His interpretation of the 5th amendment is crap
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups
QuoteHolder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups
By Pete Williams, NBC News Justice Correspondent
The U.S. government is legally justified in killing its own citizens overseas if they are involved in plotting terror attacks against America, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday, offering the Obama administration's most detailed explanation so far of its controversial targeted killing program.
"In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out, and we will not," he said in remarks prepared for a speech at Northwestern University's law school in Chicago.
An American-born Islamic cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen in late September. Some civil liberties groups condemned the attack. Others, including members of Congress, called for a more complete explanation of how such a targeted killing of an American civilian was consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Do you agree with Holder's interpretation of the law?
Yes
62%
No
34%
Can't decide
4%
Total Votes: 4810
The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be "deprived of life" without due process of law. But that due process, Holder said, doesn't necessarily come from a court.
"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," the attorney general said.
Holder said a U.S. citizen can legally be targeted in a foreign country if that person is "a senior leader of al-Qaida or associated forces," and is actively involved in planning to kill Americans. Killing would be justified if the person poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the U.S. and cannot easily be captured.
Any military operation targeting a citizen overseas must be carried out consistent with the law of war. "The principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering," he said.
The ACLU called Holder's explanation "a defense of the government's chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny."
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project.
"Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power," she said.
The ACLU is suing the Obama administration, seeking to have documents regarding the targeted killing program made public.
Holder said it makes no legal difference that a U.S. citizen is targeted away from a traditional battlefield. "We are at war with a stateless enemy," he said.
While the U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, was at first believed to be merely an English speaking propagandist for the Yemen based group known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. officials say he gradually assumed an operational role in the terror group.
According to federal prosecutors, Umar Abdul Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, told FBI interrogators that al Awlaki was deeply involved in planning his attempted bombing of a Detroit bound passenger jet on Christmas day in 2009.
Holder said Abdulmutallab told the FBI of "al Awlaki's specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating the bomb."
The attorney general told the law students that the government is under no legal obligation to delay a targeted killing operation until a terrorist plotter is in the process of carrying out an actual attack.
"The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end stage of planning, when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear," he said.
:frusty:
I love how the West is trying its best to lose the War on Terror.
QuoteDue process and judicial process are not one and the same
Huh. Who knew?
QuoteHolder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups
We knew that already.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 05, 2012, 06:44:44 PM
:frusty:
I love how the West is trying its best to lose the War on Terror.
What is worse, is that we are agreeing to let it happen.
"... I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
They always were. When an American is trying to attack Americans, you're allowed to kill them.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.
Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner. :rolleyes:
Does the US ever try people in absentia?
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:03:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.
Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner. :rolleyes:
If you aren't smoking weed to get stoned why are you smoking it? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:03:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.
Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner. :rolleyes:
When products like marinol are available, the concept of using marijuana for medicinal purposes goes out the window. It's all just stoner hype bullshit, and an excuse to get high.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 08:08:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:03:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.
Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner. :rolleyes:
If you aren't smoking weed to get stoned why are you smoking it? :huh:
Funny you should ask that when the discussion is about people using it for medical purposes.
As far as what I think is the spirit of your question, the same reason that I don't call myself an alcoholic because I have a drink now and then. I should think it takes a certain level of use/abuse to suddenly have your usage become an identity. Though I just check merriam-webster and according to them a stoner is anyone who habitually uses marijuana or alcohol. I guess we're all mostly stoners.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:03:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Yeah but then Eric Holder is the one who said they wouldn't be going after medical marijuana and the Obama Administration has been attacking people over that like mad.
And rightfully so, as stoners are filthy fucking morons, and the concept of "medical marijuana" is bullshit.
Yes because if you ever smoke weed, you must be a stoner. :rolleyes:
When products like marinol are available, the concept of using marijuana for medicinal purposes goes out the window. It's all just stoner hype bullshit, and an excuse to get high.
http://dying.about.com/od/symptommanagement/f/marinol_vs_MJ.htm
QuoteMarinol
Cons:
Marinol has a slow onset of action, low absorption rate, and the amount of medication absorbed varies from person to person.
Patients can't control the dose of medication they need to control the symptom.
Marinol is more expensive to produce than marijuana.
Smoked Marijuana
Pros:
Smoked marijuana has a rapid onset, bringing relief of symptoms quicker than Marinol.
Patients have better control over dosing with smoked marijuana.
Marijuana is easy and inexpensive to grow and distribute.
But sure, I'll freely state that I'm on the bandwagon that the federal government shouldn't outright ban marijuana. Everyone is doing it anyways.
Watch it, garbon, your subscription to High Times expires soon.
:frusty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Watch it, garbon, your subscription to High Times expires soon.
