Obama administration considering killing another US citizen without due process

[Victorian Gray]

Answers:

Terrorists etc.

Right after 9/11

Yes, it (the AUMF) was passed by Congress.

Fern

That is not a declaration of war.

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another."

 

[Fern]

That is not a declaration of war.

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another."

Yes, for all intents and purposes it is.

The SCOTUS has said so etc. (The most recent SCOTUS case is mentioned below.)

Here are some comments from Joe Biden's who drafted the AUMF:

A more recent case which touched on this issue was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, decided in 2006. There, the plurality opinion noted that their conclusions as to the rights and duties of the parties (i.e. terrorists and the U.S. government) did not rely on whether a formal declaration of war was issued. It was enough that a state of war existed to trigger the safeguards of law.

Second, let’s see what Congress has had to say about it, or rather one Congressman in particular. Senator Joe Biden, responding to questions from reporters shortly after voting for the AUMF 2001 said:


M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)

JB: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

I've posted in threads on this before. Most legal/academic papers are too long to bother with here. Basically the USA has a long history of using AUMF's, I believe more than 'declarations of war'.

There are some minor differences IIRC that have to do rate of pay in war zones etc. and such details.

Just google/research difference between AUMF and declaration of war.

Fern

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes, for all intents and purposes it is.

The SCOTUS has said so etc. (The most recent SCOTUS case is mentioned below.)

Here are some comments from Joe Biden's who drafted the AUMF:



I've posted in threads on this before. Most legal/academic papers are too long to bother with here. Basically the USA has a long history of using AUMF's, I believe more than 'declarations of war'.

There are some minor differences IIRC that have to do rate of pay in war zones etc. and such details.

Just google/research difference between AUMF and declaration of war.

Fern

Hey, it's your constitution, not mine. If you don't care that it's getting 'bent' for political reasons that's for you to deal with.

I'll just use that old Ben Franklin quote again:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
(11 Nov. 1755)

 

[kage69]

Thank you for adding such an informative and we'll thought out post.

Mea culpa.

Every now and then you see someone say something that makes you realize, holy shit, this guy has no idea what he is talking about. But it turns out this thread isn't for educating you on what makes cruise missiles and drones so great, or the limitations/considerations involved for sending in SF. They call that a derail.

 

[zinfamous]

Who is the United States at war with and when was the official declaration of war made, as authorized by Congress?

We are at war against "terror." Didn't you get the memo?

 

[SheHateMe]

So I, am American, am trying to kill your wife. You're going to stand by and watch?

I don't know, are you Al-Qaeda? If not, I'm calling the cops!

 

[Jhhnn]

Its called our rights and they are very important to us.

The government does not get to decide on its own whether or not to kill a US citizen. If someone is coming at me with a knife or has a gun pointed at me, I have the right to defend myself. The government has no rights. Matter of fact, the Constitution is there to tell the government what it can't do. And judging someone on its own is something that it is specifically not allowed to do.

Its more than a piece of paper folks.

As I offered before, is this War, or Peace? If it's War, the govt has the right to attack any known member of the enemy, regardless of their citizenship, so long as that person does not surrender. If it's peace, then the rules of domestic & international police action apply, which are quite different.

That's the basic choice of premise underlying all such issues. Pick one or the other rather than which one lets you attack Obama ATM.

 

[Incorruptible]

Not surprised at all from this moron. He has killed US citizens before including the teenage son of awlaki. Also it's not up to this scumbag to decide if he is a terrorist, where is the evidence. It's also not surprising liberals don't call him out.

 

[marincounty]

Hell yes I would go. In a heartbeat. But I don't think I would have the qualifications.

Has the supreme court ruled on this? Isn't this the kind.of thing they are supposed to decide and not a bunch of basement dwellers on the internet?

If this is what needs to be done then so be it. But it can't be just for the president to decide. That is too much power for one man.

This whole situation just sucks.

Remember, he's the decider-in the immortal words of GWB.

Let's invade another country and have a trillion dollar war and lose thousands of precious American lives in order to bring one man who threatened his daddy to justice.
Or we can take out some asshole with a drone strike.
See the difference?

 

[kage69]

Hey, it's your constitution, not mine. If you don't care that it's getting 'bent' for political reasons that's for you to deal with.

