terriorist denied due process ???

[sigmtnman]

I don't buy into a traitor's rights. I think ANY terrorist needs to die, no matter where they're from. I think once they have turned into the enemy, you kill them, no matter where they are from. You have the right to your own opinion, and so does Ron. Fact is, I seldom disagree with him.

The guy was a terrorist. When they blew his ass up, his DNA was in the same pile as other confirmed terrorists. I'm done. I have a better chance with that tree.

I don't buy into traitor's rights either, though I do buy into the Constitution. The Constitution is the document which defines the powers of the government and the rules buy which it must abide.

[sigmtnman]

His words speak volumes on the rights of Citizens.

Discussion of alleged terrorist starts at 2:31

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ISg6u7tPRU

[E4 No More]

What I'm saying is that either we value the Constitution or we don't. Not part of it, but ALL of it. It's not a smorgasbord.

That means that unless they are engaged in the act of seriously harming another citizen, an American citizen gets due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. You can't deny someone his rights just because you hate him.

I believe that he was engaged in the act of seriously harming another citizen(s), and whether directly or indirectly it matters not to me.

I'm wondering if ya'll would still hold to this belief if one of your loved ones was killed while the US waited to expedite this fellow into the country for a trial? I would imagine not.

[TMF]

Citizenship does matter. If it was justified, there should be no problem satisfying the requirements as specified in the Constitution.

Why is the underwear bomber on trial?

When did we declare war on Yemen?

Let me preface this by saying that there is no opinion I have that I'm not prepared to immediately abandon in the face of a logical argument.

First, no we're not at war with Yemen, but we're not at war with Afghanistan either, but we kill enemies of the state there like its cool. The only difference is how far Yemen allows us to operate. Right now drone strikes are pretty much it, so detaining this guy was never a possibility in the first place.

We are fighting a military with no country or governing body. There are many countries we weren't at war with that we conduct/have conducted combat operations, including, but not limited to: China, France, Switzerland, Greece, Iran, South Korea, Laos, Cuba (action against piracy), Peru, Lebanon, Somalia, Guatemala... it goes on for a while.

I've given several examples of cases where this wasn't an issue, but none have been addressed; instead ignored, so here's another one.

It is not as this is unprecedented. There were plenty of German-American and Italian-Americans citizens who fought against the US and it's allies in WWII; their citizenship wasn't taken into account unless they were captured alive which is not necessary in combat. Why is this different?

I could agree that if Awlaki was killed because he was wanted by the FBI for September 11 attacks or supporting terror then his Constitutional Rights would have been violated. However, he was killed because he was an active member in a paramilitary organization continuing to conduct attacks against the United States. That makes him an enemy combatant, same as if it was WWII. If he had been captured then his rights would apply for anything he was wanted for as well as charges of treason.

I have a great deal of confidence that Obama had very little to do with this if anything at all. The decision to kill a high value individual is usually a "bottom-up" driven thing, not a "top-down", meaning that the task force tracking Awlaki and his boys probably said "hey, we know right where he's at, can we target him?" The approval is usually not too far above that level; a field commander or maybe even someone sitting in Washington. The only thing that suggests this may have made it to the Executive level is the fact Awlaki is so high profile, but if he was "Joe Schmuck" terrorist from Oregon who decided to go to Yemen and get his Jihad on, chances are the approval would have been made at the lower levels.

[E4 No More]

I don't buy into a traitor's rights. I think ANY terrorist needs to die, no matter where they're from. I think once they have turned into the enemy, you kill them, no matter where they are from. You have the right to your own opinion, and so does Ron. Fact is, I seldom disagree with him.

The guy was a terrorist. When they blew his ass up, his DNA was in the same pile as other confirmed terrorists. I'm done. I have a better chance with that tree.

Agreed! Some people think that we still live in the time of 1812 codes of conduct for rules of war.

[daddyo]

I believe that he was engaged in the act of seriously harming another citizen(s), and whether directly or indirectly it matters not to me.

