# Assassinating American Citizens--Impeach Obama **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190 "2010-11-28T18:51:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/41 "2010-11-29T16:47:37Z")
There’s still a Far Left? I thought they went extinct decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/42 "2010-11-29T16:52:44Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Impeachment isn’t meaningful oversight, it’s a last resort. You may have the belief that the executive branch should be able to decide for itself who and where they can kill a person, any person, without the Constitution interfereing. I disagree. You keep disagreeing, but without much in the way of court decisions that back up your specific gripes in this instance. The courts have never arrogated to themselves the power to prosecute a war. Admittedly, they’ve taken on tasks that also should remain the exclusive province of the executive branch, like running a school system, but they haven’t ever strayed into the territory of running a combat operation. The Supreme Court has declined invitations to do that in the past. After the Kent State shootings, the governor of Ohio was sued and the lawsuit demanded that the governor no longer “prematurely” activate the National Guard troops to assist in civil disorders. The plaintiffs also asked the court to order National Guard leaders to stop violating protesting students’ constitutional rights henceforth. > [@](#): > > Trained professionals, subject to the day-to-day control of the responsible civilian authorities, necessarily must make comparative judgments on the merits as to evolving methods of training, equipping, and controlling military forces with respect to their duties under the Constitution. It would be inappropriate for a district judge to undertake this responsibility in the unlikely event that he possessed requisite technical competence to do so. > . > . > . > It would be difficult to think of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was intended by the Constitution to be left to the political branches directly responsible—as the Judicial Branch is not—to the electoral process. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence. The complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments, subject always to civilian control of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability. It is this power of oversight and control of military force by elected representatives and officials which underlies our entire constitutional system… Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 US 1 (1973). So let me predict the future. The court here will find it that doesn’t have the power to constrain the government’s action - that this is ultimately a non-justicible political question. And **Hamlet** will continue announcing at every opportunity he has how unconstitutional it is, as though that means anything. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/43 "2010-11-29T16:59:35Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > A law, even an AUMF, cannot trump the Constitution. Even though Obama has authority under the AUMF, he cannot do so in violation of the Constitution. Well, don’t worry. Once al-Awlaki gets bumped off, he’ll have standing to challenge the AUMF, and he can bring suit. You see? The system works! ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/44 "2010-11-29T17:04:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. True. Undisputed. > > “In some cases.” > > What’s missing from your trenchant analytical morass is the support for the claim that this particular situation is one of those cases. I did, in the other thread. That I linked to. That you read. And responded to. I had assumed that, since you read them already, I needn’t to repeat them for you again, but, apparently, I must repeat them in every single new thread now, lest I have to suffer more of your baseless inanities like: “trenchant analytical morass”. "In re TERRORIST BOMBINGS OF U.S. EMBASSIES IN EAST AFRICA (Fourth Amendment Challenges), the same second circuit you cited stated: "In United States v. Toscanino, a case involving a Fourth Amendment challenge to overseas wiretapping of a non-U.S. citizen, we observed that it was “well settled” that “the Bill of Rights has extraterritorial application to the conduct abroad of federal agents directed against United States citizens.” The court went on to hold that, while the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment does not apply, the “reasonable” standard does. Cite In addition, in Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court stated: “At the beginning we reject the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land.” In that case, the Court found that trying a wife in the killing of her husband in military court in a foreign country violated her constitutional rights. Finally, I think it’s pretty clear from recent caselaw that the US cannot designate US citizens as “enemy combatants”, even if they are in a foreign land, without a hearing. With those in mind, I find it preposterous to argue that the US government is allowed, to not just detain or unreasonably search (which seemingly are verboten), but to murder a US citizen without even the slightest hint of “due process”? I understand the whole “we’re at war”, but we’re not at war with Yemen, where he is supposedly hiding. Hell, we’re not really at “war” at all, let alone a war where the entire world is declared the battleground. They are not on the battlefield. And hiding behind the “state secrets doctrine” is, once again, reprehensible." and “I provided