Sorry wrong tree there, Sparky. It's been some time since I was last high.
You know I've spent a far amount of my adult life around dope smokers, and I never fail to get a high from ......
..... the amusement I get from seeing those people act like what they're doing is radical/covert/real special. :yawn:
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:19:30 PM
Watch it, garbon, your subscription to High Times expires soon.
Sorry wrong tree there, Sparky. It's been some time since I was last high.
Time like these i miss chilliwilli
Yeah, but marijuana causes lung cancer, and so the nanny state must ban it.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2012, 08:25:36 PM
You know I've spent a far amount of my adult life around dope smokers, and I never fail to get a high from ......
..... the amusement I get from seeing those people act like what they're doing is radical/covert/real special. :yawn:
That's sad. Out in San Francisco, no one acted like that. It was just part of life like having a glass of chardonnay from Napa.
Oh but, Seeds, you can get some good shit out of those dispensaries. Or so I've heard.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 08:45:13 PM
My comment's about the article, Cheech.
Sometimes I wonder about you, and whether you're the type that has a triple-chambered water bong shaped like Neil Diamond's head.
Haven't figured that one out yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 07:08:52 PM
QuoteHolder: US can legally kill Americans in terror groups
We knew that already.
I don't have a problem with it.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 08:35:56 PM
Yeah, but marijuana causes lung cancer, and so the nanny state must ban it.
The nanny state can just hand out free medical-vaporizers.
Quote from: Fate on March 05, 2012, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 08:35:56 PM
Yeah, but marijuana causes lung cancer, and so the nanny state must ban it.
The nanny state can just hand out free medical-vaporizers.
See, the problem is not so much the drug use, but the people who advocate it. They're invariably subhuman scum like yourself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2012, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 08:45:13 PM
My comment's about the article, Cheech.
Sometimes I wonder about you, and whether you're the type that has a triple-chambered water bong shaped like Neil Diamond's head.
Haven't figured that one out yet.
Never smoked a bit of that shit and don't plan on starting any time soon.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 08:56:27 PM
Never smoked a bit of that shit and don't plan on starting any time soon.
You should take a hit. Might help you get that stick out of your ass. :hug:
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 08:53:23 PM
Quote from: Fate on March 05, 2012, 08:49:42 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 08:35:56 PM
Yeah, but marijuana causes lung cancer, and so the nanny state must ban it.
The nanny state can just hand out free medical-vaporizers.
See, the problem is not so much the drug use, but the people who advocate it. They're invariably subhuman scum like yourself.
Well that's fair. That's often the case with many advocates. Your normal person will just do whatever they feel is right without worrying about changing the law.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:57:12 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 08:56:27 PM
Never smoked a bit of that shit and don't plan on starting any time soon.
You should take a hit. Might help you get that stick out of your ass. :hug:
It seems to have lodged one firmly in yours, so I'm not sure how it would help. :huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 09:08:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2012, 08:57:12 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 08:56:27 PM
Never smoked a bit of that shit and don't plan on starting any time soon.
You should take a hit. Might help you get that stick out of your ass. :hug:
It seems to have lodged one firmly in yours, so I'm not sure how it would help. :huh:
Oh you no that's simply not true. I couldn't do what I do with something stuck up there. Besides, this isn't high school and this isn't a virginity pledge. You hardly get points for never having touched "a bit of that shit" unless there is someone out there that likes them straight-laced.
Answering a question truthfully is an attempt to "get points" now? If you think this isn't high school, it might be best to stop acting like you're still in it. :hug:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 09:17:41 PM
Answering a question truthfully is an attempt to "get points" now? If you think this isn't high school, it might be best to stop acting like you're still in it. :hug:
There's a difference between saying nah, never tried it and I never touched that shit and never will. Maybe grumbler can teach you about word choice.
Says the high-schooler who still thinks pot is cool.
Is that what you've devolved to, a refrain?
Have you seen your latest posts?
I'd think smoking dope would be as bad for you lungs as smoking tobacco.
If I need medical marijuana, I'll take mine in chocolate brownie with walnuts form, thank you.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2012, 09:31:38 PM
Have you seen your latest posts?
No, I accidentally got stoned while listening to Afroman.
:hug:
No one accidentally gets high listening to Afroman
Quote from: katmai on March 05, 2012, 10:19:14 PM
No one accidentally gets high listening to Afroman
Does anyone actually listen to Afroman? :x
Holder is that black guy, isnt he? :huh:
No he's the other black guy.
They all look alike.
If Ashcroft had said this JR and the other hacks would've been crying Bushitler and other nonsense, yet as long as it is a Democrat we get only silence. Good thing to know they were always unprincipled partisans.
