Depends. In your scenario am I in a location where I cannot be captured and am I actively planning the violent deaths of hundreds of innocent people?
The only limit you seem to put on it is that the President unilaterally decides that the person killed is an enemy and affiliated in whatever way the President decides, with a group that may be or was a threat to the US. The complete lack of legitimate oversight makes it a hell of a lot closer to “whomever he pleases” than I, or the Constitution, is comfortable with.
But you and I danced this dance in those earlier threads I linked to, so I don’t really anticipate us breaking any new ground here.
Remind me again where in the Constitution it says "does not apply if too tough or the guy is really bad.
The Constitution is no more on your side than God is.
I’m not aware of any clause of the Constitution that says that someone who is actively making war against the US is entitled to a trial.
“His scenario”? Why, you’re planning it right now! Clearly the only solution is to kill you and your family with an airstrike.
Well you overstate that a little, you only have to be **thought **to be actively planning etc. There won’t be any of that pesky evidemce required. You know, no proof of guilt.
If there’s no evidence, what’s the basis for thinking the person is planning a terrorist attack?
So if I’m holding hostages and killing one every 10 minutes the constitution says you can’t kill me, you must arrest me? Even though that’ll probably only happen when I’ve worked my way through all the people I have?
Clearly that’s not the case. When left with no other alternative the use of deadly force in the protection of innocent people is justified.
Let me help: "
Nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." You’ll notice there is no “unless they’re enemies or really bad guys”. In fact, the Constitution discusses what is necessary to declare someone guilty of Treason and subject to the death penalty."
Are you asking him to disclose his legal opinion justifying Zoid’s immolation?
I’m saying he is wrong, which should be obvious because his comment was self-contradictory. He said no evidence is required, which is nonsense: if there’s no evidence, what’s the basis for believing the person is involved in terrorism? He means the evidence doesn’t go through the court system or a judicial review. That’s problematic enough without saying evidence isn’t required.
Thanks for this.
It seems to me the part I highlighted is the sticking point. Who gets to decide what is appropriate and necessary? Nowhere in that does it say that the President is the arbiter of what is appropriate and necessary. Are these terms defined elsewhere by Congress, the Constitution or the Courts?
ETA: Quick, someone help me find a fourth ‘C’ so we can call this the Diamond Test.
In fairness, the other side isn’t arguing that such Americans have to be arrested. They are saying that Congress can only declare war on foreigners, and that judges have to sign off on some military operations. These provisions of the Constitution are in there somewhere, they claim. Maybe in Article IX, which I’ve never found.
I asked before but, is it possible that the people targeted are tried in absentia and a judge signed off on the strike? I have no idea if that happens but it would be nice to know that there was some consideration and process that went into the decision to shoot a missle at someone.
The president gets to decide. Otherwise the law would authorize the president to carry out Congress’ decision rather than giving the president the authority to make those decisions. If Congress had wanted to define those terms it would have done so in the text of the law. Like I said earlier, if they don’t like the way the president is using military force, they can pass a new law reversing or altering the authorization.
There’s no reason to think so - and no evidence for it. I’m sure the administration would say it were trying people in absentia if it were doing so, but they’re saying they don’t have to.
Great point. If only the Supreme Court had actual court cases to discuss this very thing. Why wouldn’t it be great if there were real cases, real life Supreme Court cases, that discussed when the Constitution permits the use of deadly force. Such a thing would certainly poke a hole in my argument. And if only the Attorney General created guidelines about when deadly force could be used against people like the person in your example. That would surely be a help.
“Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”
Now, if the President has a reasonable belief that a US citizen is an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, I’d support that. Especially if he’s willing to actually show it in court or subject his decision to actual judicial review rather than hiding behind state secrets, standing, or other barriers to justiciability. But, alas, we haven’t seen that happen.
It sure would be great, wouldn’t it. And Holder, in his defense, has said that the procedures they follow comply with the requirements of due process. He just doesn’t think he has to show it to anyone in the judiciary or the American people. Just trust him.
Neither is relevant, since they presume facts.
This is isn’t about what you are doing or not doing; this is about “can the President kill people as he pleases”. Because it doesn’t matter if you are planning to kill people, or are a random guy on vacation, or a political enemy of his; he can still kill you with no oversight and no recourse.
No surprise there.
Cite? Because we know that’s not what the AUMF says, of course.