I'll just use that old Ben Franklin quote again:

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
(11 Nov. 1755)

Oh, well we're talking about different things then.

Putting a permanent end to an individual has a corresponding effect to that individual's activities. When removal of AQ occurs faster than replenishment, the result is actually quite non temporary.

 

[rudeguy]

As I offered before, is this War, or Peace? If it's War, the govt has the right to attack any known member of the enemy, regardless of their citizenship, so long as that person does not surrender. If it's peace, then the rules of domestic & international police action apply, which are quite different.

That's the basic choice of premise underlying all such issues. Pick one or the other rather than which one lets you attack Obama ATM.

I'm not attacking Obama. I, like lost of us, am trying to figure out the answer to your question. Is it war? Is it criminal? Is it both? I really want to say it's war and to send the guy a special delivery. But...but I can't say I agree with ant president getting to decide if a citizen lives or dies. That is way too close to the tyranny we fought so hard to escape.

I am a patriot. I love our country and our constitution. But how do you decide which is more important?

 

[rudeguy]

Remember, he's the decider-in the immortal words of GWB.

Let's invade another country and have a trillion dollar war and lose thousands of precious American lives in order to bring one man who threatened his daddy to justice.
Or we can take out some asshole with a drone strike.
See the difference?

I do see the difference. If this idiot wasn't a citizen then I'd be all for it.

Has he declared war on the US? Like actually said those words?

 

[LunarRay]

If one should don the uniform of the enemy they are the enemy. Al Qaeda is the enemy in this war on Terrorism.

In an exigent circumstance the Process Due to an individual is conditional on their presenting themselves in a manner which makes providing Rights a reasonable process.


The world wide activity of Al Qaeda makes being proximate to them or in some way linked to their activity a problematic endeavor for the individual enjoying that adventure.


Bottom line: Claim to be Al Qaeda is tantamount to requesting an early visit to Allah.

 

[Victorian Gray]

We are at war against "terror." Didn't you get the memo?

Given the cost (and I'm not talking financial) of that 'war on terror' I'm not sure what's all that funny about it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Oh, well we're talking about different things then.

Putting a permanent end to an individual has a corresponding effect to that individual's activities. When removal of AQ occurs faster than replenishment, the result is actually quite non temporary.

Again, it's *your* constitution and if you don't care that your 'leaders' are folding, bending and mutilating that constitution that *you* depend on to help defend *your* rights, then who else will when some idiot decides that *you* are the 'enemy'.

 

[Nintendesert]

Psh. The US government would never declare me an enemy. As long as I'm not hispanic, Native American, Black, Arab, Japanese, Irish...

 

[LunarRay]

Again, it's *your* constitution and if you don't care that your 'leaders' are folding, bending and mutilating that constitution that *you* depend on to help defend *your* rights, then who else will when some idiot decides that *you* are the 'enemy'.

Well... it seems Al Qaeda did that on a number of occasions. This activity is the response to their declarations of fatwa on just about all but their like minded adherents.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Quote: Originally Posted by Victorian Gray View Post Again, it's *your* constitution and if you don't care that your 'leaders' are folding, bending and mutilating that constitution that *you* depend on to help defend *your* rights, then who else will when some idiot decides that *you* are the 'enemy'.


Well... it seems Al Qaeda did that on a number of occasions. This activity is the response to their declarations of fatwa on just about all but their like minded adherents.

Sorry, I fail to see what the above statement has to do with the breaking of the American Constitution by the American govt. Other than, of course, being used by the American govt. as an excuse for the extrajudicial execution of American citizens.

 

[LunarRay]

Sorry, I fail to see what the above statement has to do with the breaking of the American Constitution by the American govt. Other than, of course, being used by the American govt. as an excuse for the extrajudicial execution of American citizens.

Well.... consider a situation where a citizen is violating the rights of another citizen and the police happen by and in the course of trying to end that situation the violator is terminated. That is not extrajudicial nor is dropping a bomb on a citizen conspiring to thwart the rights of other citizens or by treaty those citizens we are obligated to defend against terrorism.