The laws of war are applicable here, the Constitution places that power chiefly in the executive (with legislative oversight), there is no room at all for the courts in this, which is why I've always objected to attempts to bring Al Qaeda to court. The only proceedings similar to legal proceedings (but not the same) we should indulge are hearings in front of Military Tribunals. Unfortunately Bush started the slipprey slope of co-mingling civil law and law of war on an ad hoc basis whenever it was convenient.
Honest question: who has the power to label an organization "terrorist" in the US?
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2012, 04:59:28 AM
Honest question: who has the power to label an organization "terrorist" in the US?
State Department.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2012, 09:34:23 PM
I'd think smoking dope would be as bad for you lungs as smoking tobacco.
I think there studies that show otherwise, but the biggest issue there is frequency. I don't think many people smoke 40-50 joints a day, and a lot of people do that with cigarettes.
Well there you go then. Indirectly, you have given the State Department power to mark Americans for execution without trial.
Good going.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 04:49:25 AM
If Ashcroft had said this JR and the other hacks would've been crying Bushitler and other nonsense, yet as long as it is a Democrat we get only silence. Good thing to know they were always unprincipled partisans.
The laws of war are applicable here, the Constitution places that power chiefly in the executive (with legislative oversight), there is no room at all for the courts in this, which is why I've always objected to attempts to bring Al Qaeda to court. The only proceedings similar to legal proceedings (but not the same) we should indulge are hearings in front of Military Tribunals. Unfortunately Bush started the slipprey slope of co-mingling civil law and law of war on an ad hoc basis whenever it was convenient.
Yes, I'm quoting one of the unprincipled partisans right now. You never did respond to comment about blasting Democratic obstructionism back in the Bush administration. As far as I know JR hasn't even posted in this thread.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 05, 2012, 06:44:44 PM
:frusty:
I love how the West is trying its best to lose the War on Terror.
I'd hate it myself.
Oh and for the record I think this is a bad position. I don't deny that the US government should have the power to kill citizens who have taken up arms against it. No Government can survive without that power. But looking for the power to do so through due process is silly. It's trying to have it both ways. They are either enemy combatants or criminals. You can't be both.
If a US citizen takes up arms against the US and is in a foreign nation among others, or in a group that is fighting the US, it seems the legal and logical action is to take him out, just as the US would take out others of his group. Taking him out could mean capture or kill, depending on circumstances, just as with any other similar combatants who aren't US citizens. I'll listen to arguments otherwise by the courts, see where this goes, but I'd find it ludicrous that such individuals couldn't be targeted, but allowed to remain free to carry out attacks on US citizens. That instead would seem to me to be an illegal act, to allow him to operate.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2012, 05:06:48 AM
Well there you go then. Indirectly, you have given the State Department power to mark Americans for execution without trial.
Good going.
Could someone correct me here, but hasn't it always been the case that the US government has killed US citizens without "due process" in wars?
I mean, surely this is not the first time this issue has come up, right? I don't recall the US holding any due process everytime they shot a enemy civil war soldier, or a US citizen was killed while serving in a foreign army. Why is this a constitutional issue now and was not then?
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Could someone correct me here, but hasn't it always been the case that the US government has killed US citizens without "due process" in wars?
I mean, surely this is not the first time this issue has come up, right? I don't recall the US holding any due process everytime they shot a enemy civil war soldier, or a US citizen was killed while serving in a foreign army. Why is this a constitutional issue now and was not then?
Because this is the first case of an individual being specifically targetted.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2012, 05:06:48 AM
Well there you go then. Indirectly, you have given the State Department power to mark Americans for execution without trial.
Good going.
Could someone correct me here, but hasn't it always been the case that the US government has killed US citizens without "due process" in wars?
I mean, surely this is not the first time this issue has come up, right? I don't recall the US holding any due process everytime they shot a enemy civil war soldier, or a US citizen was killed while serving in a foreign army. Why is this a constitutional issue now and was not then?
Actually it did come up the Civil War, or at least similar issues did. The big difference was that US government regarded captured Confederate soldiers as POWs rather then criminals. Criminals and POWs are afforded different protections and rights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 08:48:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Could someone correct me here, but hasn't it always been the case that the US government has killed US citizens without "due process" in wars?
I mean, surely this is not the first time this issue has come up, right? I don't recall the US holding any due process everytime they shot a enemy civil war soldier, or a US citizen was killed while serving in a foreign army. Why is this a constitutional issue now and was not then?
Because this is the first case of an individual being specifically targetted.
Ahhh, so the issue is not so much that the US is killing US citizens retail, but that they are doing so retail?
