No. In fact I said the exact opposite. Repeatedly. In this thread, in the other thread. Need I create a diorama, win the 4th grade diorama-rama, and send it to your house accompanied by the UCLA Marching Band for it to sink in?
So, am I to take it from your continued evasions that you disagree with Holder and I that the Due Process Clause would apply to US Citizens living abroad, even were they designated “unlawful combatants”? Or are you only interested in wasting more of my time.
This seems to be one of those threads wherein people second-guess courts based on reasoning from first principles, rather than reasoning from applicable laws.
I’m inclined to the view that since all these courts are saying Obama’s in the clear–more specifically, that they don’t have jurisdiction over his decisions about who is a military target etc.–it’s probably true that the laws actually do say he’s in the clear.
The approach here isn’t to be mad at the courts, nor even really to be mad at Obama (who can blame him for using the powers he’s been given in the best way he sees fit, and btw I said the same thing about Bush, despite my bleeding-heart-liberal status) but to change the applicable laws.
I’ma need a cite for this one.
That’s not to deny the general point–didn’t the Supreme Court send a man they as much as admitted was innocent to death row because all the technicalities were nevertheless in order?–but your description of the case makes little sense to me.
I reject your false dilemma. I am not evading anything, and I like wasting your time. 
Sure, let’s agree to say that Awlaki got the sufficient amount of due process without court involvement, and we can smile and get on with our lives.
How is asking whether you think the Due Process Clause applies to American Citizens living abroad, even if they are declared unlawful combatants a false dilemma?
Woo Hoo! Another thing we can agree upon.
I’ve already stated I don’t agree with that. I’ve been forthcoming with my viewpoints, so much so that I’ve had to repeat myself to you about numerous points. Yet you seemingly have a problem answering a simple question.
I keep saying, I don’t care by which line of argument one arrives at the final destination, but I agree with Holder that the courts have no role here. Due process, no due process, a little due process, a lot due process, whatever floats your boat: but the courts cannot tell the President how to conduct military attacks. Which is Holder’s main point, and which I agree.
Now do you want the beer or not?
My cite is that it is Mrs. Cad and her ex and I was in court at every hearing. In fact I’m the one that found a copy of her itinerary showing she was in Denmark the day she was supposedly in the courthouse signing the papers.
The judge agreed that the signature was forged, yet was going to hold her to the order anyway?
I confess, I don’t believe that, in the absence of further information.
I suppose I could get into ends justifying the means and conclusory arguments, but, really, I don’t much care anymore.
From you? No.
I’ve said several times: Holder and I reach the same conclusions by different paths. That doesn’t mean I have to embrace his reasons if I think my own are just fine. Supreme Court justices offer concurring opinions all the time. If they can reach similar conclusions by different means, I would think that people who don’t wear robes to work can also agree for different reasons.
You may not agree with me, but I have excellent taste in beer. What a pity.
I can’t think that’s necessarily so, in that treason is mentioned as criminal in the Constitution (and the suspected traitor is given special legal rights).
The new Communist. Al Qaeda is a brand name. What evidence is there that this guy actually “authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”?
He just has to be apart of an organization that did. The question is whether AQAP is such an organization. You can read about the history of AQAP to come to your own conclusion. I think it’s a close call, but I’d say it is apart of the Al Qaeda group that committed the 9/11 attacks.
Right. To be somewhat generous with the editing of the key phrase of the 9/11 use of force resolution, “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those … organizations… he determines … harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States…”
I am leaving out a lot of words there only to make the point that the use of force authorization extends to organizations that “harbored” any people or organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks. It takes only two minutes of googling to see that there are extensive relations between AQAP and the core of Al Qaeda, not to mention that AQAP has been directly linked – that’s too soft a term, actually – AQAP has been proudly proclaiming its responsibility for attacks on the US including the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the plot to send explosives to the US by cargo planes, and surely other attempts that we don’t know about.
Even if AQAP were not covered by the 9/11 resolution, there’s a very reasonable case to be made that the United States is allowed to take military action in self-defense against an organization that is actively working to attack the United States. That, of course, depends on the imminence of the threat and all the various factors of international law on the use of armed force, but one cannot seriously suggest that the United States is not allowed to preempt a terrorist organization plotting deadly attacks, as has been done several times even before 9/11.
The judge never agreed it was forged and remember, the ex filed just enough counts of contempt on the order to prevent it from being a jury trial. Evidence was presented it was forged but the judge chose to believe the ex’s story that she signed it which led in part to her attorney being treatened with jail on contempt.
Okay that explains it. Your posts have been (unintentionally I assume) misleading–you said the judge decided to jail her “on the facts of the case” and you listed the forgery as one of the relevant facts.
Actually, I listed the forgery as a merit of her case. Remember the whole post was in response to the claim that if you have a strong case on merits, you should let it go to court. My example was to show as you pointed out that merits do not equal facts as far as a judge/jury is concerned.
I didn’t realise it until just now but Holder’s argument was being advanced not just to excuse the extrajudicial murder of Awlaki senior but also his 16-year old son two weeks later.
Here’s a bit more detail.
So I’m going to upgrade my assessment from ‘pettifogging bullshit’ to ‘morally-repugnant pettifogging bullshit of the highest order’.
Thanks for those links, lisiate. I hadn’t heard about those killings. I’ll stand by my original assessment that this was state-sponsored murder. Further, I think it should be illegal, if in fact it’s currently legally justified, and cannot morally justify the murder of this 16 year old kid (or his 17 year old cousin).
I’ve never liked the notion that our country just kills people we feel to be especially bothersome.
We have an adminsitration that routinely ignores the Constitution. Holder is just putting this out to test initial reaction-later, there will be even more erosion of individual rights and freedoms, as we march toward dictatorship.
Amazing that Holder has the time to work on this, while nothing seems to be happening with the trial of the 9/11 suspects.
Oh, and instead of lecturing us on how racist we are, Holder now thinks we’re going to swallow this as well.
A disgrace and a blot on S history.