Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
Planning to donate at least $10? You can sponsor
one or more New Monthly Donors for no additional cost
FReepmail TheOldLady
Posted on 10/09/2011 9:48:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unequivocal: no American shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." No amount of ducking and diving will evade the inescapable fact that, for the first time, U.S. military officials in an aggressive overreach of constitutional authority deliberately targeted an American citizen for killing. And no amount of legalistic wordplay will alter the reality that al-Awlaki was denied due process.
(No, Mr Gingrich, the signing of a death warrant by an American President does not constitute "due process," except perhaps in North Korea or Iran. Our Founding Fathers taught us better than that.)
Al-Awlaki was an acknowledged "bad guy" who incited, trained, and prepared others to commit heinous terrorist crimes designed to inflict death and injury upon his fellow countrymen. He was, assuredly, our self-confessed enemy, and he fully deserved to die -- but not without due process. We don't sanction the use of government hit squads to assassinate U.S. citizens who are responsible for the most unspeakable crimes. We don't do it even when they admit to those crimes. Instead we invoke the moral authority of Constitution to insist on their right to due process, even in cases where the accused is unwilling to offer any defense. Only when due process has been exhausted and the accused is found guilty do we have the moral authority to invoke the ultimate punishment.
The reason for this important Constitutional safeguard is self-evident. In the words of Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU:
The government's power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
When you make war on the country of your birth, yeah, that’s called renouncing your citizenship.
And YOU have to figure out wether or not this is a war.
When your figure THAT out, all will become clear.
Up until the Warren court ended the practice this traitor’s citizenship would have been revoked - because of his stated aims - then we’d have killed him. Either way, he needed to be turned into a grease spot.
Not according to any U.S. statute that I could find.
You may be responding to the wrong person. I agree with you.
Al Awaki was a traitor. He is a legitimate a target.
He is treated as an enemy commander and can be killed on the battlefield.
Were he to have been captured, then yes, he unlike other Al Queda members would have had to be tried as a criminal and traitor in an Article III US Court.
On the battlefield (which in his case is any where he goes) he is an enemy and a target.
Where exactly is the exemption you speak of written in the 5th Amendmennt?
I’ve read it many times and never noticed any exemption. Can you provide a source or link for your silly statement?
Well you know, if this guy had walked into a American office somewhere and said, “I want to surrender” then maybe all this trial stuff would be all right. But if he was hanging out with a bunch of terrorist murderers who are killing civilians and our soldiers, then that sorry rascal just got what he had coming to him and I am not going to lose one minute’s sleep worrying about him. He laid down with terrorists and he woke up with BOMBS!!! What is wrong with that??? Good riddance!!!
My goodness, in Texas people used to get “Wanted:Dead or Alive!!!” thingies put up about them. Plus, like we say, “Your Honor, he needed killin’”
So There!!!
Here’s the entire 5th Amendment:
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 offense 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.[1]
There’s no exemption allowing the President to order the killing of an American citizen in there. Awlacki wasn’t a member of the US military so the “land and naval forces” clause doesn’t apply to him.
Nice try.
The Obama Administration is a pointless game...
They used a panel they didn’t need to use, to kill someone they already had authority to kill.
Typical...
Perhaps you missed Al-Awlakis videos and statements.
I’m not sure it was pointless from their POV. Now the Pres. has established a precedent of using a secret panel to kill an American citizen based on secret findings. Everyone is thrilled that al-Alawki is gone and the presidency has acquired a new tool.
Agreed,...but let a court decide on revoking his citizenship first! We cannot violate the Constitution!
Only because it was an American engaged in warfare against the United States. They try that with an American overseas who is not linked to an organization at war with the US or an American within the United States, then it becomes a crime.
Having seen Janet's Homeland Security public service announcements - the ones showing 'terrorists' as white middle class men and women - I fear the 'new tool' might be used against their 'lone wolf' fantasies - against conservative American citizens...
Liberals have one enemy in their minds - the people who might remove them from power - and that would be us - everyday conservative Americans who vote.
Somebody please explain what the difference is between this and the Civil War? Somebody takes up arms against the US shouldn’t expect full civil rights. I don’t recall death warrants being issued for individual confederate soldiers st Antietam.
It was a crime either way. U.S. statutes don’t make politically correct distinctions.
Got a source for that?
He renounced his U.S. citizenship and all benefits thereof derived when he pledged loyalty to Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda being at war with the U.S.
And liberals are paranoid....
Did you see the PSA's put out by Homeland Security? They showed 'terrorists' as being white middle class citizens. People who looked like they could have attended a Tea Party. Do you really want to give Janet, Holder and Obama the right to kill off citizens they think might take power away from them at the ballot box?
Following the line of argument in the article would mean that Lincoln ought to have sought to indict each member of the Army of Northern Virginia.
If you wage war against the United States you're an enemy combatant and may be killed anywhere at any time prior to a cessation of hostilities.
And: if we actually had a President who was willing and able to get the US Armed Forces and the CIA to kill Americans at will in the United States, does anyone think a court order would put a stop to the practice?
There’s no such thing in the law for “de facto” renunciation. Immigration law and case law has established that the only renunciation recognized by the US is formal renunciation in front of a US consular officer abroad.
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.