Anwar al-Awlaki’s rights are irrelevant. The fifth amendment prevents the federal government from taking certain actions. The President (who is in America) cannot take certain actions, including taking a person’s life without due process, which includes a trial after grand jury indictment.
That doesn’t make it invalid, that shows how even in the US people can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. If someone takes hostages and the SWAT sniper team is called in and they’re going to shoot the guy, they don’t have to wait to arrest him, charge him with a crime, convict him before a jury of his peers and then put him back with his hostages and shoot him.
You’ll notice that the examples I used included a terrorist group being targeted by the US marines. We don’t have to wait until our enemies are actually in combat with us in order to launch military attacks at them. And there is currently no degree of oversight for that, if the marines decide that a target should be bombed, chances are some marine aviators are going to bomb it.
Now whether or not there should be oversight if such military actions involve Americans abroad is another matter, but the claim that it’s not constitutional doesn’t seem to hold on precedent or basic logic.
However, the AUMF gives the President and the President alone the authority to determine what nations, organizations, or people are associated with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. While this may or may not have been the smartest law, there’s nothing unconstitutional about it.
Pierrot: One more time, my question: if Bin Laden were an American citizen, would it be unconstitutional for an F-18 to drop a bomb on him?
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.
The Constitution doesn’t stop applying because someone is evil. I think the Constitution requires due process before depriving a US citizen of life (outside of combat operations of course) by targeted assassination, whether that citizen is Martin Luther King or Osama Bin Laden.
Are you fine with the President able to assassinate any US citizen he wishes without trial, simply by declaring them an enemy? Because I’m not.
How is this “outside of combat operations”?
First: this situation is, in fact, combat operations.
Second: which of your interpretive crystal balls supplied the information that the Constitution protects US citizens from such actions, but not all persons? I don’t find that language in the text, but I know that the text is only a base for your artistic construction efforts. So I’m just wondering how you get there from here.
Who cares?
At its heart, Hamlet, THIS is your argument. You’re not fine with it. You think it’s a bad idea. And so you try to shoehorn it into being unconstitutional.
If you were truly arguing that this was unconstitutional, why in the world would you appeal to whether or not the reader is “fine” with the President having this power? Surely you don’t believe that people being “fine” with it has much to do with its constitutionality.
Do you?
The mere fact it may involve the military does not make it “combat operations”. Feel free to use the term “traditional battlefield” or “place where shit is blowing up” if it eases your mind.
Really? “Artistic construction efforts”? Ususally you wait awhile in a thread before jumping into your groundless namecalling. Maybe it’s post holiday blues.
And you, in your vast knowledge of the Constitution, never came across any of the caselaw dealing with who the Constitution applies to? Wow. Because in the linked thread, I could swear I gave you actual cases to explain just that. Maybe you could reread that thread. Or the caselaw. Here’s a hint, it also applies to people in the territorial US, not just US citizens. And in some cases, the Constitution applies to US citizens who are not in the territorial US. I know, weird huh? If you need further education on the issue (which would surprise me because you and I actually agreed that the Constitution can apply to US citizens abroad), I’ll have more time later to explain it to you.
More baseless dismissals. You are aware of the due process clause, aren’t you. I’m almost positive that is in the actual Constitution. Let me check quickly. I’ll be right back.
Hey, whatta know. It is there:
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”
Wow, an actual clause in the Constitution. I thought, seeing as how I referenced it upthread and in the earlier thread, you might have remembered. Apparently it slipped your mind.
I’m a tad surprised. Usually you don’t begin your flailing around with these Brickerisms until much later in the thread, when you get really desperate.
Actually, there is a difference between “unconstitutional” and “wrong”. Targeted assasination of US citizens is both “unconstitutional” and “wrong”. My pointing out that it is wrong in no way, your protestations aside, demeans the argument that it is also unconstitutional.
And there’s nothing in the Constitution that limits the Congressional exercise of the war power. I’m sure you do not agree, but the Fifth Amendment quite clearly references the protections given to someone accused of a crime. Enemies in war aren’t necessarily breaking US law, they are valid targets for killing because that is what war is: killing enemies of the United States. Being an American doesn’t magically make a bad person a criminal and preclude them from being an enemy.
ANY US citizen? No. There has to be a reason someone is targeted, just like I’m not okay with the President killing ANY foreigner overseas.
