Bullshit. I’ve responded twice to the bullshit “It happened in the Civil War so it’s OK now” crap you’re spread.
I’ve explained it repeatedly. There’s the battlefield, and there are places that aren’t. We are not at war with Yemen. The President’s power is at its height on the battlefield, when he orders extrajudicial killings outside of it, not so much.
I’m ignoring it because it’s blatantly false outside of the US. I tend to ignore things that aren’t true.
Again, you’re completely wrong. US citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections that other people, say people not in the US, aren’t. Feel free to read Reid v. Covert, which I’ve cited earlier in this thread.
You’re doing nothing but spreading misinformation. I really wish you’d stop that.
The Supreme Court said, slightly more recently than the 1860s, that we cannot just lock a citizen up indefinitely as an enemy combatant. We aren’t allowed. It’s against the law. That has been pointed out quite a few times now. If you’re going to complain about other people “braying,” it would be nice if you’d address that in some way. Otherwise it isn’t really clear what you’re going for.
As far as the battlefield thing, let’s see if you can explain it - under the rule that you’re saying applies to al-Awlaki, if the government decides that I’m an enemy combatant, and issues a little report explaining why, can they blow my ass up while I’m sitting in my car?
When you say you need to “show” due diligence, I assume you agree that the President shouldn’t be able to just cry “state secrets!” to worm his way out of this requirement for oversight?
For starters I’ve never said I supported locking up American citizens indefinitely without trial thought there have been numerous examples of the US doing this, for example both during the Civil War and WWII.
Beyond that, I haven’t provided a definition for “battlefield” or what constitutes a “battlefield killing”.
I’m merely asking him if he’s saying that it’s legal for the US government to designate any foreign national an “enemy combatant” and kill them.
Due process applies both to American citizens and foreign nationals. The US is not forbidden from assassinating Columbian Cartel members in the US, but allowed to do so in Bogota.
Now perhaps he’ll be willing to explain why Abraham Lincoln shouldn’t have been impeached for jailing hundreds of thousands of alleged Confederates indefinitely without any trial, why Obama and the SEALS shouldn’t be arrested for murdering Bin Laden and finally explain what constitutes a battlefield.
I forgot to add, where have I ever said what laws applied to Al Awlaki?
As to your question, well if you’re not part of a group that has declared war on the US and is trying to destroy it and has succeeded in killing thousands of Americans, them no I don’t think that would be right.
Being white though, I don’t think you’ll have to worry(white skin privilege and all that).
Can we assume you’d object to any foreign nationals captured on US soil being executed without civilian trials and it would be outrageous if this was done and the people responsible for this outrage should be punished.
I think I see where you are confused. Foreign nationals in the US are, by and large, entitled to due process and Constitutional protections. US citizens who are foreign nationals abroad are entitled to some (not all) constitutional protections. But non-US citizens who are not in the US are (generally) not entitled to Constitutional protections.
This is a side issue, but basically KSM is a publicity thing. After the SCOTUS decisions we had to give the Gitmo detainees status hearings, and the ones deemed criminals we were supposed to try for crimes. That is where the military tribunal act came from in congress, with KSM they at first wanted to try him in a regular Federal court in order to make a political statement, but that didn’t work out so well.
Basically, KSM has been treated the way he has because of publicity reasons.
Well, as I said I think technically the President could drone strike a theoretical American al-Qaeda leader hiding in Miami without any prior court approval. I don’t believe he would, either, but not because of the Constitution but because of the politics of it. In such a scenario, regular law enforcement can get at the guy, no reason to do something that would cause massive political backlash.
As an aside, the mayor of Philadelphia actually bombed a building in his city once, so it isn’t as crazy as it sounds.
I think we both agree it wouldn’t happen because we have FBI tactical teams that would just go in and take them out and/or try to apprehend them. It’s obviously just legal wanking to argue about whether it would or would not be legal to drone strike someone hiding in a house in Miami.
I agree, in theory. I think in practice it wouldn’t happen, and remember if the President gets too out of control you need no proof of a crime to impeach the President, only the right number of votes.
I don’t see how that statute would apply to the killing of al-Awlaki, at all.
Hamdi was in our possession, al-Awlaki was on the battlefield. SCOTUS has never made rulings to govern battlefield behavior of the military. Do you have cites to suggest the SCOTUS has ever put restrictions on how we wage war on the battlefield?
Well, again, to remove it from modern political fervor:
-Henry VIII summarily executing someone he had arrested would be against the law even in 1520 England.
-Henry VIII ordering his soldiers to kill a nobleman and his soldiers when they had started battle against the crown, not against the law, because it was the sovereign using his military force against the military force of the enemy (who happened to also be an Englishman.)
I’ll change it slightly to mean we could bomb the Germans; it doesn’t have to be a firefight. There’s a group of Germans in WWII. One was born in America. Does he get constitutional due process? Yes or No.
Er… you’re ascribing to me positions I don’t hold.
Moreover, it’s not clear from your response your opinion to the question I was posing.
Are you saying that the US government has the right to execute foreign nationals on US soil without giving those arrested jury trials and all the rights granted to American citizens.
I think this is the gist of the issue. I think the Constitution is pretty clear that the President doesn’t get to violate the Constitution simply because Congress declared war against a nebulous group of terrorists. Again, I find it unfathomable to believe that it is unconstitutional to detain without trial a US citizen (or even foreign nationals), but it is constitutional to kill him without due process. It’s simply nonsensical to me.
I’m a citizen too, if I walk into a police station with a shotgun, point it at the desk clerk and start firing, I’m going to be put down for the count. I have in fact voided my right to a trial and all those other things at that moment, because I’ve put myself on a collision course with police officer’s bullets, fired in legal and entirely constitutional self defense.
Likewise, as an American citizen if I raise an Army to wage war against my country, then my country’s military can kill me as an enemy soldier, and no trial would be necessary.
Obviously it doesn’t, but since the constitution has never governed how the President commands troops against the fucking enemy, your points are totally unrelated to anything that happened to al-Awlaki.
Are you honestly so stupid that you think al-Awlaki lived in some fairy tale world with courts and motions and summonses? Dude was on the battlefield fighting against us, he lost, we won. That’s war.
As much as many here condemn the attack on Al-Awlaki, is there anyone on the Straight Dope who will actually advocate FOR Al-Awlaki’s position, since he was clearly in favour of opposing U.S. foreign policy?
Of course. As I said before, were Al Awlaki holding a gun pointed at US soldiers, or had he walked into the police station with a gun, he could have been shot. The government is allowed to use deadly force without due process in some cases. That’s why I cited to Tennesee v. Garner.
If it’s on the battlefield, or in your police station, you’re right. If you’re in Yemen, not so much.
You seem to think that “enemy” (or “fucking enemy”) is a magic word that immediately cancels out the Constitution. As Hamdi, Hamdan, and even Boudemeine have held, that’s simply not true.
And we’re back to namecalling. I can tell when you get desperate you have to resort to that. Pathetic.
Not really though I do appreciate your attempts to do so.
You do ignore that members of the Wehrmact who’d been born in the US weren’t entitled to a host of protections their compatriots weren’t.
You also have failed to answer whether or not you think that Obama broke the law by killing Bin Laden and if he should be prosecuted for murder or if the President has the authority to designate anyone on the planet as an “enemy combatant” and kill them with impunity so long as they aren’t American citizens.
Perhaps you can be nonchalant about this. I suspect you’re a white middle class American who has no fears of governmental persecution.
I myself was not born in the US, much of my family lives outside the US and so I can’t be so nonchallant.