Actually, the Constitution says that Congress may enact laws regarding treason, and Congress has done so. It is the only specific crime mentioned in the Constitution.
Whew.
Yeah. Harder to kill.
You have doubt? Government saying Joe Bloe my neighbor is a terrorist? Doubtful. Government saying this guy who is all over the internet and has a 10 year history of terrorism is a terrorist? Hmm…I concur.
I’m getting the sense that either you don’t know what trials are - the fact that the guy knows he’s being targeted doesn’t mean he doesn’t need a trial - or you’re OK with show trials as long as you’re sure the person is guilty.
Then shouldn’t there be some kind of rubric that allows the government to determine this guy is a terrorist that wouldn’t also allow them to say your neighbor is a terrorist just as easily?
Un-cited allegations?! I’m sorry, I thought this was common knowledge! :eek:
…yezzz. That would be the common knowledge part. There are also several other ways to waive your right to due process (at least temporarily), but carry on.
Yes, well, the legal community (and the U.N.) largely disagrees. We’re not able to reasonably send in ground troops to capture him.
Because the Constitution requires it and because it’s a good idea. Call me crazy, but I’m not comfortable with the idea of the President having the power to kill, without trial, anybody, anywhere in the world based only on his say so. I think, and the founders thought, powers as great as those should come with some degree of oversight.
I don’t. US citizens, however, should be. Calling a US citizen a “military target” and then killing them flies in the face of the Constitution and what is right.
No matter how many smilies you use, that shouldn’t change.
Yep, and we have had the Supreme Court rule on that and create a system of rules and laws determining when deadly force can be used, who it can be used on, and where it can be used. It’s been a part of our judicial system for decades, going through the determinations on case by case basis, with judicial review, and jury trials.
It’s a far cry from "we can kill him because he’s an enemy of the US because the President said so.
I’m getting the sense that you think that conspiring against the United States with a foreign enemy somehow gets you kid gloves.
Apparently the all branches of the U.S. government that I can think of, the U.N., our NATO allies, and pretty much the international community has determined he is a terrorist.
Oh snaps, I hate to pull this one out, but the PATRIOT ACT defines domestic terrorism.
You thought wrong.
I can see I’m simply wasting my time with you.
Yes, probably. Is Al-Awlaki in a fortified compound from which he will open fire on approaching law enforcement?
Reread the Constitution and it’s requirements for treason, as well as it’s requirements for due process. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution is a good place to start.
Yep, wasting my time.
Where? The penalty for treason is death. The SCOTUS has already ruled in the many instances where someone has waived their Fifth Amendment rights.
Well, that would make you a couple of crayons short of a legal box there, since the President’s authority regarding war and intelligence matters is kept in check. Not to mention that huge Senate-confirmed cabinet. Do you really think the President can just put an unchecked hit out on someone? 
Plenty of oversight…as I’ve pointed out…but you are ignoring it.
Argue that. Really. Argue that. I’m happy to read. All you’ve said is, “That’s wrong!” and “He should be given a trial!” and “He’s not aiming a real gun at us!”
Your opinion a law does not make.
Read 18 USC , § 2381.
He doesn’t seem to mind the target on his head. He probably enjoys it.
Treason aside:
shrug He’s a member of another army. We’re in an active war. Can’t help him. I understand you think that something isn’t legal because it doesn’t feel right, but that doesn’t make it law.
This is a nation of laws.
What army is he a member of?
I think trials are a fundamental part of the legal system, not “kid gloves.” That’s why it’s in the Constitution.
This has what bearing on the Constitution?
[/quote]
Same question. You might remember a lot of people had this problem with the USA PATRIOT Act when it was whipped up.
We’re not talking about the penalty, we’re talking about the process. The Constitution doesn’t let the President say “Well, he committed treason, so I can kill him now.” In fact, it specifically forbids it.
They’ve never held that being called an “enemy combatant” by the President waives those rights. Never.
You’re the one advocating that the President can do that. I don’t think “Well, I have intelligence, and my team agrees, so I can” is enough oversight.
What Army was Uday Hussein a member of?
Has this situation we’re presently dealing with ever been addressed by the SCOTUS? Without a SCOTUS decision I would argue that the President’s role as C-in-C and the congressional resolutions that were passed authorizing the use of military force against terrorist agents empower the President with the ability to decide when and where to use that military force.
Franklin Roosevelt did not have to consult the constitution every time a commando raid was launched anywhere in the world against any enemy force. Roosevelt was given broad discretion in determining where to use our forces, who to use them against, and how to use them.
We’re not actually talking about Uday Hussein, so I don’t see how that’s relevant, but IIRC he was (at least on paper) a muqaddam (roughly equivalent to lieutenant colonel) in the Iraqi army.
Also, there typically is not judicial review or jury trials for police taking out an active shooter. In most such cases it is only reviewed internally by the police department. If the police department decides that the shooting was not a justifiable use of force it will go to that jurisdiction’s prosecuting attorney where it will then be under our court system. However anyone who follows the news know that such a thing only happens in rare circumstances.
Which had been disbanded. He was just a guy in a house when we surrounded it with 200 people and pumped it full of bullets.