He was riding in a truck.

I'm wondering if ya'll would still hold to this belief if one of your loved ones was killed while the US waited to expedite this fellow into the country for a trial? I would imagine not.

What does this have to do with constitutional rights? The "loved one" scenario doesn't change anything.

[TMF]

He was riding in a truck.

I can understand how this looks in terms of rules of engagement for law enforcement; you can't just shoot somebody who isn't posing a current threat no matter what he does. He could kill 30 kids and just be walking down the street unarmed, but you can't kill him. That is denying him due process and violating his rights. As much as I would want to see him shot, this is the country we live in and the Constitution we live by.

Now, rules of war are different. We kill people all the time that aren't actively doing anything. The only reason the ROE may be restrictive in certain places/times is because of the restrictions the chain of command put on their subordinates, but according to the rules of war there is a lot we can do. For example, let's say there is someone we know is a bad guy. There is multiple source reporting to that effect. You don't have to ask him to surrender. You can just sit across the street on top of a house and shoot him in the face as he goes out for his morning stroll, or drop a $100,000 hellfire on him. Depends on how much you want to spend on it. Souce reporting likely confirmed his status the paramilitary organization to which he was a member, and therefore he was killed. Doesn't matter if he was carrying an RPG or taking a crap.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand how this can be interpreted as a violation of the Constitution, but he went over to the other side which makes him the enemy, no longer having Constitutional Rights unless taken alive... glad he wasn't. Now you're gonna demand proof of his membership in a paramilitary organization at war with us. Understood, but that's not how it works in military matters.

Based on what I said above, now the implication is that this is something that can be abused. I would agree, it could be. However, so long as no upstanding citizen finds themselves in very bad places with very bad people, the CIA/Military probably won't drop a hellfire on you.

[sigmtnman]

First, no we're not at war with Yemen, but we're not at war with Afghanistan either, but we kill enemies of the state there like its cool. The only difference is how far Yemen allows us to operate. Right now drone strikes are pretty much it, so detaining this guy was never a possibility in the first place.

We are fighting a military with no country or governing body. There are many countries we weren't at war with that we conduct/have conducted combat operations, including, but not limited to: China, France, Switzerland, Greece, Iran, South Korea, Laos, Cuba (action against piracy), Peru, Lebanon, Somalia, Guatemala... it goes on for a while.

I've given several examples of cases where this wasn't an issue, but none have been addressed; instead ignored, so here's another one.

It is not as this is unprecedented. There were plenty of German-American and Italian-Americans citizens who fought against the US and it's allies in WWII; their citizenship wasn't taken into account unless they were captured alive which is not necessary in combat. Why is this different?

I could agree that if Awlaki was killed because he was wanted by the FBI for September 11 attacks or supporting terror then his Constitutional Rights would have been violated. However, he was killed because he was an active member in a paramilitary organization continuing to conduct attacks against the United States. That makes him an enemy combatant, same as if it was WWII. If he had been captured then his rights would apply for anything he was wanted for as well as charges of treason.

I have a great deal of confidence that Obama had very little to do with this if anything at all. The decision to kill a high value individual is usually a "bottom-up" driven thing, not a "top-down", meaning that the task force tracking Awlaki and his boys probably said "hey, we know right where he's at, can we target him?" The approval is usually not too far above that level; a field commander or maybe even someone sitting in Washington. The only thing that suggests this may have made it to the Executive level is the fact Awlaki is so high profile, but if he was "Joe Schmuck" terrorist from Oregon who decided to go to Yemen and get his Jihad on, chances are the approval would have been made at the lower levels.

Disregarding the hypothetical. If you watch the Ron Paul video, he explains much better the differences you are asking about.

We are not in a declared war with Yemen. This actually matters. We must allow ALL US citizens the right to due process. Not for Awlaki, but for you, I and every other Citizen.

It is our responsibility to keep the government in line and make sure that it follow the rules spelled out in the Constitution.