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 08:52:20 AM
Ahhh, so the issue is not so much that the US is killing US citizens retail, but that they are doing so retail?
:P I know what you meant to say.
Not so much the difference between wholesale and retail; more like the difference between individualized service and mass marketing.
OK, so if we assume this is a terrible policy, and is in fact a vile breach of US government power in violation of the restrictions placed on it by the COnsitutition, what is the alternative?
Do we simply let US citizens lead, organize, and participate in attacks on the US without targetting them individually, and just hope to take them out by accident? What does that mean exactly?
We cannot keep their name on a list of potential targets? Does that mean if their name does come up as being at such and such location, we should refrain from attacking that location unless there is some non-American there to blow away sans due process?
A related question: What is the major practical problem with this practice (beyond the practical problems with the idea of the US going after terrorist targets in general in this manner)? Is there some kind of realistic concern that today it is terrorists, but tomorrow it might be tax evaders or some other not quite so obvious a threat?
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2012, 09:34:23 PM
I'd think smoking dope would be as bad for you lungs as smoking tobacco.
Almost certainly worse. But only a few smoke 20 joints a day.
@Berkut
It's the principal of the thing. Even if we catch a guy red-handed raping and murdering, we don't string him up on the spot, we give him a trial.
That's why I raised the question about trials in absentia. Let's say there's enough proof to find him guilty of whatever. Then we say turn yourself in or we go shoot on sight.
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 09:02:05 AM
OK, so if we assume this is a terrible policy, and is in fact a vile breach of US government power in violation of the restrictions placed on it by the COnsitutition, what is the alternative?
Do we simply let US citizens lead, organize, and participate in attacks on the US without targetting them individually, and just hope to take them out by accident? What does that mean exactly?
We cannot keep their name on a list of potential targets? Does that mean if their name does come up as being at such and such location, we should refrain from attacking that location unless there is some non-American there to blow away sans due process?
A related question: What is the major practical problem with this practice (beyond the practical problems with the idea of the US going after terrorist targets in general in this manner)? Is there some kind of realistic concern that today it is terrorists, but tomorrow it might be tax evaders or some other not quite so obvious a threat?
What's the problem of getting a judge involved?
Either that or you kill him silently as it's always been done, instead of trying to legalize state assassinations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2012, 09:05:52 AM
@Berkut
It's the principal of the thing. Even if we catch a guy red-handed raping and murdering, we don't string him up on the spot, we give him a trial.
That's why I raised the question about trials in absentia. Let's say there's enough proof to find him guilty of whatever. Then we say turn yourself in or we go shoot on sight.
I get the idea behind the principle, I am just saying that if we accept the principle, what is the practical effect? How do we deal with these people if we accept that the current policy is not acceptable?
Quote from: Iormlund on March 06, 2012, 09:13:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 09:02:05 AM
OK, so if we assume this is a terrible policy, and is in fact a vile breach of US government power in violation of the restrictions placed on it by the COnsitutition, what is the alternative?
Do we simply let US citizens lead, organize, and participate in attacks on the US without targetting them individually, and just hope to take them out by accident? What does that mean exactly?
We cannot keep their name on a list of potential targets? Does that mean if their name does come up as being at such and such location, we should refrain from attacking that location unless there is some non-American there to blow away sans due process?
A related question: What is the major practical problem with this practice (beyond the practical problems with the idea of the US going after terrorist targets in general in this manner)? Is there some kind of realistic concern that today it is terrorists, but tomorrow it might be tax evaders or some other not quite so obvious a threat?
What's the problem of getting a judge involved?
I don't think any kind of judicial proceeding could possibly meet any non-trivial standards of trial or evidence.
Although I guess it would depend on what the burden of proof needed to issue a Warrant of Extreme Threat or whatever they would call it...hmmm.
Another problem would be getting any kind of necessary legislation passed, I would think. Still, the idea has potential. It's not like there are hundreds of these out there, right?
Quote
Either that or you kill him silently as it's always been done, instead of trying to legalize state assassinations.
I think that is what is happening right now. It is sitting in one of those oh so convenient "grey" areas.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 05:12:56 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 04:49:25 AM
If Ashcroft had said this JR and the other hacks would've been crying Bushitler and other nonsense, yet as long as it is a Democrat we get only silence. Good thing to know they were always unprincipled partisans.
The laws of war are applicable here, the Constitution places that power chiefly in the executive (with legislative oversight), there is no room at all for the courts in this, which is why I've always objected to attempts to bring Al Qaeda to court. The only proceedings similar to legal proceedings (but not the same) we should indulge are hearings in front of Military Tribunals. Unfortunately Bush started the slipprey slope of co-mingling civil law and law of war on an ad hoc basis whenever it was convenient.
