OK. And which court case declares it so? Because this thread was started by a court which UPHELD the state secrets claim, right?
So surely you believe that some other court’s decision is the correct one. Because I know you’re not simply saying, “I am right, no matter what the President or the courts say!!”
Are you?
No, the court in the OP hasn’t decided anything yet. The government filed a brief with the court asking them to dismiss the suit without hearing the merits by claiming state secrets.
Oh, you do read what I post. Odd, because I spent a fair amount of time explaining my position, complete with cites to caselaw, and arguments, only to have them ignored by you. Why was that?
Ohhh, that’s why. because you needed a jumping pad for Brickertrope #3 “Not everything wrong is Unconstitutional!” Gotcha.
I actually explained why I think assassinating US citizens here and abroad is Unconstitutional, only to have you ignore it.
Are you with Ravenman on this? Do you believe that the President is constitutionally allowed to assassinate US citizens in the US as long as there is a grant of the war power from Congress?
Heh, fat lot of good that will do the murderee, or their family.
Because your citations to authority were not on point.
Oddly, the actual on-point cases don’t support your view, which is, I assume, why you chose to not quote them.
And the Ninth Circuit? I mean, if I ignore you, it’s just a guy on a message board, but when they ignore you, it sets precedent. Sucks, eh?
In the U.S? No. Outside the U.S.? Yes.
Cite?
You’re not asking me, but I’ll respond.
I think the President could, and I think he could without a grant of war power from Congress. If the situation demands it.
Let’s play out a scenario. Highly armed drug gangs storm into El Paso and start robbing banks openly. Mexican Americans take part in this. The police/state militia cannot respond effectively. Some enemies are in houses a few miles away making plans on where to rob/attack next calling in the plans with cell phones. I believe the President, on his own, can respond to these actions with military force and kill anyone taking part to quell and push it back over the border do this whether or not those people are actually firing a weapon and whether or not they are Americans or aliens. That’s a war.
So that’s a “classic” battlefield. But what if they are not calling in from Texas, but Maine. What difference does it make as long as they are the enemy taking up arms against the US or helping to do so. You could storm the room and kill them.
What if the initial attack is over, but this American enemy is in the US and trying to set up a round 2. I still think they are the enemy, and subject to shoot first. But we are moving very far away from teh “ideal” battlefield and into scary territory. But legally, I’d still err with yes. Politically, it might be suicide.
I’m assuming when you say assassinate you just mean kill an enemy without that person being an actual threat right at that exact moment even though they would be in the future (ie, killing them by surprise so they don’t have a chance to shoot first or escape or kill later).
Hamlet-don’t you dare go putting words in my mouth. Or at least read what I have written before doing so. I specifically addressed my view of using military force in the US previously, in which I quoted the preamble to the AUMF which appears to limit the use of force to stop international, not domestic, terrorism. Perhaps you are confusing me with some other poster who is making slippery slope arguments about children alseep in thier cribs in Atlanta, Seattle, or Taos being executed by the CIA?
As to the war power, I notice you mention the steel mills issue. I seem to recall something about the power of the President being at it’s highest when he acts with the specific authorization of Congress. That is what I am saying, not your fantastical interpretations.
If I have mangled any of your arguments in the manner you have mangled mine, please let me know. I do not wish to willfully misrepresent anything you say, no matter how much I disagree with you. I will gladly apologize for any transgressions to that effect, I hope you would share the same spirit with me and my arguments.
Maybe I missed something, but I’m not seeing this at all. The Ninth Circuit ruled on the assassination of US citizens? I musta missed that.
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.
Why? Due process before assassination only applies in US territory? Why would jury trial and reasonableness of searches apply, but not, say your right not to be killed?
You may have an argument to make. You just haven’t made it yet.
[quote=“Ravenman, post:106, topic:555325”]
Congress cannot lawfully authorize the president to exercise a power not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You just assume, under the “constitutional process of making war,” Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate to the president a power to determine who our enemy is for purposes of assassination, and the president can exercise this power. I disagree with this assumption.
Your reliance upon Congress’ authorization of the use of force (use of force=your phrase of make war) against Al Qaeda as an exercise of what you describe as Congress’ “to make war” powers in the U.S. Constitution, is one thing. From this you claim this constitutional power vests Congress with the authority to allow the president to designate who is or is not a part of the group Congress has authorized the use of military force against, and engaged against us as an enemy, and therefore, may be killed.
Using this logic, the president could designate a U.S. citizen within the geographical boundaries of the United States as an enemy, as someone belonging to the group Congress authorized the use of military force against, and therefore, may be killed. Are you comfortable with this implication? Is this implication palatable to you?
Again, no, I do not believe the authorization gives the President authority to launch military strikes within the US, for the same reasons I’ve related twice on this page. If Congress intended the authorization to apply in the US, it is a matter of such significance that I think they would have been unambiguous about allowing such a thing.
Do I think Congress could have authorized it? Although I would not agree that it was the right thing to do, I think it is within the reach of Congress to deal with rebellions with military force, as the Insurrection Act of 1807 (I think that’s the right date) contemplated.