There is nothing to stop this from evolving to US Citizens anywhere in the world.

They could have done a rendition if they knew where he was or they could declare a war on Yemen, if need be. They didn't. Instead they unilaterally decided to use a drone and missiles to kill a US Citizen, without due process afforded under the Constitution.

This is a simple thing. If they have satisfied Treason under the constitution, then prove it.

If the Constitution was not "visionary" enough, amend it. But let us not allow it to be disregarded as one would used toilet paper.

[daddyo]

I can understand how this looks in terms of rules of engagement for law enforcement; you can't just shoot somebody who isn't posing a current threat no matter what he does. He could kill 30 kids and just be walking down the street unarmed, but you can't kill him. That is denying him due process and violating his rights. As much as I would want to see him shot, this is the country we live in and the Constitution we live by.

Now, rules of war are different. We kill people all the time that aren't actively doing anything. The only reason the ROE may be restrictive in certain places/times is because of the restrictions the chain of command put on their subordinates, but according to the rules of war there is a lot we can do. For example, let's say there is someone we know is a bad guy. There is multiple source reporting to that effect. You don't have to ask him to surrender. You can just sit across the street on top of a house and shoot him in the face as he goes out for his morning stroll, or drop a $100,000 hellfire on him. Depends on how much you want to spend on it. Souce reporting likely confirmed his status the paramilitary organization to which he was a member, and therefore he was killed. Doesn't matter if he was carrying an RPG or taking a crap.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand how this can be interpreted as a violation of the Constitution, but he went over to the other side which makes him the enemy, no longer having Constitutional Rights unless taken alive... glad he wasn't. Now you're gonna demand proof of his membership in a paramilitary organization at war with us. Understood, but that's not how it works in military matters.

Based on what I said above, now the implication is that this is something that can be abused. I would agree, it could be. However, so long as no upstanding citizen finds themselves in very bad places with very bad people, the CIA/Military probably won't drop a hellfire on you.

But we haven't officially declared war on anyone since 1942.

[sigmtnman]

Agreed! Some people think that we still live in the time of 1812 codes of conduct for rules of war.

If the Founders were not "visionary" enough, their exists a mechanism for amending the Constitution to handle such situations.

[E4 No More]

He was riding in a truck.

What does this have to do with constitutional rights? The "loved one" scenario doesn't change anything.

I disagree. I think your opinion would change dramatically.

[daddyo]

I disagree. I think your opinion would change dramatically.

Sorry, but your opinion or my opinion has no bearing on constitutional law. Neither do feelings.

Besides, you don't know me well enough to make that kind of assessment.

[sigmtnman]

It is understandable that this can be a very emotional topic. We can not however let our emotions cause us to disregard our duty to uphold the Constitution.

I would not want someone who allegedly killed one of my family members to be railroaded without due process. Due process would be what convinced me that the correct party was punished. Then and only then would I possibly, perhaps, maybe be able to move on.

It's about evidence and not relying on mere allegations.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I believe that he was engaged in the act of seriously harming another citizen(s), and whether directly or indirectly it matters not to me.

I'm wondering if ya'll would still hold to this belief if one of your loved ones was killed while the US waited to expedite this fellow into the country for a trial? I would imagine not.

That was pretty much the standard until this killing took place. I'm sure loved ones wanted

someone dead in your scenario, but until now it wasn't the case.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Based on what I said above, now the implication is that this is something that can be abused. I would agree, it could be. However, so long as no upstanding citizen finds themselves in very bad places with very bad people, the CIA/Military probably won't drop a hellfire on you.

Yeh, and it can keep on making little itty bitty leaps until you or I could get killed for

next to nothing, instead of the trial process. The baby just went out with the bath

water. Very little justice here.

[G27]

I disagree. I think your opinion would change dramatically.

I might be vengeful, but that wouldn't change what we're discussing.

When you resort to 'it's for the children' emotional pleas, that should tell you something...

