Posted on 09/30/2011 6:48:51 PM PDT by chuckee
Sources to NBC News are reporting Samir Khan, editor of Inspire Magazine, is another American citizen that was killed in the air strike in Yemen, along with Anwar al-Awlaki. NBC's Bob Windrem reports.
By Pete Williams, NBC News justice correspondent
Is it legal for the federal government to kill a U.S. citizen overseas, someone who has never been charged or convicted of a crime? Civil liberties groups are condemning the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, but many legal scholars say it is justified.
No U.S. court has ever weighed in on the question, because judges consider these sorts of issues exclusively matters for the president.
Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki. But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified...
(Excerpt) Read more at openchannel.msnbc.msn.com ...
Your attempt to assume someone else's identity has been noted.
So if an American took up with the Japanese or German militaries during WWII, we’d need a trial trial and conviction before shooting them?
The constitutional answer is yes. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military and has the power to wage war. This mutt was an illegal combatant, siding with the countries enemies and was fair game.
Sorry of you don’t like this, but there are many Supreme Court cases that support this. And the Constitution does as well.
Hope this helps;
Please cite some of these cases.
Yes.
Indeed. They broke the law there too.
Here are the relevant parts of the Constitution of the United States...
United States Constitution.
Article 3 Section3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes and the South had a right to secede from the union. The constitution was silent on the issue therefore the right to secede is reserved by the states. The federal government avoided hearing cases on this subject because the Constitution would stand against the federal government on that point.
Are you referring to the war powers act?
One of the reasons Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason was because the government did not want to risk having to decide the question as to whether or not the states could secede from the U.S. Because they feds knew they could lose.
“Some folks get too close and go over to the other side.
Your attempt to assume someone else’s identity has been noted.”
Muawiyah I... was the first Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty....of Islamic caliphs. He fought against the fourth caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib (Muhammad’s son-in-law), seized Egypt, and assumed the caliphate after ‘Ali’s assassination in 661. He reigned from 661 to 680. His full name was Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan.”
Mu - we know who you are. If you’re serious about convincing us that you’re not wishing for terrorists to “try” to take out other (?) Americans, you may want to consider a screen name change.
Treason isn’t the charge and it’s not a criminal prosecution (Article VI). Awlaki was a professed enemy combatant intent on killing Americans in acts of war. For those of you who can’t juggle this in your heads, that means he wasn’t a civilian. Had he been captured, he would have been subject to military trial and, hopefully, shot.
*Sorry, I meant (Amendment VI).
We need to avoid executive declarations and people being judged by secret star chambers.
I think it is an objective FACT that Awlaki preached war against America and Americans. Killing him was lawful and moral. What you are demanding is that a sworn enemy of the American people should have nothing greater to fear than life in prison, no matter how many innocents he gets others to kill.
Again I ask what evidence is there that he actually bore arms against the United States? So far you have not provided it. And as far as me demanding anything I demand that the Federal government abide by its Constitution. And the Constitution clearly says that a person cannot be deprived of their life without due process. And don’t put words into my mouth as to what I am demanding.
In any case a decision was made to kill a U.S. Citizen abroad without any judicial review. This should frighten any U.S. Citizen. It basically means that the Federal Government can decide to kill anyone by executive declaration any time they want.
I am going to keep asking you for the evidence until you can provide it.
Awlaki’s weapons were his violent propaganda. His goal was to proliferate terrorism against Americans, and he was successful. What’s more, he never attempted to profess any other motive for his activities. I established Awlaki doesn’t fit your test, you just didn’t read it.
Thanks.
America is lost. Even conservatives think it is AOK for the King to jot down kill lists and assasinate American citizens in non exigent circumstances. This particular King has already droned a 16 year old American citizen wanted by no US LE agency. His only crime was being the son of a jihadist. So the King smokes him and the royal conservative supporters cheer making assinine arguments like geography negates a citizens rights. Oh well, it was good for a couple of hundred years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.