Yes, I'm quoting one of the unprincipled partisans right now. You never did respond to comment about blasting Democratic obstructionism back in the Bush administration. As far as I know JR hasn't even posted in this thread.
I didn't reply since you made a vague and unsubstantiated complaint. When have I decried Democratic "obstructionism"?
And JR not having commented is exactly my point. When Bushitler was in the WH he would've been the first one to wave the bloody shirt, yet now he is quiet.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 08:03:42 AM
Oh and for the record I think this is a bad position. I don't deny that the US government should have the power to kill citizens who have taken up arms against it. No Government can survive without that power. But looking for the power to do so through due process is silly. It's trying to have it both ways. They are either enemy combatants or criminals. You can't be both.
And this is what I had been saying since right after 9-11, but then the Democrats were all screaming bloody murder. Now with a Democrat in the WH all the little lemmings come around to my position.
And since I'm not a partisan hack I won't change my position simply because of who is in the WH.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2012, 09:57:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 06, 2012, 09:02:05 AM
Do we simply let US citizens lead, organize, and participate in attacks on the US without targetting them individually, and just hope to take them out by accident? What does that mean exactly?
I guess I do not understand. How does following the constitution and legal processes equal simply letting crimes be committed?
Well, there is a debate about whether or not killing Americans overseas is or is not following the constitution and legal processes, so your question is a logical fallacy in that in order to answer it I would be forced to concede the answer.
Would you like to rephrase without the fallacy?
Hmm just saw this thread.
Didn't realize I was required to comment.
Anyway, having given great thought to the matter, I find this whole policy very troubling. I blame George Bush and Adolf Hitler.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 10:06:38 AM
Hmm just saw this thread.
Didn't realize I was required to comment.
Anyway, having given great thought to the matter, I find this whole policy very troubling. I blame George Bush and Adolf Hitler.
:lol: At least you have a good sense of humor.
It cannot be denied that on matters concerning the prosecution of the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terror, the policy of the Obama Administration has not differed in substance from that of the Bush Administration c.2006-08, just in rhetoric. In some ways that is OK, in some ways not OK - in the same respect as the late Bush admin policy was in some ways OK, some ways not OK.
The issue raised here in Tim's post is a thorny one because the Fifth Amendment does not use the word "citizen". Read literally, it applies to all persons and operates as an absolute limit on state action. On an originalist view, that literal interpretation makes sense, because the only circumstance in which the early Republic would be involved in killing people via state action other than through the rare federal criminal proceeding would be through properly declared wars.
Times have changed quite a bit since then, and generally speaking the US government does not declare its wars before it starts the business of killing bad guys. On a literal reading of the Fifth Amendment, this is somewhat problematic even without wading into the war powers controversy. But as the US has been doing this for quite a long time now, and there are some compelling practical reasons for permitting this, in practice there is now an exception to the Fifth for killing of overseas bad guys as designated by the President. Given that implied exception, why should this practice not be extended to citizens - given that the Fifth Amendment makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens?
The logic works but the doctrine says otherwise. Because in Johnson v. Eisentrager and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court recognized key distinctions between citizens and non-citizens concerning the level of process that is due, notwithstanding the apparent lack of such distinction in the Constitutional text. Combined with the other Bush-era constitutional decisions, current doctrine appears to be that some minimal level of due process and review must be provided whenever the government takes action either within its de facto territorial jurisdiction or vis-a-vis a US citizen. And given that doctrinal background, it is hard to see how Holder can justify his position as a legal matter.
How was this handled in the Civil War?
Quote from: The Brain on March 06, 2012, 12:37:03 PM
How was this handled in the Civil War?
Lincoln invoked the Insurrection Act which gave him legal authority to supress the rebellion by force.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 01:20:57 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 06, 2012, 12:37:03 PM
How was this handled in the Civil War?
Lincoln invoked the Insurrection Act which gave him legal authority to supress the rebellion by force.
Is the situation now different legally than back then? Regarding what is necessary to off citizens in arms against the US. Or are there just political differences?
Quote from: The Brain on March 06, 2012, 01:32:23 PM
Is the situation now different legally than back then? Regarding what is necessary to off citizens in arms against the US. Or are there just political differences?
The Insurrection Act requires the existence of an insurrection within a state that is severe enough to prevent effective enforcement of state or federal law in that area with respect to a significant portion of the population. The secession of the Southern States easily qualifies. A couple of US citizen al Qaeda guys does not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 10:49:42 AM
The issue raised here in Tim's post is a thorny one because the Fifth Amendment does not use the word "citizen". Read literally, it applies to all persons and operates as an absolute limit on state action. On an originalist view, that literal interpretation makes sense, because the only circumstance in which the early Republic would be involved in killing people via state action other than through the rare federal criminal proceeding would be through properly declared wars.