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Officially we have not declared war since World War II, but we have fought in Wars since them. Just looking at the Cold War against Russia and the Assassinations that took place during that even as recent as the 1980's which under the Constitution there was nothing wrong with it. Under the umbrella of the Global War on Terrorism (which was a NATO Initiative therefore there was no need for the US to "Declare War"), we still participated in Wars, but you are right declaring war must be against a country therefore Iraq and Afghanistan does not qualify since the war in their country was not a war waged against their country.

However back on topic, it is unconstitutional to Kill an American without Due process......UNLESS he is a direct threat to the security of this country. I know that isn't in the Constitution, but it permitted by our government. Due to classifications you will never hear their justifications of the evidence in which the determination was founded, and I don't agree with this process, but it is a process none the less that exists. I once believed that we should be able to trust people in this country has elected into the positions that they are in to do the right thing. I also believe that classifications exist for a legitimate reason (and fully support America not needing to be informed of everything) , but the process which our government should not be classified. If they are willing to take away people's rights then they should be prepared to justify taking away those rights in a legally binding document. We have one that most people ignore which would probably be a great place for that.....it's called the Constitution! Make an Amendment letting the people know that the government can revoke their constitutional rights if the support terrorist organizations.

The Due-Process-Free Assassination of US Citizens is Now Reality | Common Dreams

[TMF]

Officially we have not declared war since World War II, but we have fought in Wars since them. Just looking at the Cold War against Russia and the Assassinations that took place during that even as recent as the 1980's which under the Constitution there was nothing wrong with it. Under the umbrella of the Global War on Terrorism (which was a NATO Initiative therefore there was no need for the US to "Declare War"), we still participated in Wars, but you are right declaring war must be against a country therefore Iraq and Afghanistan does not qualify since the war in their country was not a war waged against their country.

However back on topic, it is unconstitutional to Kill an American without Due process......UNLESS he is a direct threat to the security of this country. I know that isn't in the Constitution, but it permitted by our government. Due to classifications you will never hear their justifications of the evidence in which the determination was founded, and I don't agree with this process, but it is a process none the less that exists. I once believed that we should be able to trust people in this country has elected into the positions that they are in to do the right thing. I also believe that classifications exist for a legitimate reason (and fully support America not needing to be informed of everything) , but the process which our government should not be classified. If they are willing to take away people's rights then they should be prepared to justify taking away those rights in a legally binding document. We have one that most people ignore which would probably be a great place for that.....it's called the Constitution! Make an Amendment letting the people know that the government can revoke their constitutional rights if the support terrorist organizations.

The Due-Process-Free Assassination of US Citizens is Now Reality | Common Dreams

See, this is what I'm talking about, we can agree that the Constitution should be upheld. Here is a situation where it doesn't apply due to his status in a FOREIGN MILITARY. If we want to make exceptions for American Citizens then that is something that needs to be addressed by legislation. However, for now we don't have that. If we want that, call your congressman.

And once again, this isn't about justice. This is about war. There isn't justice in war; just an exchange of killing. There was no justice served by killing him, just another dead enemy soldier. Justice comes when there is an attempt to detain and convict someone suspected of a crime. There was none of that here. It was simply identifying someone at war with the US and killing them because they met a certain criteria to justify spending the money on the resources used for killing them. May he rest in pieces.

[mikegideon]

May he rest in pieces.

AMEN

[Guest adamoxtwo]

See, this is what I'm talking about, we can agree that the Constitution should be upheld. Here is a situation where it doesn't apply due to his status in a FOREIGN MILITARY. If we want to make exceptions for American Citizens then that is something that needs to be addressed by legislation. However, for now we don't have that. If we want that, call your congressman.

And once again, this isn't about justice. This is about war. There isn't justice in war; just an exchange of killing. There was no justice served by killing him, just another dead enemy soldier. Justice comes when there is an attempt to detain and convict someone suspected of a crime. There was none of that here. It was simply identifying someone at war with the US and killing them because they met a certain criteria to justify spending the money on the resources used for killing them. May he rest in pieces.