caselaw dealing with the issue of whether or not Constitutional protections applies to US citizens in foreign lands. I think we actually agree the answer is “some do, some don’t”. I think that a persons’ right to life and due process before execution are a bit more important, constitutionally speaking, than using a wiretapped conversation or having a trial by military commission rather than jury. Thus, at the very least a minimal amount of due process should apply before the US government assassinates a US citizen. Explain to me why I’m wrong. That’d be easier than making me pull teeth to get an answer.” and “So I guess I have to ask again. Why do you think the right to have a search of your belongings be reasonable apply overseas, but the right not to be killed without due process not be? It seems pretty basic to me which of those rights would be more important to a person, and which would be more fundamental for constitutional analysis. The one that doesn’t result in you being dead seems a tad bit more important.” and “If you accept that the battlefield is the entirety of the world, why do you draw the line at assassinations in the US territories? Al Qaeda has been here, has killed Americans here, have lived here, and there may be some right here as we speak. Why, then, does the battlefield suddenly end at US territory for you? If there is “no due process in war”, why would there be some in the US? Convenient line to draw.” We’ve done this before, Bricker, I really don’t understand why you feel the need to mindlessly disparage my posts in this thread when I’ve explained them, complete with citers to caselaw and international law, to you before. I take thtat back, I kinda do understand why you do it. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/45 "2010-11-29T17:07:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So let me predict the future. The court here will find it that doesn’t have the power to constrain the government’s action - that this is ultimately a non-justicible political question. Holy Fuck, Bricker. What pure genius! Why only an intellectual master could have concluded that. Awhile ago. In this very thread. Kudos, Bricker. Kudos. Here it is for you again: "One that will, I think, determine the outcome of this issue. In cases involving the war powers, or the execution of a “war”, the judiciary has a long history of deferring to the other branches. Sometimes, they step in (Steel Seizure cases, In Re Quirin), but, by and large, they defer to the other branches. I’m pretty sure, given the issues with standing and state secrets, that this case will ever be resolved in court. " > [@Bricker](#): > > And **Hamlet** will continue announcing at every opportunity he has how unconstitutional it is, as though that means anything. Ever classy, Bricker. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/46 "2010-11-29T17:13:55Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Holy Fuck, Bricker. What pure genius! Why only an intellectual master could have concluded that. Awhile ago. In this very thread. Kudos, Bricker. Kudos. > > Here it is for you again: "One that will, I think, determine the outcome of this issue. In cases involving the war powers, or the execution of a “war”, the judiciary has a long history of deferring to the other branches. Sometimes, they step in (Steel Seizure cases, In Re Quirin), but, by and large, they defer to the other branches. I’m pretty sure, given the issues with standing and state secrets, that this case will ever be resolved in court. " OK, that’s a fair ding. I missed your acknowledgment (assuming “ever” was really “never.”) > [@](#): > > Ever classy, Bricker. But true. Despite the fact that you acknowledge the question is non-justiciable, and that the executive will thus have the power to do what he wishes, you continue to claim it’s unconstitutional. It’s this smug certainty in the face of contrary (or at least explicitly unhelpful) decisions that makes me see red. “Fuck the federal bench; I alone can say what’s unconstitutional!” ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/47 "2010-11-29T17:25:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But true. True in the same sense that any post here will have zero actual effect on an issue, yes. True in the sense that likewise your declaration that it is constitutional means absolutely nothing. It’s may be true, but it’s still a pathetic post. > [@Bricker](#): > > Despite the fact that you acknowledge the question is non-justiciable, and that the executive will thus have the power to do what he wishes, you continue to claim it’s unconstitutional. It’s this smug certainty in the face of contrary (or at least explicitly unhelpful) decisions that makes me see red. “Fuck the federal bench; I alone can say what’s unconstitutional!” Once again, you completely ignore all I’ve posted, both here and the other thread. I’ve provided you with caselaw, I’ve provided you arguments, analogies, and analysis. I have not said: “fuck the federal bench,” I’ve offered the caselaw FROM the federal bench. I’ve not said “I alone can say”, I’ve supported my points. I’ve also asked questions of you to further delve into your position, questions you have, once again, ignored. Instead, you simply ignore all of it and persist in your misrepresentations that that I’ve offered nothing. It’s dishonest, and, in all honesty, I couldn’t give a flying hoopla what color that makes you see. