Skip to main content

View Diary: The Power to Assassinate a Citizen (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Surely you are kidding (8+ / 0-)

    You would convict in abstenia and sentence the man to death based on a flashy bombastic newsletter that is being distributed by the U.S.'s own ministry of propaganda?

    •  I'm actually willing to give that a shot. (6+ / 0-)

      If we have at least two witnesses who can convince a jury that al-Awlaki is giving aid and comfort to America's enemies, then we've at least satisfied the Article III, Sec. 3 problem.  He would, of course, be free to appeal his conviction through normal judicial channels.

      "Speaking for me only." -Armando

      by JR on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 10:03:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At least you would add real witnesses (7+ / 0-)

        Having real (credible) witnesses helps a bit, but I believe the poster was suggesting that the document alone was sufficient.  However, all of this must go through appropriate process.  Just as it was hard to look another country in the face and preach human rights when the US tortures; likewise how do we look a country in the face and give a lecture on due process when the Administration is maintaining this program.

      •  Satisfying Article III Sec 3 is one thing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JR, OHdog

        There are still his 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights that have to be afforded as well.

        •  That's completely ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SoCalSal, Deep Texan

          There is no right to be in a state of war against the USA and no obligation on the political branches to request permission from the judiciary in pursuing military action.

          Jefferson sent the Navy and Marines to Tripoli without even Congressional authorization. Washington lead a US army against US citizens in Pennsylvania without a judicial order.  The idea that a dual US citizen can make war on the United States and that absent a court order the USA is powerless to defend itself is an idea without any constitutional basis or any sense.

          •  Jefferson also went to Congress... (0+ / 0-)

            ...and asked for authorization after dispatching the forces.  But since war had been declared by Tripoli against the United States by that point, the Commander in Chief power was at a higher ebb.

            Washington's deployment of forces during the Whiskey Rebellion was in response to an armed domestic insurrection, which is a federal duty under the Guarantee Clause, and he actually did have judicial oversight--Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1792 mandated an associate justice or district judge attest that the "ordinary course of judicial proceedings" were insufficient to restore order in the event of a rebellion, which Justice Wilson did.  The Third Congress was not in session in August when the President called up the militia, but Washington did so in accordance with the law, and with Congressionally mandated judicial involvement.

            "Speaking for me only." -Armando

            by JR on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:54:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and Obama proceeds under (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan

              congressional authorization as well. I think that the AUMF is ridiculously over-broad, but ...

              •  Then I think we agree on my basic point... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Support Civil Liberty

                ...which is that the balance between Congress and the Executive has tilted too far to the President's side.

                "Speaking for me only." -Armando

                by JR on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:02:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Congress has clearly evaded responsibility (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SoCalSal, Deep Texan

                  but I think that's part of a larger problem which is that Congress is mostly dysfunctional. It cannot budget effectively, let alone decide questions of war and peace. To me, the whole system of government is teetering on the edge of collapse anyways and it's not simply a question of balance of powers. If Congress is not able to act effectively due to the combination of its function as an incumbency protection racket, the power of money, the cultlike party unity of the Republicans, generations of gross gerrymandering, and Senate rules that make no sense - "balance" is the least of our problems.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site