously.
As for the CIA, are you saying that IF they murdered a US citizen abroad that was legal and can you give some examples where this was established?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The constitution does not grant any additional due process rights to citizens. So "US Citizen" is moot.
Can you link to something that backs up your assertion that the Constitution applies everywhere on earth? Could you explain how that can be the case when France doesn't have any protection against self-incrimination?
I'm saying it's up to the country where the killing took place to respond to the killing, since it is their laws that were violated. It also could be considered an act of war.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)citizen automatically loses all of their rights once they leave the country.
So any agent of the US Government can commit a crime abroad and they are free and clear from any consequences from the US Government?
I don't think that is correct. US soldiers, eg, have been prosecuted for acts committed abroad. US Contractors also. Are you saying that is no longer the case? Because if so, all someone has to do if they want to kill someone is invite them on a trip abroad, kill them, and they are home free. No charges, no prosecution. This makes zero sense.
I would like to see some proof of what you are saying.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are other rights they retain. Such as right to vote.
Not any agent. For example, the military is still governed by the UCMJ.
As mentioned above, soldiers are still under the UCMJ. Contractors will usually be operating under a contract that puts them under some form of US Government oversight.
No prosecution in US Court. If you invite your victim to Mexico and kill them there, you can be prosecuted in Mexican court.
Should I link the Attorney General's speech?
And to be clear - I'm not saying this is a good state of affairs. I'm not happy that the President can shoot anyone he wants as long as it's outside the US.
But saying "That's Unconstitutional!" is a problem. It means nothing in the Constitution or the law needs to be changed. Instead, we should be agitating for a change in the law or the Constitution to close this loophole.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If a US citizen commits a crime against a citizen of another country or even a US citizen who is in that country, yes, they would be subject to the laws of that country.
But if a US citizen is suspected of a crime against US citizens in their own country, such as someone who murdered or is plotting to murder a US citizen in the US, but now in another country or is known to be plotting it in a foreign country, whose laws are they subject to?
Since the US government has taken the extreme step of killing three US citizens who it is claimed were plotting against US citizens, it seems the US Government is claiming the right to prosecute such a person, not the government of the country in which they are living.
And I agree that we need to be advocating to change the law to close the loophole. Still, our laws do require that someone be at least charged with a crime. And once they are killed, that the people have a right to know what the evidence was that justified the killing.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A group of people plot their crime in Mexico. They're going to come to the US and murder someone but are arrested before leaving Mexico.
Mexico can charge them with conspiracy to commit murder. US can't charge him.
Plot in Mexico, travel to the US but are arrested before the murder.
Both Mexico and the US can charge them with conspiracy to commit murder.
Plot in Mexico, travel to US, commit murder and then get arrested, or
Plot in Mexico, travel to US, commit murder, return to Mexico and get arrested
Mexico can charge with conspiracy to commit murder, US can charge with both conspiracy and murder.
They aren't prosecuting them. They are killing them.
Only when they are in US custody. Outside the US and not in US custody, Constitution doesn't apply so there's no due process required. It becomes an international law/rules of warfare issue.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They skipped a few steps, that is the point. Why, if they were going for the death penalty did they not reveal the charges? Killing someone for no apparent reason that we know of, is generally called murder, here or anywhere else. So, either they were acting on evidence, skipping several of the normal steps required by law pretty everywhere, or it was murder. If the former, then who saw this evidence and why not make it public?
We are signatories to International Laws. Several of which have been ratified. Do any of those laws permit the killing of a suspect without any evidence being presented to any court, National or International?
Of course now the law says the US Government CAN kill US Citizens, anywhere. But does that law conflict with the laws of other countries and/or with International Law? It seems it does from some of what I have read.
Also, now that the US has passed this law, what is to prevent other countries from passing similar laws whereby they can kill one of their citizens in this or any other country who is in their opinion, a threat to their national security? And how would we argue against them, without being totally hypocritical?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)While the Obama administration's policy is to have the Justice department involved, that isn't required by anything other that the Obama administration's policy. The only people required are the President and the people pulling the trigger.
Thus, it's not the death penalty. It's assassination. It's not a crime being punished, it's an enemy being killed. It's not a legal case against them, it's fighting a war.
