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 ...
Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
It specifically says "foreign state or political subdivision." But the end of USC 8 Sec. 1481 really puts that it of contention as a binding statute.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
Taking up arms against the USA automatically revokes citizenship.
Hence, he wasn’t a citizen when targeted and killed.
"Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily,..." By pledging loyalty to Al-Qaeda he denationalized himself.
He voluntarily gave up his U.S. citizenship. I hope he enjoyed the results.
So now our government assassinates its citizens for vile things they say in videos on the internet?
You’re playing the same kind of word games with legal principles as 0bama did.
That presumes the activities performed by Al Queda are crimes and not acts of war. Did we owe Yamamoto a trial? The killing of the fink was a continuation of an act of war, and not a consequence of a criminal activity over which we have jurisdiction. That is unless you buy the Democrat argument of criminality and wish to try them where?
well that sure as hell figures.
We need an amendment, or favorable Supreme Court interpration disallowing citizenship for the children born in the US to foreign national parents.
As defined by? Well, we say so. The same people who knew he was a moderate a few years ago. The proof? That's secret. Trust us. ...... Forgotten Amendments
How about: "As defined by Anwar al-Awlaki's OWN MOUTH ON VIDEO TAPE."
Listen to Anwar al-Awlaki yourself.
Read the transcript of what Anwar al-Awlaki said on the video tape yourself to have your eyes confirm what your ears have heard.
====================================
Anwar al-Awlaki May 2010 Interview Video ......
This video of an interview with Anwar al-Awlaki was released on May 23, 2010 by Al-Malahem Media, a reported propaganda unit of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. It was posted to YouTube, but was quickly removed due to “terms of use” violations. According to the Associated Press, the American-born al-Awlaki tells his followers to “kill U.S. civillians” . It is presented here for research purposes.
"Nidal Hasan is a student of mine, and I am proud of this. I am proud that there are people like Nidal Hasan among my students. What he did was a heroic act, a wonderful operation. I ask Allah to make him steadfast, to protect him, and to free him. I support what he did, and I call upon anyone who calls himself a Muslim, and serves in the US army, to follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan."
"Interviewer: Do you support such operations, even though they target what the media calls “innocent civilians”?
Anwar Al-Awlaki: Yes.
With regard to the issue of “civilians,” this term has become prevalent these days, but I prefer to use the terms employed by our jurisprudents. They classify people as either combatants or non-combatants. A combatant is someone who bears arms – even if this is a woman. Non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war. The American people in its entirety takes part in the war, because they elected this administration, and they finance this war."
al-Awlaki was involved in active rebellion against the government and citizens of the United States. He was plotting attacks that put our citizens and soldiers, like my son who is deployed, in harm’s way. I tell you what - l don’t lose a wink of sleep seeing this piece of work get a drone up the wazoo. Let me pose a question to those who do: Are you willing to put your own child or one whom you are close to in harm’s way to bring jokers like this to “justice”? There are evil people in this world who want to take away our freedom and force us to live under Sharia law. Not a choice - they want to impose it on us. The lives of my son and those who serve with him to protect us are far more important to me than grabbing any of these militants. Others are free to disagree. That is the beauty of our free country - something scum like al-Awlak want to take away from us.
Just out of curiosity, would the correct procedure have been to strip him of his citizenship with a due-process procedure? I assume that would be done in absentia.
Well, t'hell with all that. Who's got a problem with a little extrajudicial killin' backed up by Mistah Obama his own self ---except a bunch a dang Tea Party Constitutinalists in their doofus tricorn hats?
As CIC the President qualifies for the exemption.
Now #2, the guy wasn't a citizen. His parents made that choice for him. BTW, they added him to their FAMILY VISA as was required by law at the time.
You'll notice that American citizens don't need a visa. Not too far back in our history folks who needed visas to be here who had chilluns born here weren't really considered outside the jurisdiction of their own country on many elements of law. The business about giving illegal alien chilluns citizenship if born here is fairly recent and has more to do with the fact they don't have visas than anything else.
Paul is running an ad against Perry and at the end, Paul says he is opposed to birthright citizenship.
But then Paul never did make sense.
So what are the charges, what exactly did he say to bring a drone up his wazoo? Where are the official complaints? Oh, yes, I forgot, its all secret.
You people can imagine this is something overlooked in the Constitution all you want ~ but how do you explain the Civil War?
“The Fifth Amendment says all sorts of things but it specifically exempts the military in a combat situation from having to adhere to it.”
yes:
“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..”
POTUS is the Commander of the armed services. This is a time of War or public danger. POTUS gave the order.
case closed.
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.