Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

[sbr]

Sarcasm, have you heard of it? Also homosexuals are a minority.

OK, you're a Double Minority with Cheese.

I wish I had cheese.

Smells like socialism.

Not really. If you fools would be suckered enough to give it to me, I'd take it.

That would make you a fraudster.

[The Minsky Moment]

Legal beagles (by which I mean Minsky), can you explain to me why it matters that this is about "American citizens?"  The US Constitution forbids the government from depriving "any person" of life without due process.  The "American citizen" distinction doesn't make sense from this perspective.  Is there another statute or court decision that applies here stating that American citizens have protections from lethal US government actions that non-citizens don't have?

Ima bump this because I really am curious.

Saw this when originally posted but just didn't have the time to write a proper response.

Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.

One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance.  That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.

But the bigger and hairier gorilla in the room is the question of how the Constitution applies extra-territorially.  The most obvious way to answer that question IMO is that it shouldn't really matter - because the Constitution sets rules that dictate how the US government can or cannot act, those rules are universal and apply no matter where physically in the world those actions are exerted.  But the courts have often taken quite a different view and so the US government or its agents can do things abroad (like searches or arrests) they couldn't do within US territorial limits.  In this view of the world, citizenship can matter quite a bit because the body of a US citizen overseas can function as a physical manifestation of US territoriality in an extra-territorial sea.

[Martinus]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

[Tamas]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

[Eddie Teach]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

That's not illogical at all. You just have to accept the premise that black folk are subhuman.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

That's not illogical at all. You just have to accept the premise that black folk are subhuman.

Considering the Constitution had already specified that at the time.  3/5ths and all that.

[Valmy]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

That's not illogical at all. You just have to accept the premise that black folk are subhuman.

Considering the Constitution had already specified that at the time.  3/5ths and all that.

The Constitution said nothing of the sort.  It said slave owners get 3/5ths more representation in Congress for every person they own.  I am not sure why giving the slave owners more power to dominate the country would have meant black folk were more human.  Besides free blacks were not considered 3/5ths only 'people in bondage'.

[CountDeMoney]

The Constitution said nothing of the sort.  It said slave owners get 3/5ths more representation in Congress for every person they own.  I am not sure why giving the slave owners more power to dominate the country would have meant black folk were more human.  Besides free blacks were not considered 3/5ths only 'people in bondage'.

Bigger picture here, not the small print. 

[Valmy]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

Please show me the part in the Bill of Rights that was/is anti-slavery.  It simply says what laws the government cannot pass.  So I do not see where the reconciliation was needed or where you find coherence issues.  If the Bill of Rights could have been interpreted as anti-slavery they would not have needed an Amendment to end slavery and it certainly would never have passed in the first place.  Have you even read it or have any idea what is in it?

[CountDeMoney]

Stop defending slavery with your forked lawyerly tongue, you cad.

[dps]

Well, this may sound illogical, but then again, you guys managed to reconcile slavery with the Bill of Rights for nearly 100 years, so it's not like you are big on being coherent.

Please show me the part in the Bill of Rights that was/is anti-slavery.  It simply says what laws the government cannot pass.  So I do not see where the reconciliation was needed or where you find coherence issues.  If the Bill of Rights could have been interpreted as anti-slavery they would not have needed an Amendment to end slavery and it certainly would never have passed in the first place.  Have you even read it or have any idea what is in it?

Yeah, the Bill of Rights restricts government action, not action by private individuals. 

[Admiral Yi]

I assume he's confusing the preamble to the Declaration w/ the Bill of Rights.

[ulmont]

Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.

One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance.  That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.

In particular, the degree of "due" process in the context, of a war seems rather low.  Certainly, not a lot of individualized determinations were made during Korea or Vietnam before depriving persons of life.

[grumbler]

Saw this when originally posted but just didn't have the time to write a proper response.

Short answer is that I think your reading is sound, but that isn't always how the courts view it.
Process is due to "persons" not citizens so a straight textual reading suggests that citizenship shouldn't matter. The Constitution by its plain meaning restricts the ways in which the government can act with respect to any "person" to deprive life, liberty or property, regardless of citizenship.

One possible counter is to contend that the degree of process that is due in a particular situation depends on circumstances, and citizenship status in one relevant circumstance.  That could explain why the government does things to non-citizen immigrants it doesn't and wouldn't do it citizens.

But the bigger and hairier gorilla in the room is the question of how the Constitution applies extra-territorially.  The most obvious way to answer that question IMO is that it shouldn't really matter - because the Constitution sets rules that dictate how the US government can or cannot act, those rules are universal and apply no matter where physically in the world those actions are exerted.  But the courts have often taken quite a different view and so the US government or its agents can do things abroad (like searches or arrests) they couldn't do within US territorial limits.  In this view of the world, citizenship can matter quite a bit because the body of a US citizen overseas can function as a physical manifestation of US territoriality in an extra-territorial sea.

Thanks.  Can you give me a steer to a court case/cases in which the US Constitution is held to be interpreted differently outside the US than internally?  I know that citizenship can create external jurisdiction over an individual, but can't seem to find cases where a government action  is held to be legal merely because it is being carried out outside the US. 

I am aware of the Bush administrations arguments on this score, but can't find any factual basis for their assertions in re, for instance, Gitmo.  I am obviously not looking in the right places.

[grumbler]

In particular, the degree of "due" process in the context, of a war seems rather low.  Certainly, not a lot of individualized determinations were made during Korea or Vietnam before depriving persons of life.

Perhaps true (I wouldn't necessarily agree, but your argument would find supporters), but not relevant to my question of Minsky's answer.  The distinction the Administration is drawing is between US citizens and non-citizens, not between wartime and peacetime procedures.