However, I think one must be extremely cautious about allowing the military to operate within our borders. We have police forces that have access to every inch of this country. The same cannot be said of Al Qaeda camps in Pakistan, Somalia, or elsewhere, leading me to give the benefit of the doubt to using lethal force overseas, but not here.
I’m trying to understand your position by asking questions, and then trying to explain why I think you’re wrong. I don’t mean to misrepresent what you are saying, but I am trying to understand the repercussions of your argument.
For example, I asked about the Constitutional limits of Presidential war powers, but your answer dealt with the limits of the AUMF, not the Constitution. As I pointed out before (and Notre Dame did just recently), Congress and the President cannot violate the Constitution on the basis of simple statutory authority. The AUMF cannot trump the US Constitution.
Suppose the man in question, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, returns to American soil. In your view, is there anything in the Constitution that prevents the President authorized to assassinate him, without trial? Suppose a Muslim woman in Seattle writes a check that (unknowingly to her) gets to Al Qaeda. Can she be assassinated without trial? Because, from what I gather from your argument, the answer would be yes. And that disregard both for common decency and the Constitution scares me.
ETA: Based on your answer to NotreDame, I think we are back to the issue of whether or not a simple act of Congress (AUMF) can trump the Constitution (the right to due process before being deprived of life). It’s pretty clear to me that it can’t. Why do you think it can?
Fair enough.
Let me add one more remark here – even within the law of war there is a concept of proportionality. Even if this woman were located in Quetta, any use of force against her must be proportional, and I do not think that sending a missile down her chimney would be justified by the law of war.
I think the act of declaring war, or authorizing military force, comes with it the sufficient constitutional justification to kill people and break things. To be a bit flippant about it, once war is authorized, that IS the due process that our enemies are entitled to, provided that they have the means to resist or escape. War is constitutional because the Constitution allows it, and the very nature of war is the killing of enemies (within the laws of war). If war doesn’t allow the killing of enemies, then it is not war.
I have more to say but must rejoin the conversation later.
We agree on that, at least. But the point of the question was to deal with what the limits the Constitution puts on executive actions, not what the “laws of war” traditionally hold. In this example, I’m trying to get at whether or not you think the President has the authority under the Constitution to assassinate people in the US, without one lick of due process.
Again, I fear you continue to use “battlefield” examples to answer “non battlefield” examples. I do not think that simply declaring war is enough “due process” to meet the requirements of the Constitution to allow the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen.
No worries. Have a good day.
Art II, Sec 2 of the US Constitution.
And you’ve got it backwards. You’re claiming something is illegal. Everything is legal, unless a law forbids it. So you say the President can’t do it? It’s for YOU to identify what law is broken.
But is there any caselaw in support of that position?
[quote=“Bricker, post:135, topic:555325”]
Uh, not for the federal government. It’s powers are expressly enumerated. Anything outside of that is not legal.
The position that the death penalty needs more than just a declaration of war? Gregg. Herrera. Snyder. Goldberg. Our treaties like the Geneva Convention. Hamdan. Hamdi. Do you really think that a declation of war meets the requirements of the due process clause, or are you simply trying to waste my time.
And, just so you know, I couldn’t help but notice that you, once again, completely ignored everything else I posted directly to you and on point about your posts. Apparently these little snipes are the best you have.
If this particular case were a classic “battlefield” example, should due process apply to an American in that battlefield?
I think this is a “lets both be on the same groundfloor type question.” I don’t think the constitution applies equally in a battlefield (armed conflict) vs. outside a battlefield (non-armed conflict).
I think the confusion lies in that some people see a battlefield (armed conflict) where others don’t. The question of whether you can kill an American as a measure of first resort depends on whether it occurs during an armed conflict or not. If the killing does not occur in an ‘armed conflict’, the answer is much different. We can debate in good faith what constitutes a battlefield forever, but ultimately it’s up to who you voted for: Congress (they did not limit it), President (this man in Yemen constitutes an armed conflict), Courts (AQ in Afghanistan, yes, here…??) to decide. (And to a lesser extent international opinions).
If you agree that the constitution (mainly 4th due process) does not apply to an American on a classic battlefield in foreign areas, then it’s just a matter of how wide you interpret the battlefield to extend or where that battlefield is. There’s no legal answer to that question in this particular case (AQ outside Afghanistan I don’t think has been ruled on) and it ultimately hinges on the facts of the particular situation. Congress can surely preemptively limit it and they chose not to in this “war.” They said the President could go wherever he finds the enemy. Thus, it’s up to the President and/or whether the courts want to chime in and restrain him or not.
We do agree on that answer:the full panoply of rights don’t apply overseas, but some rights do.
Weren’t two of the “German” saboteurs U.S. citizens in Ex Parte Quinn? And didn’t Johnson v Eisentrager set a stage here as well?
There’s no due process at war. While this is a non-tradtional battlefield, it’s still a battlefield, and the situation is entitled to all legal incidents of the condition of armed conflict.
However, no court has squarely addressed the issue of what constitutes a battlefield.