If Congress has authorized the killing of some type of enemy, and an American has cast his lot in with that enemy, then he seems like a valid target to me. If the President during peacetime just ups and decides that it would be hella cool if Joe Blow from Tupelo on a family vacation in Paris be terminated with extreme prejudice – just to give those Special Ops guys someone to practice on – then of course that’s not okay.
And who makes that determination, pray tell? From skimming the thread, the consensus would appear to be that it’s entirely the President’s discretion.
How about if the feds happen to know that a certain suspect in a criminal proceeding is traveling to Ontario for vacation – would it be OK for agents to lie in wait at his girlfriend’s house and kill him there? Saving taxpayer dollars for those troublesome court costs, you know.
The entire Constitution works to limit their war power. They can’t establish a religion in the exercise of the war power. They cannot deny free speech to US citizens because of the AUMF. Invoking the “war powers” isn’t a magical trump card that renders the rest of the Constitution meaningless.
You do have a very good point there, though. 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.
Once again, the due process clause doesn’t say that. Heck, the Constitution even makes it clear that being an enemy of the US (treason), requires more than the President deciding that he can order someone’s assasination. This distinction you are trying to make between an “enemy” and a “criminal” is without basis in the text.
But you’re leaving the detemination of the “reason” to the President, with no oversight whatsoever. He calls you an “enemy”, he gets to assasinate you, no ifs, ands, or buts.
It’s more than not just OK, it’s unconstitutional.
How interesting that whenever Barack Obama takes a proactive stance against terrorism, the opposing party claims that he should be impeached.
Now, I don’t put a lot of stock into conspiracy theories about the GOP (esp. the GWB Administration) covertly supporting terrorists, up to and including the planning and funding of 9/11 itself…but OP’s like this make me wonder.
I’m not following what the First Amendment has to do with the actual execution of war, that is, killing enemies.
And the difference is that this person isn’t being sought as a criminal, he’s an enemy who is being treated like any other combatant.
Almost, not quite. The Congress and the President share the war power. If Congress wants to restrict the authorization for the use of force, they may try to do so. If they believe that the President has massively misinterpreted its authorization and the Constitution, they may seek impeachment as the OP suggests. That’s oversight.
Please don’t mar your argument with inaccuracies such as suggesting that the President or the war is immune from oversight, when it seems that your complaint is that you don’t like the results of the oversight thus far. You may wish to note that one major reason this item is in the news is that the former Director of National Intelligence spoke in a hearing with the House Intelligence Committee about the process by which the Executive Branch may order the killing of an enemy who is an American.
In this hypothetical scenario, has Congress declared war on this certain suspect, or any groups to which he belongs?
Has Congress done so for the actual case at hand?
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.
Yes, we agreed that some basic Constitutional guarantees can apply. We ALSO agreed that there’s a distinction between that and saying that the full for ce and effect of all Constitutional guarantees applies.
Is the OP “the opposing party?”
Who precisely is calling for Obama’s impeachment on this?
If anyone, it’s the far left in Obama’s own party… not “the opposing party.”
On a side note, I’d love the Republican’s to forward impeachment proceedings on Obama for this. After years of, “yer either with us or agin us” can you imagine the entertainment value involved in, “Obama should be impeached for doing what we wanted Bush to do all along?”
Is your argument that the President can not order anyone to be assassinated, regardless of their citizenship?
Yes. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as has been mentioned several times already in this thread.
So back to your question, has Congress declared war or authorized military force against this criminal traveling to Ontario, or on any groups which he belongs? If they have not, then no, the President would not be justified in killing an American because he happens to be in a foreign country, as I stated some time ago in re: Joe Blow from Tupelo.
As I explained: " Invoking the “war powers” isn’t a magical trump card that renders the rest of the Constitution meaningless." Even in the “execution of war”, the government is bound by the Constitution.
Simply calling someone an “enemy” doesn’t magically make the Constitution not apply. Do you think that Obama has the power to order the assassination of any US citizen because he decides, for himself, that that person is an “enemy”? Even if that person is living in the US? Do you believe that when the Constitution says: “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, it didn’t actually mean it as long as the President decides you’re an “enemy”?
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.
That’s when it made the news, not when it was authorized. And, despite your protestations, if there is enough oversight to meet the “due process” standard, then I’m all for it. Heck, if we’re sure enough of the “oversight” lets let the court decide. Somehow, I think that ain’t going to happen.
Again, though, what Republicans are being vocal critics of this move? The biggest outcry I see is from the left.