Our Constitution gives power to the branches of Government to determine laws... Unless or until the SCOTUS determines a law or action is contra to the Constitution, actions taken are well within the authority granted by the Constitution.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well.... consider a situation where a citizen is violating the rights of another citizen and the police happen by and in the course of trying to end that situation the violator is terminated. That is not extrajudicial nor is dropping a bomb on a citizen conspiring to thwart the rights of other citizens or by treaty those citizens we are obligated to defend against terrorism.

The police are not allowed to summarily execute people that are alleged to have committed a crime. Neither is the federal govt.

I repeat:

Amendment VI

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 defense.

Our Constitution gives power to the branches of Government to determine laws... Unless or until the SCOTUS determines a law or action is contra to the Constitution, actions taken are well within the authority granted by the Constitution.

Hey, if you wish to defend a govt. that believes it has the right to kill American citizens without a trial, feel 'free'.

When that same govt. decides it wants to do the same to you? Who ya gonna call and why would anyone bother to care? You obviously don't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well.... consider a situation where a citizen is violating the rights of another citizen and the police happen by and in the course of trying to end that situation the violator is terminated. That is not extrajudicial nor is dropping a bomb on a citizen conspiring to thwart the rights of other citizens or by treaty those citizens we are obligated to defend against terrorism.

Our Constitution gives power to the branches of Government to determine laws... Unless or until the SCOTUS determines a law or action is contra to the Constitution, actions taken are well within the authority granted by the Constitution.

It seems to me that the President of the United States is in charge of the defense of the country and has to power as the Commander and Chief to order the military into action in it's defense. I don't think even the Supreme Court would have any power to prevent his use of the military in national defense. That is his Constitutionally sworn job. I suspect only impeachment could reign the President in and that he might even override them with a declaration of marshal law. But what do I know.

 

[Moonbeam]

The police are not allowed to summarily execute people that are alleged to have committed a crime. Neither is the federal govt.

I repeat:

Amendment VI

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 defense.






Hey, if you wish to defend a govt. that believes it has the right to kill American citizens without a trial, feel 'free'.

When that same govt. decides it wants to do the same to you? Who ya gonna call and why would anyone bother to care? You obviously don't.

Dear Mr. President, we have a situation. There's a guy in a bunker is Somalia with his hand on a button that will release a virus Al Quaeda has invented that will kill 98% of the population of the planet, but we can't do anything about it because the guy is an American citizen. If we vaporize his location we can save the world, but it's against the Constitution, and all those soon to be dead Americans will worry that if we kill the citizen we will soon be after them. I recommend, Sir, that we let them die of stupidity. We can't have them thinking bad thoughts about you and that you might abuse your power. I mean, after all, isn't that what all American Presidents do, grab the ring of power?

The rights of citizenship end when you will not allow yourself to face trial and threaten your own people. You can't let your principles screw you in the ass. If they do there is something wrong with them. No normal person is going to let his fellow citizens be slaughtered over an abstract technicality, no matter how essential and important it may be in ordinary circumstances.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Nice to see that conservatives now support Al-Qaida over their own president. That takes a lot of class.

I think he supports the constitution

 

[Victorian Gray]

The rights of citizenship end when you will not allow yourself to face trial and threaten your own people. You can't let your principles screw you in the ass. If they do there is something wrong with them. No normal person is going to let his fellow citizens be slaughtered over an abstract technicality, no matter how essential and important it may be in ordinary circumstances.

And just what threat was Awlaki's 16 year old son and his 17 year old cousin that was considered dangerous enough to the United States to execute them with a drone? You don't know, the American govt. won't tell you. In fact they initially lied about the kid even to the point of adding 5 years to his age when pressed on the matter.

Hell, we can't even find out the specifics of why Awlaki himself was executed as the govt. refuses to give them. The govt. will not even release the principles that supposedly guide these kinds of decisions.

To repeat the statement that you replied to:

Hey, if you wish to defend a govt. that believes it has the right to kill American citizens without a trial, feel 'free'.

When that same govt. decides it wants to do the same to you? Who ya gonna call and why would anyone bother to care? You obviously don't.

 

[zinfamous]

Given the cost (and I'm not talking financial) of that 'war on terror' I'm not sure what's all that funny about it.

shouldn't you be eating some poutine and crying into your Labatt's somewhere?

ffs, everyone's a critic.