An alternate definition is "war". This being considered warfare, not criminal prosecution.
I'm presuming revealing the evidence would require revealing classified information. If your spies figured out who the "bad guy" is, revealing the evidence probably reveals the spies or how the spies figured it out.
None of them outlaw it. Not to mention international law has little in the way of teeth. It's violated all the time because it is not frequently enforced.
Assassinating someone inherently violates another nation's law against murder. However, it is up to that other nation to prosecute the crime (or not). Given that the assassins are foreigners (to them), most likely not identified, and no longer within their jurisdiction, bringing a case is pretty much impossible. Unless the agents screw up as in Italy during W's term.
They don't have to pass any law. They already can.
If they do, the FBI will try to catch them so they can be charged with murder. The FBI may be unable to do so, or they could be traded for some of our agents who were captured, as happened in the cold war.
Why would we argue?
In both situations, agents of one nation are committing a crime, and if caught will be punished according to the laws of the nation where the crime occurred. The idea is to not let your agents get caught. If your agents are caught, they go to jail. If your agents successfully slip away, prosecution is thwarted. At that point the options are: use diplomacy to get the agents extradited, peruse their agents with your agents, invade and capture the agents, or drop the matter.
It's the way it's always worked. It's the way the US Government wants it to work, so that we can continue to do so in other countries. Why would the US Government object?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)However, having read it, this is what I am coming away with. All heads of state kill people and if they get away with it, so what?
Basically you seem to be saying that the laws in place, both our domestic laws and all International laws, are just for show, they mean nothing, no one cares about them.
If a country wants to put out a hit on someone, regardless of what the laws say, that's the way it is. Except for one thing, apparently it was not fine, at least here in the US, which is why this law was implemented. If it was just okay, why did we need this law?
Frankly this all sounds like the Mafia. A hit goes out, someone dies, then someone else may try to get revenge. Whoever gets away with it, wins. It's a lawless world, just ignore all those laws we thought meant something and you won't have a problem with the US Government joining the fun.
Should we eliminate the oaths of office then? 'To defend and protect the Constitution of the US against all enemies, domestic and foreign'? Or should we leave it there for show? Because seriously, if what you are saying is true, that is all it is, show.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Of course, they don't have to prove that .... they don't even have to reveal that they killed you!
They just do it and all of the "evidence" and facts on the killing are "top secret" of course!
Oh how I just love the new transparency.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)by Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University
March 6, 2012
Attorney General Eric Holder was at Northwestern University law school Monday explaining President Barack Obama's claimed authority to kill any American if he unilaterally determines them to be a threat to the nation. The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a "trust me" pledge that Holder repeated Monday at Northwestern.
The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport. Holder proclaimed that:
"The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a US citizen."
The use of the word "abroad" is interesting since senior administration officials have asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including in the United States. Holder's speech does not materially limit that claimed authority. He merely assures citizens that Obama will only kill those of us he finds abroad and a significant threat. Notably, Holder added, "Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan."
Holder became particularly cryptic in his assurance of caution in the use of this power, insisting that they will kill citizens only with "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States." What on earth does that mean?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/06-9
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)people who are on the drone strike list for their subversive postings on DU. Ask not who the black helicopter circles for......
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)might secrectly target anyone they define as a "radical extremist" for secret detention, torture or even assassination?
The door is now wide open for them to do that under the Obama/Holden interpretation of "due process" and the Constitution.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Why wouldn't they design, set and implement their own policies?
This "door is wide open" nonsense is just that. Can you cite an example of, say, a Clinton policy that was used by Bush the Lesser to justify anything his administration did?
intheflow
(28,504 posts)Bush defends free-trade policy
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-21-bush-nafta_N.htm
Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Robb
(39,665 posts)That's the silliest thing I've read all morning.
intheflow
(28,504 posts)Certainly didn't inhibit Dubya from getting Dem support to invade Iraq.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)say'? What you should be asking is 'why did the Obama admin adapt the policies of a right-wing, Republican President'? So why, since these are the policies of a Republican President would Republicans want to change them, except maybe, to make them even worse?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Is that like a hot water heater?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)part.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)
Got x-ray vision?
