Posted on 10/01/2011 4:13:28 PM PDT by americanophile
Here are two facts: (1) Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and an al-Qaeda propagandist. (2) Pres. Barack Obama proposes to assassinate him. Between the first fact and the second falls the shadow.
The Awlaki case has led many conservatives into dangerous error, as has the War on Terror more generally. That conservatives are for the most part either offering mute consent or cheering as the Obama administration draws up a list of U.S. citizens to be assassinated suggests not only that have we gone awry in our thinking about national security, limitations on state power, and the role of the president in our republic, but also that we still do not understand all of the implications of our country’s confrontation with Islamic radicalism. The trauma of 9/11 has deposited far too much emotional residue upon our thinking, and the Awlaki case provides occasion for a necessary scouring. Contra present conservative dogma, the Constitution has relatively little to say about the role of the president in matters of what we now call national security, which is not synonymous with combat operations. What the Constitution says is this: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” That is all. Upon this sandy foundation, conservative security and legal thinkers have constructed a fortress of a presidency that is nearly unlimited or actually unlimited in its power to define and pursue national-security objectives. But a commander-in-chief is not a freelance warlord, and his titular powers do not extend over everything that touches upon national security.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
His base will never vote against him, but if a couple of percent here and there lose the fire in the belly and don't make it to the polls.....
Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the United States Constitution which reads, in part:
The Congress shall have the power... to declare war.
When was that done?
End of story.
If an American joins hands with the enemy in a war against us, then I see no problem with killing him.
The only problem here, and it’s an amusing one, is that although this was the right thing to do, Obama and his minions have repeatedly criticized others for doing it, and have sworn not to do it themselves.
The Obama who first entered the White House, and who proceeded to release numerous terrorists from Gitmo, would have insisted on giving Awlaki a trial in New York, after sending the FBI to arrest him.
What if American warplanes had hit Jane Fonda when she was posing at the North Vietnamese antiaircraft guns?
There's another thing not in the Constitution ~ that the federal government protects the nation's border.
Think about that one and get back to me.
What?
From Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
No prescription other than Congress having the power to declare war. We wouldn’t want Congress to do that, now, would we...?
Mind you, I am, as I stated in my first post, profoundly disturbed by this manifestation of new-age warfare. AC probably made the thing moot by suggesting that the evidence is strong that the fellow was not a U.S. citizen, but in fact I’m beginning to find your suggestion persuasive, if I may paraphrase: in the case of a U.S. citizen in a similar regard, a treason trial is very much in order. I don’t think the prosecution would have a great deal of trouble finding two witnesses, and I would have to wonder if the accused’s own public statements might not constitute open admission in court, but those are issues for lawyers and are essentially irrelevant in discussing this as a matter of policy. Bearing in mind I’ve just put words in your mouth, if I understand them correctly I’ll have to concede the point.
Somebody slap me here, I'm defending a position of Ron Paul's, but he did in fact call for Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the matter, which is to my reading the closest Constitutional allowance for the situation. There are difficulties with those under international law as well, but that too is a matter for lawyers and I won't offer an opinion.
Muawiyah has pointed out that although the function of a declaration of war is provided for in Article I its form is not stated, and if I understand muawiyah's argument correctly, that in the case of Iraq Congress did provide approval that qualified for that under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. That also may be a matter for lawyers, but it was, in fact, explicit authorization of military activity against a foreign state, so it has to be at least close.
In the case of al Qaeda, however, it's a lot more complicated. In the case of American citizens in al Qaeda, it may be that a treason trial is appropriate. What, however, constitutes due process for foreign citizens in the matter of Letters of Marque and Reprisal? I will have to admit I don't know and will have to research the matter.
Try finding the word "border".
Bush did get approval for Iraq.
Process is important in a democracy.
Congress decides enough is enough and declares war on China for not having reined in its Pirates.
So, what form is required for that particular declaration of war, and where are the borders? How are they described.