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/48 "2010-11-29T17:46:02Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > True in the same sense that any post here will have zero actual effect on an issue, yes. True in the sense that likewise your declaration that it is constitutional means absolutely nothing. It’s may be true, but it’s still a pathetic post. > Once again, you completely ignore all I’ve posted, both here and the other thread. I’ve provided you with caselaw, I’ve provided you arguments, analogies, and analysis. I have not said: “fuck the federal bench,” I’ve offered the caselaw FROM the federal bench. I’ve not said “I alone can say”, I’ve supported my points. I’ve also asked questions of you to further delve into your position, questions you have, once again, ignored. Instead, you simply ignore all of it and persist in your misrepresentations that that I’ve offered nothing. It’s dishonest, and, in all honesty, I couldn’t give a flying hoopla what color that makes you see. You have, it’s true, offered both caselaw and analogies. Unfortunately, neither have been on-point. If we’re trying to determine the actions the C-in-C can legally take in the context of his war powers, he don’t really care all that much that a wife can, or cannot, be tried under a military tribunal for the death of her husband. In short, everything you’ve offered is weak-tea analogy, not on-point argument. So you agree that the courts will not disturb the President’s agenda here. What is the purpose of your continuing to insist that you, and your ragtag collection of semi-relevant cases, are actually the correct ones? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/49 "2010-11-29T18:10:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You have, it’s true, offered both caselaw and analogies. Unfortunately, neither have been on-point. If we’re trying to determine the actions the C-in-C can legally take in the context of his war powers, he don’t really care all that much that a wife can, or cannot, be tried under a military tribunal for the death of her husband. And you’ve provided not one case where the Constitution allows the President to assassinate US citizens. Heck, you even agree that the President can’t do if the person is in the US. Yet here you are, mistakenly lambasting me. How very odd. > [@Bricker](#): > > In short, everything you’ve offered is weak-tea analogy, not on-point argument. This coming from the guy who offered the argument that since the 4th Amendment does not require a warrant for US citizens outside the US, it’s constitutional for the President to assassinate a US citizen. The irony of you condemning the very types of arguments that you yourself have made should be blindingly obvious to you. Instead, it’s just pathetic. Check out the log in your eye. And, as I’ve stated before (again completely ignored by you): “I think that a persons’ right to life and due process before execution are a bit more important, constitutionally speaking, than using a wiretapped conversation or having a trial by military commission rather than jury.” And: “So I guess I have to ask again. Why do you think the right to have a search of your belongings be reasonable apply overseas, but the right not to be killed without due process not be? It seems pretty basic to me which of those rights would be more important to a person, and which would be more fundamental for constitutional analysis. The one that doesn’t result in you being dead seems a tad bit more important.” > [@Bricker](#): > > So you agree that the courts will not disturb the President’s agenda here. What is the purpose of your continuing to insist that you, and your ragtag collection of semi-relevant cases, are actually the correct ones? The purpose? To make a well reasoned, supported argument on a message board. What’s yours, outside of hypocrisy and namecalling, I mean? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/50 "2010-11-29T18:12:19Z")
So, **Bricker** , you’re saying that while Yaser Hamdi couldn’t be held indefinitely by the government and denied habeas corpus, it would have been okay if the government instead had arranged for him to be shot? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/51 "2010-11-29T18:25:19Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > So, **Bricker** , you’re saying that while Yaser Hamdi couldn’t be held indefinitely by the government and denied habeas corpus, it would have been okay if the government instead had arranged for him to be shot? I think there’s a load of difference between how the government treats detainees and how it deals with hostile forces out in the field. I think the idea that the Constitution requires that we send FBI agents into extremely hazardous situations to arrest terrorists, because the Constitution precludes the armed forces from attacking such people, is a complete joke. However, once someone is in custody, and at the mercy of the US Government as his captor, the standard of how we treat that person is much different. Generally speaking, government prison guards are not risking their lives by keeping someone in a cell, whereas going out into the wilds of hostile areas of foreign countries in hopes of safely capturing and transporting a particular person is an [extraordinarily](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gothic_Serpent) dangerous thing. I don’t think the Constitution compels the government to send out its agents on such dangerous missions if we are quite literally at war with the target, whether he is an American or not. