How One Piece of Paper Destroyed Your Right to a Trial

[Fern]

This conversation will never go anywhere. It didn't in June when the memo was quietly released and it won't now. Somehow all of the people that used to get offended when citizens didn't get trials have rationalized why they were not necessary this time. It's odd that in more than 200 years no president has ever claimed this power and it's the democrats and not the warmongering constitution hating republicans who finally do.
-snip-

As much as it pains me to come to the defense of the Democrats I feel I must.

US Presidents have long claimed the authority to assassinate people if they were a danger to us or it was in our interest. For this reason laws were passed to curtail the practice. I.e., it was being done previously:

Proscription on assassination

Part 2.11 of this executive order reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies sponsoring or carrying out an assassination. It reads:[5]

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Previously, EO 11905 (Gerald Ford) had banned political assassinations and EO 12036 (Jimmy Carter) had further banned indirect U.S. involvement in assassinations.[6] As early as 1998, this proscription against assassination was reinterpreted, and relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United States as connected to terrorism.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

But I think more to the point is the fact that terrorism has changed the game. It is not fought, nor does it exist, in the clear cut manner that previous foes did. E.g., if an American had joined the Nazi's and was found on their side of the combat zone in a Nazi uniform nobody would've uttered a peep if he were summarily shot on sight.

Now in large part the democrats are responsible for this whole 'innocent before guilty and drag 'em back here and try 'em' stuff because they argued so incessantly that terrorism was a civilian crime matter and not war. Now Obama finds treating it as a war matter is much more convenient and the hypocrisy is biting him in the azz.

Fern

 

[Knowing]

US Presidents have long claimed the authority to assassinate people if they were a danger to us or it was in our interest. For this reason laws were passed to curtail the practice.

I'm quite familiar with EO12333. I also don't suffer from naivety about the nature of the CIA. I'm offended because I'm supposed to be. That's the game. They're supposed to pretend that they don't do it and I'm supposed to pretend that I believe them. When the president openly admits that he has a kill list and that citizens are on it I am obligated to be offended because if I am not then I must accept that I condone the behavior.

What ever happened to the nameless and faceless ringleader of the Abu Ghraib offenses? Who is upset about the current administration retaining the old and bad policy of extraordinary rendition to countries known to torture? Why is the terrorist that was allegedly targeted in the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki still alive? If he was such a high value target that a kid that could look like Obama's son was just an oopsie, then how is he still alive? I'm pretty concerned that we're killing citizens on purpose and on accident while missing the people that we can allegedly surgically strike.

These things would be unconscionable in 2007, but here we are a term and a half later in a thread that probably won't go more than 4 pages talking about killing citizens without trials as if it's mundane and excusable.

 

[DrPizza]

Last I heard, as a US citizen we are innocent until proven guilty.

We have a right to see the evidence against us.

We have a right to question witnesses.

We have a right to present our own evidence.

If Anwar al-Awlaki can have those rights stripped from him, then so can you and I.

Tell you what. You own a gun. How about tomorrow, you grab one of your guns and run toward some police officers, waving your gun in the air and hollering that you're going to shoot them. Let's see if you get to see the evidence against you. Let's see if you have a right to question witnesses. Let's see if you have a right to present your own evidence. In those circumstance, I think you'd have the right to push up daisies.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Tell you what. You own a gun. How about tomorrow, you grab one of your guns and run toward some police officers, waving your gun in the air and hollering that you're going to shoot them. Let's see if you get to see the evidence against you. Let's see if you have a right to question witnesses. Let's see if you have a right to present your own evidence. In those circumstance, I think you'd have the right to push up daisies.

And al-Awlaki's son?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

 

[ivwshane]

And al-Awlaki's son?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

War is a bitch! And she doesn't take sides when people die, even the "innocent".


A lot of shit this country does in the name of national security or in the war against terror, needs some serious oversight. Getting upset about this and not everything else is just as bad as anything, those behind the curtain will use whatever tool or loophole to acheive their goals.
Don't be against this one issue, be against them all.

The problem I've found is finding a politician that shares my views. Obama doesn't, Clinton doesn't, Romney, McCain, didn't. Ron Paul did but the rest of his ideas were pure shit.

 

[Texashiker]

Tell you what. You own a gun. How about tomorrow, you grab one of your guns and run toward some police officers, waving your gun in the air and hollering that you're going to shoot them.

That is an immediate and credible threat.

The obama administration labeling someone a terrorist, refused to release evidence, refused to allow a defense, then executing that person is not how our justice system is supposed to work.

How was al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, also a US citizen, an immediate threat? He wasn't.

War is a bitch!

War is no excuse for crimes against humanity.

 

[ivwshane]

That is an immediate and credible threat.

The obama administration labeling someone a terrorist, refused to release evidence, refused to allow a defense, then executing that person is not how our justice system is supposed to work.

How was al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, also a US citizen, an immediate threat? He wasn't.




War is no excuse for crimes against humanity.

On the contrary, war is the excuse given time and time again. It's why we used "enhanced interrogation techniques". It's why we used extraordinary rendition. It's what used as justification for spying on our citizens. It's was our justification for invading Iraq. It's why we have to go through a ton of crap just to fly.

Welcome to 2002, I'm glad you finally decided to join the rest of us.

 

[DigDog]

In 2011, the White House ordered the drone-killing of American citizen ..

Not an american citizen.

Problem solved.

 

[Texashiker]

Not an american citizen.

Problem solved.

Man oh man, the similarities between this thread and nazi propaganda are sickening.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human

During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.

