That’s what I’m advocating. Actual Due Process. See, we agree! But I also think it is possible to have that actual due process, without it devolving into a “star chamber”. Once again, I trust the military tribunals, the lawyers, the judicial review, and this President enough to think they can make it work. I can understand if you don’t, and if you think my proposals don’t go far enough to amount to Actual Due Process. What I don’t quite get is somebody saying my proposal doesn’t go far enough to protect due process, yet actually advocating no process whatsoever before assassination.
Ideally, I would like Congress to do this. Alternatively, I would like to see the executive branch notify Congress where it intends to use “battlefield” tactics.
Operationally, as I said in that other thread, I would see it work like this: The battlefield is anyplace we are actively engaged in armed conflict (eg, Afghanistan) plus those countries (or parts of countries) that are not effectively under the control of the central government. I would then add places, like NK, where we cannot expect the central government to cooperate with us.
This would mean that Germany, for example, is not a battlefield. We don’t send in drones to kill suspected terrorists in Germany. We cooperate with the central government, and capture/kill the bad guys either in concert with them, or through them acting as our agents.
Yemen, OTOH, is not a country where the central government can effective patrol its own territory. We know that AQ operatives are using that country as a base to plan terror attacks against the US (and other countries), and the central government isn’t capable of capturing or killing them.
You’re not advocating actual due process, though, because you’re sentencing him to death without him even participating in his trial. How is that better than just assassinating him?
You could be right. I think the ACLU, the CCR, and his father would have been sufficient to my mind for a military tribunal, but I do understand you point. Maybe I don’t go far enough.
So do you propose capturing him at the expense of how many U.S. military lives? American lives? French? Yemeni?
I’m trying to calculate the worth of this due process.
I had no idea the Constitution came with a price tag.
Nowhere has the Supreme Court ruled that a person’s 5th Amendment rights trumped the rights of other innocent’s lives.
Members of the Armed Forces are not required to calmly talk to a man who has a gun pointed at them. In fact, they authorize use of deadly force.
Police aren’t required to become a hostage of a suspect, either. They use deadly force…erm…permanent detention. :o
SCOTUS has ruled on the Fourth Amendment and deadly force. When reasonable, an officer is allowed to use deadly force to prevent the immediate harm of others. (Obviously the allowance of deadly force just negated all other Amendments, rights, laws and such.)
A bullet to the head works just fine.
aside from that. If someone was considered a homicidal maniac and a danger to the public, wouldn’t law enforcement kill them rather than allow them to escape, even if they were unarmed?
you ain’t from around here are ya?
I’m not complaining about the military tribunal part of it. I’m complaining about the in absentia part of it. Capture him first and then try him. Don’t try him before you have him in custody. That’s what I’m saying. And if it’s impossible to capture him; if he’s in a situation where the only way to stop him from murdering people is to kill him, then kill him. Killing him like that is playing fast and loose with the law. It’s not a good solution. It’s not what I want to see happen. But if there is no way to capture the guy, then you have to do it.
The issue is who decides if he’s “in a situation where the only way to stop him from murdering people is to kill him”? At some point, someone is deciding that “in abstentia”. What Hamlet is saying, and I agree with him, is that it needs to be more than just the president.
You don’t like a trial “in abstentia”, but you’re OK with a verdict “in abstentia”.
I don’t get that.
It isn’t like the President woke up one day and decided to kill him. If the President is granted the rights and responsibilities of war, why do you want to take that away? Congress is oversight. His cabinet is oversight. His legally-mandated intel and legal members are part of Congressional oversight. There was no ‘just the President’ about it.
There is no verdict in the man’s absence. We know that people commit murder all the time before they’re declared guilty. There’s no court here. He can’t be brought to trial.
What exactly do you want? A direct referendum?
Why can’t he be brought to trial, exactly? Are you under the impression that we don’t arrest people outside the US?
He can’t be brought to trial because he’s in a place where we can’t get to him. He’s in hiding with tribal leaders in Southern Yemen. Neither us or the Yemeni government have control of the area, and the Yemenese tribe that he’s staying with won’t turn him over to either us or the Yemenese government (the Yemenese also want him for crimes). There’s no real practical way for us to arrest or capture him.
Sure, he could be arrested if the opportunity arose. But the chances of being able to get US agents in a position to arrest al Alakwi is basically a million to one shot. The chances of having a Predator in position to kill him is maybe a thousand to one shot.
As we have discussed, the courts have found there is no legal remedy to being targeted as an enemy combatant in a foreign country, indicating that there is no legal right to due process in the court system. Therefore, there’s no legal reason to forego the thousand-to-one shot in favor of the million-to-one shot.
Again, that’s irrelevant. Nobody accused Obama of deciding to kill this guy on a whim.
Presidents don’t have rights. They have powers, and yes, responsibilities. Obama doesn’t have some kind of right to kill this guy or anyone else. That’s ludicrous.
Correct, although they don’t seem to be exercising any oversight here.
No, this is wrong. The cabinet does not oversee the president at all. They advise him. They are presidential appointees and they serve at his pleasure. If he doesn’t like the job they are doing or the advice they give, he can replace them. That’s particularly true for the legal advisers you’re talking about. They don’t require Congressional approval. They’re all part of the executive branch. There is no way these people constitute oversight. It’s true that some relevant people certainly reviewed the intelligence related to al-Awlaki and I’m sure Obama’s legal team reviewed the relevant case law. That’s not oversight.
Nobody has made an effort to bring him to trial. I doubt it’s impossible to bring him to trial. Impractical, sure. Not worth it considering the obstacles, sure. But that’s not impossible.
I think a bunch of us have said exactly what we want: a defined process with some specific oversight. That’s not what exists now. Right now, the president and his security team make their determinations about who can be killed, say the AUMF allows him to make that call, and that’s the end of it.
Not from the President’s point of view, no, but that’s hardly the only one that should be taken into account.
Really?
Is it only oversight when Congress does what you would prefer it to do?
In the recent court arguments, the government repeated numerous times tha al Alakwi would not be harmed if he surrendered himself to face charges in the US justice system. Al Alakwi hasn’t deigned to make himself available for questioning.
And the judiciary seems to have concluded that this is the system that the Constitution requires.
Yes. The judiciary has weighed in on the matter. They have come down on the side of the President, Congress, and the law. The interests of enemy combatants on foreign territory was taken into account, but found wanting.
What point are you trying to make? That it’s legal? We know that. What we’re discussing, as far as I can determine, is whether it’s correct.