Not so. States used state force against pirates without any need for a declaration of war. As I have pointed out before, a strong case could be made that terrorists, like pirates, are in a permanent state of war against all civilized countries. Terrorists, like pirates, can be killed where capture is not practical, and tried by special courts if and when captured. They are not entitled to treatment as PoWs, because they are criminals.
If a US law is needed to nail that argument down beyond any legal doubt, then I think getting such a law passed would be easy. This isn't really uncharted territory.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 09:52:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 05:12:56 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 04:49:25 AM
If Ashcroft had said this JR and the other hacks would've been crying Bushitler and other nonsense, yet as long as it is a Democrat we get only silence. Good thing to know they were always unprincipled partisans.
The laws of war are applicable here, the Constitution places that power chiefly in the executive (with legislative oversight), there is no room at all for the courts in this, which is why I've always objected to attempts to bring Al Qaeda to court. The only proceedings similar to legal proceedings (but not the same) we should indulge are hearings in front of Military Tribunals. Unfortunately Bush started the slipprey slope of co-mingling civil law and law of war on an ad hoc basis whenever it was convenient.
Yes, I'm quoting one of the unprincipled partisans right now. You never did respond to comment about blasting Democratic obstructionism back in the Bush administration. As far as I know JR hasn't even posted in this thread.
I didn't reply since you made a vague and unsubstantiated complaint. When have I decried Democratic "obstructionism"?
And JR not having commented is exactly my point. When Bushitler was in the WH he would've been the first one to wave the bloody shirt, yet now he is quiet.
Spring of 2005 if I recall. You and I had an argument about it (since it was in the news), I pointed out that Democrats were doing the same thing that Republicans did during the Clinton administration. You said this was untrue as Republicans weren't actually blocking appointments they were delaying them. I suggested then it's possible that the Democrats were doing the same thing we could only tell with time. Then you became quite.
It might be that JR is quite because he's not here yet.
EDIT: Unfortunately all records gong back that far have been lost.
Quite.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 08:03:42 AM
Oh and for the record I think this is a bad position. I don't deny that the US government should have the power to kill citizens who have taken up arms against it. No Government can survive without that power. But looking for the power to do so through due process is silly. It's trying to have it both ways. They are either enemy combatants or criminals. You can't be both.
And this is what I had been saying since right after 9-11, but then the Democrats were all screaming bloody murder. Now with a Democrat in the WH all the little lemmings come around to my position.
And since I'm not a partisan hack I won't change my position simply because of who is in the WH.
No, you were toeing the Bush line of "Illegal combatant", which attempted to have it both ways by creating a nebulous grey area in between. Bush was forced to partly back away from this decisions by the courts and Obama has essentially continued the amended Bush administration position. A lemming like me is still not entirely pleased with it, but it is not the position of you or Bush right after 9-11.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2012, 01:53:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 10:49:42 AM
The issue raised here in Tim's post is a thorny one because the Fifth Amendment does not use the word "citizen". Read literally, it applies to all persons and operates as an absolute limit on state action. On an originalist view, that literal interpretation makes sense, because the only circumstance in which the early Republic would be involved in killing people via state action other than through the rare federal criminal proceeding would be through properly declared wars.
Not so. States used state force against pirates without any need for a declaration of war. As I have pointed out before, a strong case could be made that terrorists, like pirates, are in a permanent state of war against all civilized countries. Terrorists, like pirates, can be killed where capture is not practical, and tried by special courts if and when captured. They are not entitled to treatment as PoWs, because they are criminals.
If a US law is needed to nail that argument down beyond any legal doubt, then I think getting such a law passed would be easy. This isn't really uncharted territory.
States or Feds?
We do try people in absentia, although it is rare and difficult to do properly.
Summarily convicting people who have purposely absented themselves from the jurisdiction after trial beginning happens all the time, though.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2012, 01:53:11 PM
Not so. States used state force against pirates without any need for a declaration of war. As I have pointed out before, a strong case could be made that terrorists, like pirates, are in a permanent state of war against all civilized countries. Terrorists, like pirates, can be killed where capture is not practical, and tried by special courts if and when captured. They are not entitled to treatment as PoWs, because they are criminals.
If a US law is needed to nail that argument down beyond any legal doubt, then I think getting such a law passed would be easy. This isn't really uncharted territory.