Not a US citizen, so just kill him.

Jews are rats, so just kill them.

Blacks are sub-humans, so we can use them as slaves.

Enough is enough.

Every person, regardless of whatever reason is brought up, is entitled to a fair trial. The only exception is if that person poses an immediate and credible threat.

Period, end of story.

 

[werepossum]

As much as it pains me to come to the defense of the Democrats I feel I must.

US Presidents have long claimed the authority to assassinate people if they were a danger to us or it was in our interest. For this reason laws were passed to curtail the practice. I.e., it was being done previously:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

But I think more to the point is the fact that terrorism has changed the game. It is not fought, nor does it exist, in the clear cut manner that previous foes did. E.g., if an American had joined the Nazi's and was found on their side of the combat zone in a Nazi uniform nobody would've uttered a peep if he were summarily shot on sight.

Now in large part the democrats are responsible for this whole 'innocent before guilty and drag 'em back here and try 'em' stuff because they argued so incessantly that terrorism was a civilian crime matter and not war. Now Obama finds treating it as a war matter is much more convenient and the hypocrisy is biting him in the azz.

Fern

Well said.

I've never understood why people believe it's acceptable to kill foreigners but not Americans doing the exact same thing beside them. Seems to me that we can do one of four things here. Either we proceed as we are, or we invade ostensibly neutral countries to neutralize threats by seizing them and trying them, or we clandestinely kidnap and extradite threats in ostensibly neutral countries for trial here, or we give up and accept that terrorists should be allowed a fair chance to kill us without us fighting back until they are actually here. The middle two choices also involve illegal activities as well as putting even more Americans at risk and undoubtedly would ultimately kill even more innocents.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Not an american citizen.

Problem solved.

born Anwar bin Nasser bin Abdulla al-Aulaqi
April 21, 1971[1][2] (UPI gives April 22)
Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S.

His son

Was an American citizen now dead

 

[thraashman]

How was al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, also a US citizen, an immediate threat? He wasn't.

He also wasn't the target. Ibrahim Muhammad Salih al-Banna was. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was collateral damage in that. Now if you want to talk about collateral damage as a result of drone strikes, that is a different conversation. Assuming you're finally ready to have a valid conversation not dominated by your proving of Godwin's law.

 

[thraashman]

Well said.

I've never understood why people believe it's acceptable to kill foreigners but not Americans doing the exact same thing beside them. Seems to me that we can do one of four things here. Either we proceed as we are, or we invade ostensibly neutral countries to neutralize threats by seizing them and trying them, or we clandestinely kidnap and extradite threats in ostensibly neutral countries for trial here, or we give up and accept that terrorists should be allowed a fair chance to kill us without us fighting back until they are actually here. The middle two choices also involve illegal activities as well as putting even more Americans at risk and undoubtedly would ultimately kill even more innocents.

This has been pretty much exactly my argument. All options suck, we just try to go with the one that sucks the least.

 

[Texashiker]

He also wasn't the target. Ibrahim Muhammad Salih al-Banna was. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was collateral damage in that.

Not only is our government killing our own citizens without due process, innocent non-combatants are also being killed?

Didn't the nazis catch a lot of flack for killing innocents? But our government is excused?

 

[ivwshane]

Not only is our government killing our own citizens without due process, innocent non-combatants are also being killed?

Didn't the nazis catch a lot of flack for killing innocents? But our government is excused?

What part of war do you not understand?

I certainly don't see you praising Obama when he does things that don't require military force, I certainly don't see you calling out the war hawk politicians for their ideas.

 

[werepossum]

This has been pretty much exactly my argument. All options suck, we just try to go with the one that sucks the least.

Yep. Thus is war, and terrorism even more so.

 

[MongGrel]

Not bothering.

 

[Knowing]

Not an american citizen.

Problem solved.

http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect.

The drone memo as well as AG Holder's opinion states that "due process" isn't necessarily "judicial" process which is an enormous departure from 200 years of jurisprudence. These questions were resolved until it became convenient to kill citizens with robots.

I find it very interesting that undocumented immigrants don't become illegal immigrants until they've seen a judge, but alleged terrorists don't even get a trial in absentia. This whole situation is deeply concerning.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...aws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html



Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect.

The drone memo as well as AG Holder's opinion states that "due process" isn't necessarily "judicial" process which is an enormous departure from 200 years of jurisprudence. These questions were resolved until it became convenient to kill citizens with robots.

I find it very interesting that undocumented immigrants don't become illegal immigrants until they've seen a judge, but alleged terrorists don't even get a trial in absentia. This whole situation is deeply concerning.

There are other ways a person can lose their citizenship.

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

Causes of Citizenship Loss
U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7. Conviction for an act of treason.

Being a part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the US could very well meet the definition.

 

[thraashman]

Not only is our government killing our own citizens without due process, innocent non-combatants are also being killed?

Didn't the nazis catch a lot of flack for killing innocents? But our government is excused?

So you're telling me you're not ready to have a valid and intelligent argument. Don't know why I bothered.

 

[Knowing]

There are other ways a person can lose their citizenship.

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of_citizenship.html

Being a part of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the US could very well meet the definition.

Except that terrorists aren't uniformed forces. This is why they're detained indefinitely at GITMO. We could save a lot of time, money, and bitching if we could just slaughter everyone at GITMO.

Edit:
However, if they did revoke his citizenship then that would have been a simple explanation that didn't require the "drone memo" or Holders made up excuses. It still wouldn't have explained Abdulrahman, but at least there'd be... 2 less notches on Obama's citizens belt.