Kinda. See he was the main recruiter for AQ in the US. Granted it was mostly on the internet. Killing him puts a hamper on their recruitments. And weakens their infastructure.

[sigmtnman]

With all of the evidence they allegedly have, there should be no problem doing a rendition and giving him a trial.

We are not at war with Yemen, so unless there is satisfaction for the requirements of treason, bombing a US citizen violates the Constitution.

It is not just a piece of paper to ignore when it is convenient. It is what restricts the government and every violation gives them precedence for future violation. Folks will just use the argument that it has been done before, so so what.

If we are at war with all of those countries then Congress needs to declare it and we need to glass them all.

The war we are losing is being fought against our Constitution.

[sigmtnman]

Kinda. See he was the main recruiter for AQ in the US. Granted it was mostly on the internet. Killing him puts a hamper on their recruitments. And weakens their infastructure.

You mean everything we read on the Interwebs is true? I've seen video of David Copperfield making a jet disappear. How do we know this was not all performed by http://www.scl.cc/? Without evidence we will never know. Not saying this is fact, but manupulation of news is the sort of thing SCL does. Al-Jazzera fakes stuff all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwOV8zVRczM

[sigmtnman]

And once again, this isn't about justice. This is about war. There isn't justice in war; just an exchange of killing. There was no justice served by killing him, just another dead enemy soldier. Justice comes when there is an attempt to detain and convict someone suspected of a crime. There was none of that here. It was simply identifying someone at war with the US and killing them because they met a certain criteria to justify spending the money on the resources used for killing them. May he rest in pieces.

With no defined enemy, battlefield or end, this will turn out like the War on drugs, the War on poverty or any other War on NOUN. If we are at war with all those countries that house alqueda (which seems to be anyone the gov says), then lets declare the SOB and get er done once and for all. This crap has drug out now for 10 years. How much longer will it be?

When will the war spill onto our soil to take out the folks DHS is making out to be terrorists? You know, the veterans and white middle class Americans?

[TMF]

With all of the evidence they allegedly have, there should be no problem doing a rendition and giving him a trial.

We are not at war with Yemen, so unless there is satisfaction for the requirements of treason, bombing a US citizen violates the Constitution.

It is not just a piece of paper to ignore when it is convenient. It is what restricts the government and every violation gives them precedence for future violation. Folks will just use the argument that it has been done before, so so what.

If we are at war with all of those countries then Congress needs to declare it and we need to glass them all.

The war we are losing is being fought against our Constitution.

So do we have to declare war in order for our military to kill enemies?

If not, why would we delineate between militaries that belong to a central government and ones that don't?

His membership in a paramilitary organization which has declared war on the US is no different than if an American Citizen had joined the German military during WWII. We wouldn't stop a bombing because one of the enemy on the ground happens to be an American Citizen. He would be just as legitimate of a target as Hitler himself. The only time that his citizenship would count would be if he was captured by US forces.

[sigmtnman]

So do we have to declare war in order for our military to kill enemies?

If not, why would we delineate between militaries that belong to a central government and ones that don't?

His membership in a paramilitary organization which has declared war on the US is no different than if an American Citizen had joined the German military during WWII. We wouldn't stop a bombing because one of the enemy on the ground happens to be an American Citizen. He would be just as legitimate of a target as Hitler himself. The only time that his citizenship would count would be if he was captured by US forces.

If we are not under immediate attack, then yes. They delineate to get the public to go along with it. The war on terror, is the largest industry in America. It is a money maker too, plain and simple.

Hitler would have stood trial, just like the majority of other high value targets. The hague ring a bell? Isreal did so with Adolf Eichmann.

Some guys in a truck, in a country we are not at war with? They must have some long range missiles to get us from there.

Assuming this guy is who the .gov says, how do we even know it was really him in the truck? Why not rendition him and make sure? Heck for all we know it was another bearded camel jockey who looked like him.