Tveil
(108 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The real question is is it right for the US leader to kill US citizens without transparent due process. My answer is "no," and you can take all your AUMFs and legalistic hair-splitting straight to heck.
Killing US decisions on merely the president's say so makes me grumpier.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is pathetic that people are even drawn into wasting time arguing about this on DU. The Third Way cult of personality in the party is out of control, when STATE-APPROVED ASSASSINATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL is even considered a remotely acceptable position on a democratic board.
I have never been a proponent of censorship on this board, but there is such a thing as consistency and a bare minimum standard for upholding democratic principles. If you can be tombstoned from DU for being against gay marriage, you sure as well ought to be shitcanned for supporting this.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)That in fact the administration gets to decide how many angels can dance on that pin, if for example the POTUS decides 10 million angels can dance there then they better damn well try!
There will be proof it's possible, hidden secret proof that angels may not see, they instead must have faith in the new Lord that commands them.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Thank You.
Execution of anyone without Due Process deprives ME of MY Constitutional Rights.
I have the RIGHT to observe my government,
to attend the hearings,
to hear the defense,
and to view the evidence.
That is the only way a legitimate Democracy can operate.
The government must be accountable to The People.
If the government operates in secret,
the is NO accountability.
All this Wartime President was a load of bullshit when Bush did it.
It is STILL a load today.
Restore America's Honor
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah
Where is THAT guy now that we need him?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)
florida08
(4,106 posts)John Walker Lindh (American Taliban) was captured and now serving a prison sentence. He was trained by Al Qaeda. Alive and justice served. Is this no longer important?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Seal Team 6. You?
Mr Awlaki had uploaded hundred of YouTube videos and not once did he indicate his willingness to seek legal means or process. He had been convicted in a Yemeni court of murder, but didn't show. Had there been a way for us to take him, I would love to hear it.
florida08
(4,106 posts)to every rule.. but to nullify it altogether to target American citizens is a road we should not go down. At least this is my feeling after watching the wikileaks video of apaches shooting civilian reporters.. one being with Reuters. We have more than enough innocent blood on our hands.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is reasonable. But I think Awlaki is the exception.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)only until it affects them, til then it's fine. much like the Patriot Act, til they began using it against common criminals
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)"And that is the saddest part of a very sad day: the majority of Americans -- the consent of the governed -- seemingly do not care what Holder said, and are even now bleating on internet forums and likely in comments below to this article about the need to kill more terrorists, adding terrified, empty justifications to Holder's clever Newspeak. We did not have our freedom taken from us, we gave it away."
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)It is in the local news every few weeks. It is generally not viewed as a violation of constitutional rights, not even here. There is the rare occasion where an unarmed civilian is met with a hail of bullets that seems to merit concern here. But for the most part there is barely a peep about "due process" on a day to day basis.
You can see it on the news, it happens everyday. So, why all the concerns for the rights of alledged terrorists but almost none for the alleged bankrobbers and rapists?
All of them end up just exactly the same amount of dead, and none of them get trials.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)quaker bill
(8,224 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)At least Obama has one supporter on the unconstitutional assassination program here at DU.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Lemme take care of that right now.
Done.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Poor, poor, misunderstood man...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have failed to defend, so incorrectly. Start that thread I would love to discuss Awlaki, who he was, how the CIA knew him so well, why he was chosen by the Bush administration as a liaison for peace between the US Govt and the Muslim world, and why all that changed later on.
But this thread is not about any of that, this is about the issue of Bush policies specifically the granting of extraordinary powers to the Executive Branch, eliminating the checks and balances inherent in our system, destroying the balance of powers between all branches of government and how dangerous a precedent a vast majority of Democrats agreed this was when Bush was in power, and then the question of why any Democrat now, might be defending these Bush policies.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)connections. Perhaps you can tell us why you think he was in the US recently.
As I happen to think both claims worthy of Alex Jones, I won't be posting an OP on such CT. But I would definitely love to read your theories.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)at the Pentagon in Feb 2002?
What is your point, are you denying that he was not violent, or are you trying to say he was and the Pentagon knew it?
http://publicintelligence.net/new-details-on-anwar-al-awlakis-2002-luncheon-at-the-pentagon/
“He (Awlaki) will be leaving for an extensive period of time on February 11th.”