BTW, nobody wants to undercut the existing detente on Earth-surface that keeps the nukes in their sheaths.
I saw that a-hole Kevin Williamson on Red Eye Friday night and was screaming various vulgar epithets at the TV, as he was spouting this same vitriolic crap about Awlaki being an American citizen.
Awlaki was born in the US to Yemeni parents. They all returned to Yemen, which doesn’t permit dual citizenship. Therefore, the kid Awlaki’s US citizenship had to be renounced. He later attended a college in the US on a scholarship from Yemen as a foreign student. He was not later naturalized as a US citizen. Thus, he was nothing but a foreign enemy combatant and not a US citizen.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it unless some more factual data surfaces.
It’s not far different from Prez BO. Father was a British citizen and mom US citizen, so dual citizenship. Adopted by Lolo S. who moved them to Indonesia, which (like Yemen) does not permit dual citizenship. Therefore, Barry had to renounce US and British citizenship and become Indonesian.
While attending Occidental College as a foreign student, Barry and his college buddy traveled to Pakistan. Must have been on the Indonesian passport, because the State Dept. was telling US citizens to not go there at the time.
I’m unable to find the word “border”.
But from where else would an invasion come from, except from the other side of a border?
Look I despise the idea that our government can authorize killings of Americans.
Exception for military targets, nothing else. If it’s anything else you have to try to take them alive.
Just keep in mind that crapy napy has put conservatives, constitutionalists and like minded patriots on the terrorist watch list.
Some sort of a “trial” would certainly be appropriate, though there’s no reason for it to take the form that we in this country generally envision as a “trial” (jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc).
Something more akin to the tribunal held for the Operation Pastorius participants would be fully adequate to hear and consider the testimony of the requisite two (or more) witnesses to his treason.
Once convicted, he would be sentenced pursuant to existing law established by Congress, again, in keeping with Article III Section 3 of the Constitution, and, should the sentence be Death, then fire-up the drone.
Everything fully legal and Constitutional.
From the US Constitution - Article III, Section 3:
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, ...
All that’s needed to convict someone of Treason is two witnesses ... hopefully who would testify under oath and provide substantiating evidence.
Clearly absent is any reference to trial by a jury of peers, right to cross-examine witnesses, representation by counsel, or any of the other characteristics of a civil trial.
Thus, there should be no difficulty in getting a conviction on a charge of treason. If Treason is a capital crime, which I believe it is, dispatching alWaki (or whatever his name is) via drone/missile is fully consistent with the Constitution.
It turns out if there is a border it is made up of STATE BORDERS or STATE LINES as they have become known (mostly since so many of them are straight lines).
"Defense of border" is more a metaphorical expression than something physical. I've checked through a number of state constitutions and they didn't use the term either.
What we have is the federal government asserting a power that is "implied", or is part of the "normal usages and rights of states" ~ and that derives from the Peace of Westphalia which defined the characteristics of the modern nation state.
We even carry this stuff into the UN where we impose language on a treaty organization that doesn't overtly apply to our own country.
Still, to a degree, the United States federal government defends and controls the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California border in the South, the Alaskan border in the Far West, and Washington, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine border in the North ~ AGAINST PHYSICAL TRESPASSERS.
It provides a different sort of protective presence at international arrival airports and ports. There is also nothing to prohibit the US federal government from providing a protective presence at state lines between two states (it's called interstate jurisdiction).
I'm going to bet that the Supreme Court rules in the immigration cases that it is an implied power of states to defend their own borders, and that the federal government is required to do so, but states are not prohibited from doing so.
From that they will derive a working rule persons who entered the United States "unlawfully"" were never really present for purposes of residency of any kind, or conveyance of citizenship through birth of a child. Those who were here "lawfully" per a visa were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because international treaties provide BLAh BLAh BLah BLAh etc.
They'll wash their hands of the politics and make it much harder to become a citizen. That will also eliminate this business of thinking someone like this AlQaida puke was ever an American citizen.
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.