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/52 "2010-11-29T18:40:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think there’s a load of difference between how the government treats detainees and how it deals with hostile forces out in the field. I think the idea that the Constitution requires that we send FBI agents into extremely hazardous situations to arrest terrorists, because the Constitution precludes the armed forces from attacking such people, is a complete joke. That’s not what I’m saying, so feel free to laugh away at your own strawmen. What I am saying is that when the Constitution states: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, it actually means just it. So give US citizens due process, then assassinate him to your hearts content. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/53 "2010-11-29T18:47:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > That’s not what I’m saying, so feel free to laugh away at your own strawmen. What I am saying is that when the Constitution states: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, it actually means just it. So give US citizens due process, then assassinate him to your hearts content. If you will notice, I wasn’t responding to a point you made. I was responding to **MOIDALIZE** ’s point about detainee policy and the courts, and how one such as myself can simultaneously support court reviews of detainee cases and also think that there’s no problem to put lead on the forehead of dangerous people in other countries, whether they are American or not. If there is an issue with the armed forces attacking American enemies overseas, the right answer is not to have a judge review every order that the President gives to the armed forces. Let the lawyers of the terrorist claim in court that the AUMF is unconstitutional and argue that it should be thrown out because it doesn’t respect due process for American citizens. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/54 "2010-11-29T18:50:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If there is an issue with the armed forces attacking American enemies overseas, the right answer is not to have a judge review every order that the President gives to the armed forces. Let the lawyers of the terrorist claim in court that the AUMF is unconstitutional and argue that it should be thrown out because it doesn’t respect due process for American citizens. Except it’s against the law to provide material support for a terrorist or a terrorist organization. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/55 "2010-11-29T18:52:29Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > So give US citizens due process, then assassinate him to your hearts content. Actually, let me take this ball and run with it. Let’s say for argument’s sake that the government wishes to convince a judge that American X is an Al Qaeda operative and needs to be bombed. Who is going to serve the warrant to American X? I can’t imagine that any process server is just going to fly on over to the secret lair at Tora Bora and serve the papers. And what if there’s a court hearing and American X doesn’t show up? Or even send a lawyer? Is a court-appointed attorney going to protest his innocence, even if the lawyer has never met, never spoken to, and never conferred with his client? Is this is the kind of kangaroo court that you are asking for? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/56 "2010-11-29T18:53:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If there is an issue with the armed forces attacking American enemies overseas, the right answer is not to have a judge review every order that the President gives to the armed forces. Again with the strawmen. Nobody is saying the Constitution requires “a judge review every order that the President gives to the armed forces.” Not one. That’s in your head. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Let the lawyers of the terrorist claim in court that the AUMF is unconstitutional and argue that it should be thrown out because it doesn’t respect due process for American citizens. Guess what this is? That’s right! Another strawman. I’m not arguing (I let Moidalize speak for himself) that the AUMF is Unconstituional, I’m arguing that the AUMF doesn’t let the President disregard the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/57 "2010-11-29T18:55:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except it’s against the law to provide material support for a terrorist or a terrorist organization. As I’ve said before, so far as I’m aware, this individual is being pursued as a combatant, not as a criminal. if they are not being pursued under criminal statutes, it is irrelevant what crimes they may have committed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/58 "2010-11-29T19:11:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And you’ve provided not one case where the Constitution allows the President to assassinate US citizens. Heck, you even agree that the President can’t do if the person is in the US. Yet here you are, mistakenly lambasting me. How very odd. Good grief. There are plenty of cases: The War of 1812 The Spanish-American War World War I World War II etc, etc etc. Any time the country is at war and the Congress has, thereby, granted the President his full powers as Commander-in-Chief. > [@](#): > > And, as I’ve stated before (again completely ignored by you): “I think that a persons’ right to life and due process before execution are a bit more important, constitutionally speaking, than using a wiretapped conversation or having a trial by military commission rather than jury.” And: “So I guess I have to ask again. Why do you think the right to have a search of your belongings be reasonable apply overseas, but the right not to be killed without due process not be? It