The e-mail states that New Mexico born al-Awlaki was the featured guest speaker on “Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture.”
The Defense Department lawyer who vetted the imam wrote that she “had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki’s presentations in November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in the audience.”
She was impressed because he condemned Al Queda and the attacks on 9/11.
Again, what point are you trying to make?
Or maybe you just do not want to discuss the topic of the OP?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)were still listening to Curveball at that point. From there he went recruiting in Britian. And then to Yemen.
So, do you have any updates on the 'recent' travel he did to the US?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)right after 9/11, yet he was not arrested despite having had contact with some of the 9/11 killers. So you are saying that both the FBI and the Pentagon were wrong in their assessment of him?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Are you going to argue that they only became competent after Obama was sworn in? How magical.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The FBI was blamed, falsely, by the Bush administration when in fact as we learned later, the Intel Community issued over 50 warnings to the Bush administration about a possible attack on US soil. All of which were ignored.
Are you supporting the Bush administration's position that the Intelligence Community failed rather than them ignoring the warnings they received? Especially since at that time, some of those people were Clinton appointees. Like Richard Clarke eg. Colleen Rowley? Awlaki was first questioned by the FBI in Oct. of 2001 according to reports and three more times after that. Apparently they determined he was not a violent threat to the US at that time. Nothing to do with the Bush administration, as far as we know.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine that as yours is the most simplistic conclusion that may be reached, you indeed reached it.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)saras
(6,670 posts)Otherwise, no. THAT'S the important war right now. Fucking around in the Middle East is just wrong, and we should have pulled out in the Seventies.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When we say that we are "granted" certain rights under the Bill of Rights, we are inaccurate. That is just a figure of speech.
The Bill of Rights simply delineates the rights that are so fundamental, so basic, so innate, so inalienable -- the rights that deist Thomas Jefferson stated were endowed to us by our Creator -- that the government CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY FROM US.
Depriving an American citizen of the inalienable rights stated in the Constitution is, in terms of the Constitution, an unnatural act, a violation of a law of nature which is that we are free.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)was that congress would give up their power so readily to the other 2 branches.
The judiciary is now making laws from the bench and the presidency is now taking on kingly powers. It is all due to the fact that congress has given up it's powers willingly. Congress could restrain the president or king. Congress could restrain the courts. But they do NOT because the fascist like it when a smaller group, preferably not elected or voted in for just 4 years, have all or most of the power. A small, group or even just one man, is easier to bribe and control.
What congress seems to be ignoring in it's rush to hamper the voice of We The People is that the very 1st group who the king targets, after he takes on his divine authority, is the political opposition in power. Now, if Obama gets really good at killing American citizens by secret decree, he can use it on the likes of Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, or a few supreme court justices. Or he will let his new found kingly authority to kill Americans at his pleasure sit and when the next president gets into office he can use it to kill off congressional and judicial leaders. See, little baby steps do work.
Even Pinochet had to surround the congress with tanks to keep them in line.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)that thread was locked, correctly, because it wasn't LBN.
But here's what Censor-Ready said, and I totally agree:
It seems that no one is allowed a PRINCIPLED stance in opposition to Obama's actions without being called a "hater" or worse. This is no different from what we castigated the Republicans for during the Bush reign of terror. DUers ridiculed them for sticking with Bush, no matter what. Yet, now, there is nothing Obama does that can be called into question.
The actions Obama is taking, as stated in the article, make me sick to my stomach. There is no way around it. There is such a thing as a Moral Imperative, and I'm claiming it. What Obama is doing is wrong. Just as it would be wrong if GWB did it. No difference. Everything else is fluff.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Turns out some people were objecting because the half-assed justifications weren't delivered in pretty enough speeches.
IOKIYAD.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Sadly, efforts to educate and activate on civil liberties are largely wasted here these days. 
Watching Holder's doublespeak on "due process" was a thing of horror -- it could have come straight from the lips of John Yu. A ugly, shameful moment for this administration. 
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Brace yourself for a stream of personal attacks.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)good luck
