Skip to main content

View Diary: Does the US have the right to kill its on citizens without trial? (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If someone is both a US citizen, subject to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, Brown Thrasher

    all the constitutional protections afforded by such citizenship, and a member of AQ, does that mean that he gets all of his civil rights stripped away?  What law said that?  What protections are there against such power to strip away citizens' rights from being abused?

    Reality has a liberal bias.

    by Hayate Yagami on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:14:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Criminal defendants have different rights (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CoyoteMarti

      than enemies do.  They have many more rights.

      Where a lot (most?) on the left get confused is that the rights afforded to criminal defendants do not apply to enemies.

      In other words, if you take the leap from mere criminal to enemy, you lose certain protections.

      What is the key difference?  Past vs future.

      The criminal justice system is only concerned with past crimes.  It punishes those acts.  It does not address future acts.  

      In contrast, the law of armed conflict and self-defense involves future acts.  

      if Aulaqi had dissociated himself from AQ and all armed attacks, and went into the hills to herd sheep, the use of force would have been absolutely illegal.  It would only be a criminal justice matter at that point.

      But, if he is actively engaged in hostilies (such determinations are ALWAYS non-judicial), then the use of preemptive force is authorized.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:29:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  from what court transcript do you get all this (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hayate Yagami, Marie, Brown Thrasher

        evidence of guilt ?
        Almost all your comments start with "if", and proceed to establish guilt. You are aware ,are you not, that his father was being represented by the ACLU in an effort to stop the killing of his son, and pleas to see evidence for all the claims made...beyond "stuff he 'purportedly' said.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:03:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Determinations of who is and who isn't (0+ / 0-)

          are not justiciable.  they are not matters for courts to determine.

          There is no legal standard of proof, because it is not an issue courts decide.

          The ACLU suit was properly tossed.  Moreover, there is no right to look at classified intelligence--especially for those purporting to act on behalf of an enemy.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:07:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that suit wasn't "tossed" but who knows you (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hayate Yagami, Marie, Brown Thrasher

            probably heard that too, it ended now for sure, and once more you make all the declarations riddled with 'if", and "purported".
            What makes you say it's not a matter of the Courts ? Will you still applaud in the future when it will be a Repub President naming names around the World? Will it be wrong then?

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:31:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was dismissed due to lack of standing. (0+ / 0-)

              http://www.csmonitor.com/...

              Determinations of who is and who isn't an armed enemy of the United States subject to military force is not something courts have any role in determining.

              The Constitution is very clear on this point--all authority over the military is reserved to the President and Congress.

              Courts have very, very, very limited authority over the miltary and how it operates overseas.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:49:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  from your link (0+ / 0-)
                Critics question whether the government can order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process, based entirely on the government’s assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization. They also question how it is that the government is required to obtain court approval before conducting electronic surveillance of an American citizen overseas, yet judicial oversight is inappropriate when the government identifies that same citizen for targeted killing
                .
                Judge Bates did not confront those central questions in his dismissal order, throwing the case out on procedural grounds. But he acknowledged that questions remain.<Nasser al-Awlaki’s lawsuit was being litigated by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union.

                “If the court’s ruling is correct, the government has the unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a written statement. “It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty.”

                But what about these picky little words I highlight in the following from that link...

                Awlaki is a militant Muslim cleric who US officials say is an operational member of the Islamic terror group Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. He was born in the US of Yemeni parents and attended Colorado State University and San Diego State University.
                He is suspected of assisting in the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a commercial jetliner near Detroit. He is also considered an effective recruiting asset for Al Qaeda among Muslims in the US.

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 09:53:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is the case for every other target. (0+ / 0-)

                  Under the constitution, there is no role for the courts to play in overseas military operations.  None.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:31:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Now We're Into Pre-Crime! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher

        Great! Now we can can be assassinated because of what the government claims we're going to do in the future!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site