Posted on 02/07/2013 6:40:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Congressional intelligence committee members are going to find out today how the Justice Department has rationalized the killing of Americans by drone strike without due process. The Obama administration has authorized the release of a classified report that goes into detail about how DoJ arrived at their controversial conclusions on not only drone strikes, but rendition and certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a committee member who had pressed the administration to provide the opinion, left open the possibility he might still try to block Brennan's nomination. He said turning over the opinion was a good first step.
"I'm committed to making sure that we get all the facts," Wyden said on NBC's "Today" show. "Early this morning, I'm going to be going in to read the opinion. We'll go from there."
Wyden said "there are still substantial questions" about how the administration justifies and plans drone strikes. "The Founding Fathers thought the president should have significant power in the national security arena. But there have to be checks and balances," Wyden said. "You can't just skirt those checks and balances if you think it's inconvenient."
An unclassified memo leaked this week says it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior al-Qaida leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans, even if there is no evidence of a specific imminent attack.
That unclassified memo is based on classified advice from the Office of Legal Counsel that is being made available to the intelligence committees' members, the official said. The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the decision and requested anonymity.
You wouldn't hesitate to kill a fellow American if you were facing him on a battlefield.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
RE: You’ve already specified, in your theoretical, that in this case he’d be a U.S. Citizen. As such, he’d be covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, by definition.
well, lets ask ourselves another question -— were the confederates during the Civil war considered American Citizens covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment?
If so, did Lincoln bring charges against them one by one before shooting them to death?
If not, then wasn’t Lincoln violating the Constitution?
If your response is -— That was different because we were at war then -— then why is it different now? we are at war with Al Qaeda.
RE: You’ve already specified, in your theoretical, that in this case he’d be a U.S. Citizen. As such, he’d be covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, by definition.
well, lets ask ourselves another question -— were the confederates during the Civil war considered American Citizens covered by the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment?
If so, did Lincoln bring charges against them one by one before shooting them to death?
If not, then wasn’t Lincoln violating the Constitution?
If your response is -— That was different because we were at war then -— then why is it different now? we are at war with Al Qaeda.
Those drones are capable of facial recognition and hacking your cell phone. And yet there’s not one politician speaking out against this.
And don’t think local cops will be on our side. They already have the drones and they think it’s just wonderful. “Now I can see what that old bastard living down that gravel road is up to. ‘Cause I know he’s up to something.”
Those drones are capable of facial recognition and hacking your cell phone. And yet there’s not one politician speaking out against this.
And don’t think local cops will be on our side. They already have the drones and they think it’s just wonderful. “Now I can see what that old bastard living down that gravel road is up to. ‘Cause I know he’s up to something.”
Our intelligence finds a building filled with terrorists. We determine that American citizen Jihadi Bob is in the building. Well, the only thing to do is first send out a team of lawyers and legal advisors to inform Bob of his rights before we send in the missile. Yeah, that would be the correct thing to do. (snicker)
Explain to me how they are illegal, please.
Explain to me how they are illegal, please.
Interesting; by citing this you are rejecting the notion that a normal legislative act cannot alter the constitution.* You see, Treason is explicitly defined in the constitution, the US Code is just [normal] legislation enacted by the congress.
You see the two definitions are quite similar, but not identical:
| US Code | Constitution |
|---|---|
| Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason[...] | Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. |
Also it must be asked if "United States" is the same thing in both definitions; moreover, is citizenship in one of the several states in the union, or having a federally issued ID, or perhaps social-security the same thing as owing allegiance. If it is the two have radically different meanings: the Constitution not prohibiting the violent overthrow of the federal government (which, according to the Declaration of Independence must be a right, for it is by the authority of the people that this government was founded), but the US Code rejecting such motions as 'treason'.
* -- In MARBURY v. MADISON, the supreme court said:
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
It is interesting to note that there are methods in which the question would not come up: specifically, letters of marque and reprisal.
What you're talking about is quite similar to letters of marque and reprisal.
The 14th amendment was passed after the conclusion of the civil war, IIRC, and if that's the case then there is no way the amendment could be violated by actions of the civil war.
A new anti-terror front? Yes, the government thinks it's "right-wing extremists"...Jan. 18, 2013
Right-wing terrorism is real...Jan. 22, 2013
"Terror from the Right", © Southern Poverty Law Center 2013
I'm aware some of the sources are questionable; juat highlighting the societal mindset they're trying to create.
In Abstensia. He is aiding and abeting our enemies, in fact IS our sworn enemy by his own testamony. No problem, Due Process would shred this guy.
Procecuting someone without evidence, but mere suspicion is not Due Process. Executing someone the same way is simply murder. The ends do not justify the means in a just and moral society. Yes I believe that they can get away with it, but no, it is not legal or just.
In the time honored tradition of classic despots, Hussein is unconstitutionally attainting American citizens.
For Scott, are you familiar with Josiah Phillips? He was attainted by the VA Assembly in 1777.
The whole point of this is that currently, there is no due process. That is, an American citizen should at least be charged with treason, PUBLICLY, and not simply wiped out by Obama at his video game console.
If we want to develop some other process, that’s fine. But it’s got to be public, open, done in advance, and not at the whim of one person or a tiny group of people. (I’m only talking about the case of the killing of American citizens, btw.)
Ironically, Bambi & Co. don’t let the military fight; killing on the battlefield is practically forbidden, and defending yourself, if you’re a soldier, is a major no-no.
Furthermore, because of these misguided policies, some of these terrorists had been caught by the military earlier. They should have been killed or permanently locked up then, but they were treated as common criminals and turned over to their countries. They were then released by their countries and returned immediately to attack us. So Bambi is doing this to clean up the mess he has made of our battlefield policy, and probably to get rid of a few jihadis that may be a problem to his favorite, official jihadis.
But when it comes down to American citizens, we need a public process, not just one nutty individual’s decree.
To be fair, attainder refers only to the legislature declaring someone guilty (which is why it is a 'bill').
By your implication, an extrajudicial execution by the executive rather than the legislative branch does not constitute attainder. It does, and is prohibited.
Possibly.
A very similar question is...
Is there ever a good reason to kill American citizens without due process?
Follow the constitution, or amend it. If a US military tribunal was convened and he was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death- use a drone. Otherwise no.
Everyone knew Bin Laden was guilty too, but we didn’t send a drone to kill him. We sent a team to capture him. He resisted and was killed - he chose death over trial.
That is correct.
It does, and is prohibited.
No, it does not. Bills of Attainder are, quite specifically, acts of the legislature.
This actually does not matter in this case: the 5th Amendment prohibits the executive from simply authorizing killings (prohibitions against the taking of life or liberty w/o due process) and the 6th explicitly states that all criminal cases have the right to a jury trial (and to mount a defense). If these killings are not the result of criminal law, then they must be civil law, and the 7th Amendment puts limitations thereon, specifically: jury-trial in any case wherein the amount in controversy exceeds $20. (And of course your life is worth more than $20.)
So, in any case these 'authorizations' of killing are utterly repugnant to the Constitution AND Murder.
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.