I don't see how that rebuts what I said. The very first federal criminal statute criminalized piracy and made it punishable by death. Accordingly pirates may be pursed and force used against them just as would be the case with any other criminal suspect.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2012, 02:40:26 PM
I don't see how that rebuts what I said. The very first federal criminal statute criminalized piracy and made it punishable by death. Accordingly pirates may be pursed and force used against them just as would be the case with any other criminal suspect.
maybe I misunderstood your intent, then, when you argued that "the only circumstance in which the early Republic would be involved in killing people via state action other than through the rare federal criminal proceeding would be through properly declared wars." The US Navy's anti-piracy actions were not (in my mind, at least) "rare Federal criminal proceedings" nor were they part of "properly declared wars." It is true that piracy was not longer an issue in US waters, but the US maintained a strong anti-piracy patrol in the Med in those early years.
The US Navy's anti-piracy patrols were conducted under the color of federal statute, which made piracy on the high seas a criminal offense punishable by death. As such there could not be any 5th amendment problem. The power to try and punish felons implies the power to enforce the law by seeking out and apprehending such felons, including the use of any reasonable force to do so. And since the piracy statute as enacted in 1790 and subsequently amended relates to actions on the high seas, the US Navy would be a logical and appropriate organization to perform those tasks.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 02:04:42 PM
Spring of 2005 if I recall. You and I had an argument about it (since it was in the news), I pointed out that Democrats were doing the same thing that Republicans did during the Clinton administration. You said this was untrue as Republicans weren't actually blocking appointments they were delaying them. I suggested then it's possible that the Democrats were doing the same thing we could only tell with time. Then you became quite.
It might be that JR is quite because he's not here yet.
EDIT: Unfortunately all records gong back that far have been lost.
I vahuely remember this topic and of course I would be unhappy with the outright blocking of nominees for no declared purpose other than political agreement, not fitness for office. And this is exactly what the Democrats did, blocking their nominations for years. Now I would distinguish that from blocking nominees due to specific qualitative objections or placing a hold on a nominee for a specific action until it is addressed. In case of the Clinton administration the GOP did what happened in every administration and that was to slow down the approval of nominees at the end of a President's second term in office in order to maximize appointment opportunities for the incoming President. The Democrats changed the rules at the beginning of Bush's Presidency using blocks as a way to try to cripple the administration from the onset.
I don't think though blocks or holds are in the long term constructive and should be used, if at all, only in the most severe of circumstances.
Obama has taking this to a whole new level, recess appointing nominees without ever submitting documentation to Congress for hearings, and most recently in a blatantly unconstitutional manner recess appointed nominees without Congress being in recess! I guess he figures they can implement his policies until they will get tossed off by the courts.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 08:03:42 AM
Oh and for the record I think this is a bad position. I don't deny that the US government should have the power to kill citizens who have taken up arms against it. No Government can survive without that power. But looking for the power to do so through due process is silly. It's trying to have it both ways. They are either enemy combatants or criminals. You can't be both.
And this is what I had been saying since right after 9-11, but then the Democrats were all screaming bloody murder. Now with a Democrat in the WH all the little lemmings come around to my position.
And since I'm not a partisan hack I won't change my position simply because of who is in the WH.
No, you were toeing the Bush line of "Illegal combatant", which attempted to have it both ways by creating a nebulous grey area in between. Bush was forced to partly back away from this decisions by the courts and Obama has essentially continued the amended Bush administration position. A lemming like me is still not entirely pleased with it, but it is not the position of you or Bush right after 9-11.
No, you retard, I was actually making the same argument you were making just a few posts back. They are illegal combatants, not entitled to the Constitutional protection due to being combatants, not entitled to geneva protections due to being unprotected combatants as defined under the geneva conventions.
The only thing they are entitled to is a "competent military tribunal", as defined by the geneva convention, to determine if they are legal or illegal combatants. Once determining that they are illegal combatants we should hang them from the neck until dead.
This has always been my position, and I agrued this position vehemently over the years, especially with JR. And I was critical of Bush for deciding to bring some of them on trial because he believed we had enough evidence to convict in court. It is simply not a just system if you change the way you treat them simply based on how much evidence you have.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 11:05:12 PM
The only thing they are entitled to is a "competent military tribunal", as defined by the geneva convention, to determine if they are legal or illegal combatants. Once determining that they are illegal combatants we should hang them from the neck until dead.
:lol: You don't understand the concept of "rule of law' at all, do you?
You are in a perfect place for people with your mentality. The damage you can do by advising people to avoid thinking is actually minimal there.
What someone is if they are not a lawful combatant is a criminal. Even criminals have to get trials before they are hanged.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 02:04:42 PM
Spring of 2005 if I recall. You and I had an argument about it (since it was in the news), I pointed out that Democrats were doing the same thing that Republicans did during the Clinton administration. You said this was untrue as Republicans weren't actually blocking appointments they were delaying them. I suggested then it's possible that the Democrats were doing the same thing we could only tell with time. Then you became quite.