seems pretty basic to me which of those rights would be more important to a person, and which would be more fundamental for constitutional analysis. The one that doesn’t result in you being dead seems a tad bit more important.” It’s also a “tad” different. You keep using words like “execute,” which evoke a captured prisoner. But this isn’t the case. We’re talking here about making someone a military target and unleashing military force upon him, because he is using military force against us. > [@](#): > > The purpose? To make a well reasoned, supported argument on a message board. What’s yours, outside of hypocrisy and namecalling, I mean? But this “well reasoned” argument of your is impervious to actual fact, since you’ve admitted it won’t change regardless of what the courts will actually do. See, when I say, “It’s unconstitutional,” it’s an objective statement. I mean to say that the action has, or will, be declared violative of the US Constitution by a precedent-setting court. And if I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to say, “Yep, looks like I was wrong.” When you say it, you mean, “…in my opinion only, not necessarily shared or supported by any court.” Your claim, even though you pretend to support it with caselaw, is actually utterly immune to caselaw, because it has already promised to ignore the opinion of those who can definitively interpret that caselaw. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/59 "2010-11-29T19:14:03Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Again with the strawmen. Nobody is saying the Constitution requires “a judge review every order that the President gives to the armed forces.” Not one. That’s in your head. Okay, I exaggerated a bit. However, my point is that al-Awlaki’s father has filed a lawsuit which would require a judge to intervene on how the President implements the law which specifically allows him to target Al Qaeda terrorists without respect of their nationality. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing (I let Moidalize speak for himself) that the AUMF is Unconstituional, I’m arguing that the AUMF doesn’t let the President disregard the Constitution. The President is exercising the authorization for war that Congress gave to him. If Congress erred in allowing him to attack anyone who is associated with Al Qaeda, whether they are American or not, then that is a problem with the AUMF and whether the plain text of the law is constitutional or not. In essence, I’m suggesting that it might be a better legal question as to whether Congress can declare a war that would apply to an American citizen, as opposed to questioning whether the Executive can carry out the war that Congress asked for. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190/60 "2010-11-29T20:54:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Good grief. There are plenty of cases: > > The War of 1812 > The Spanish-American War > World War I > World War II > > etc, etc etc. Any time the country is at war and the Congress has, thereby, granted the President his full powers as Commander-in-Chief. Seeing as how we were discussing caselaw, I kinda thought you’d figure out that I was asking for a court case where the judiciary concluded the President has the power to assassinate US citizens without due process. Is there a case? Or a case (again a COURT case, not merely generalized examples) where the court made a distinction, as you have, that it’s OK to assassinate US citizens abroad, but not in the territorial US? Because that’s kinda what we’re talking about here. > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s also a “tad” different. You keep using words like “execute,” which evoke a captured prisoner. But this isn’t the case. We’re talking here about making someone a military target and unleashing military force upon him, because he is using military force against us. If we were in the traditional battlefield sense, sure, you’d be right. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. And, again, if the “battlefield” is the entire world, why do you think that “battlefield” excludes US territories? > [@Bricker](#): > > See, when I say, “It’s unconstitutional,” it’s an objective statement. I mean to say that the action has, or will, be declared violative of the US Constitution by a precedent-setting court. So you’re all pissy because I didn’t say “In my opinion” or “I think” enough? What a fascinating, pedantic and worthless point. Thanks for sharing. > [@Bricker](#): > > And if I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to say, “Yep, looks like I was wrong.” If you find a Supreme Court case that says the President can authorize the assasination of US citizens here or abroad, I too will admit I was factually wrong. Ain’t that great? > [@Bricker](#): > > When you say it, you mean, “…in my opinion only, not necessarily shared or supported by any court.” Your claim, even though you pretend to support it with caselaw, is actually utterly immune to caselaw, because it has already promised to ignore the opinion of those who can definitively interpret that caselaw. Here’s your big chance. Find me that “definitive caselaw” that allows extrajudicial assassination, and I will admit I’m wrong as a matter of fact. And no, the fact that the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to US citizens abroad isn’t any more convincing to me than the fact that the reasonableness standard of the 4th Amendment does apply to US citizens abroad is to you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassinating-american-citizens-impeach-obama/562190.md?page=4)