It might be that JR is quite because he's not here yet.
EDIT: Unfortunately all records gong back that far have been lost.
I vahuely remember this topic and of course I would be unhappy with the outright blocking of nominees for no declared purpose other than political agreement, not fitness for office. And this is exactly what the Democrats did, blocking their nominations for years. Now I would distinguish that from blocking nominees due to specific qualitative objections or placing a hold on a nominee for a specific action until it is addressed. In case of the Clinton administration the GOP did what happened in every administration and that was to slow down the approval of nominees at the end of a President's second term in office in order to maximize appointment opportunities for the incoming President. The Democrats changed the rules at the beginning of Bush's Presidency using blocks as a way to try to cripple the administration from the onset.
I don't think though blocks or holds are in the long term constructive and should be used, if at all, only in the most severe of circumstances.
Obama has taking this to a whole new level, recess appointing nominees without ever submitting documentation to Congress for hearings, and most recently in a blatantly unconstitutional manner recess appointed nominees without Congress being in recess! I guess he figures they can implement his policies until they will get tossed off by the courts.
So are you against what the GOP is doing or not?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 11:05:12 PM
No, you retard, I was actually making the same argument you were making just a few posts back. They are illegal combatants, not entitled to the Constitutional protection due to being combatants, not entitled to geneva protections due to being unprotected combatants as defined under the geneva conventions.
The only thing they are entitled to is a "competent military tribunal", as defined by the geneva convention, to determine if they are legal or illegal combatants. Once determining that they are illegal combatants we should hang them from the neck until dead.
This has always been my position, and I agrued this position vehemently over the years, especially with JR. And I was critical of Bush for deciding to bring some of them on trial because he believed we had enough evidence to convict in court. It is simply not a just system if you change the way you treat them simply based on how much evidence you have.
That wasn't my argument. :mellow:
QuoteIt's trying to have it both ways. They are either enemy combatants or criminals. You can't be both.
That was my argument. Are there even "Constitutional protection due to being combatants"(sic) in the first place?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 06, 2012, 11:05:12 PM
No, you retard, I was actually making the same argument you were making just a few posts back. They are illegal combatants, not entitled to the Constitutional protection due to being combatants, not entitled to geneva protections due to being unprotected combatants as defined under the geneva conventions.
The only thing they are entitled to is a "competent military tribunal", as defined by the geneva convention, to determine if they are legal or illegal combatants. Once determining that they are illegal combatants we should hang them from the neck until dead.
That's the have your cake and eat it too concept that the prior administration initially advanced, but eventually had to abandon after a fairly conservative Supreme Court ruled against them at every turn.
The notion that there is some status a person in custody can have that can permit the government to summarily execute them without further inquiry beyond whether they qualify as a Geneva Article 4 POW is logically absurd, bereft of any support in domestic law or precedent or international norms, and is wholly repugnant to the very notion of a government of limited powers acting under the rule of law. A bad guy is either a Prisoner of War as defined by Geneva and must be treated in accordance with the convention, or they are an outlaw. And if they are an outlaw in the custody of the United States government, the constitution unequivocally prohibits deprivation of life or liberty without due process. There is no room for a magic third category of persons who (to paraphrase Dred Scott) have no rights which the authorities are bound to respect.
Of course, even that inquiry is unnecessary beacuse the Court correctly held that Common Article 3 applies to captured Al Qaeda. Since the "competent military tribunal" in Geneva Article 5 only relates to determination of status under Article 4, a negative determination does not cut off all further rights of the detainee but merely denies PoW status while at the same time activating Article 3's requirements. And happily, Article 3's requirement of "judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" nicely dovetails with the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee.
If all that is true Joan, why are all the corpuses in Gitmo not being habeused?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2012, 03:02:10 PM
If all that is true Joan, why are all the corpuses in Gitmo not being habeused?
Supposedly because it takes time to evaluate all the cases and figure out how they are to be disposed.
The reality is that like the previous admin they have been buying time and winking and nodding at the Constitution.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 07, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
Supposedly because it takes time to evaluate all the cases and figure out how they are to be disposed.
The reality is that like the previous admin they have been buying time and winking and nodding at the Constitution.
But isn't that the whole point of habeus corpus--fish or cut bait?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2012, 04:58:07 PM
But isn't that the whole point of habeus corpus--fish or cut bait?
A lot of detainees brought habeas petitions after the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that they could. Some have been granted, but most not. The usual outcome is that the court rejects the petition on the ground that the government has sufficient evidence that the detainees are al-Qaeda or Taliban and based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) authorizes "detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured" as a "fundamental and accepted an incident to war."