Posted on 12/11/2017 3:07:43 PM PST by jazusamo
The federal judge in the Awan case has President Barack Obama’s back. His cohorts Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are likely covered too. No worries in The Swamp.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the Imran Awan and Hina Alvi fraud case, was appointed to the federal bench by Obama after she kicked thousands in campaign donations to his presidential campaign when he was a U.S. Senator in Illinois, records confirm.
Obama also appointed Chutkan’s husband, Peter Krauthamer, a judge to the bench in the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2011.
Krauthamer’s mother, and Chutkan’s mother-in-law, also contributed campaign cash to Obama, records confirm.
And Chutkan’s former law firm, where she worked until her appointment to the federal bench in 2014, currently represents Huma Abedin, the wife of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. The firm also is stacked with Democratic lawyers who worked for Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and Barack Obama’s White House, just to name a few D.C. insiders.
It’s Congress’s duty to make law concerning this.
16 years since 9/11 and they haven’t lifted a finger.
“
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
“
Thanks for your post. What a can of democrat worms.
I quit watching bret’s news on Fox.. he turned into a bad dude when he showed his dislike for our President and thought he could take him out in that first debate... he still can’t hide his dislike and I can’t stand bret.. he turned into a know-it-all and a snubby one at that. so I don’t see krauthamer.. is he still a Trump hater too? He came from the dem home that he has mentioned.. but he’s still a dem.. it’s just that the dem party is now a progressive commie one.
They think they are so superior in their swamp life.. and we showed them in November that we still outnumber them!
Are the ACLU attorneys volunteering to go to Iraq to meet with him? I didn’t think so
As some wag has long ago observed, what a tranquil place the US would be today if our Founding Fathers had picked their own cotton.
Somehow none of these judges were concerned when President Obama asserted the authority to order the killing of American citizens.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
Summary execution seems reasonable.
>>The bastard should be happy he is still alive and not buried deep in the desert sands over in Iraq. He is a “prisoner of war”, citizen of the U.S. or not and should be treated as such. He gave up that citizenship when he went against our troops.<<
Precisely so. Treasonous bastard should have already been hanged.
>>Blakc female radical judge who protects our enemies<<
Well and truly said.
>> He is an illegal combatant, and can be subject to summary disposition, just like a spy in time of war.<<
Summary disposition to be sure: HANG HIM.
Chutkan was born on July 5, 1962 in Kingston, Jamaica. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983 from George Washington University and a Juris Doctor in 1987 from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. From 1987 to 1990, she worked at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson LLP (now Hogan Lovells). From 1990 to 1991, she worked at the law firm of Donovan, Leisure, Rogovin, Huge & Schiller. From 1991 to 2002, she was a trial attorney and supervisor at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. She was a partner at the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where her practice focused on complex civil litigation and specifically antitrust class action cases.
Her husband Peter Arno Krauthamer, a judge to the bench in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, was nominated by President Barack Obama on July 11, 2011.
Federal judicial service
On December 19, 2013, President Obama nominated Chutkan to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to a new seat created pursuant to 104 Stat. 5089, on July 1, 2013.
“I don’t see krauthamer.. is he still a Trump hater too?”
You don’t see him because he’s been in the hospital and things for him are not going well following some sort of surgery.
No sir, he is not a prisoner of war. Rather, he is an illegal enemy combatant. The former is endowed with rights and privileges, the latter is a criminal.
If the military brings him back to the US, then he may be allowed his rights to representation etc, if not, oh, well. Should have given his last best measure in the fight rather than be captured by the US.
I don't support "due process" in order to protect YOU.
I support "due process" to protect ME and those I care about.
I believe that there are some crimes that are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty.
I don't believe that there is any crime which is so heinous that due process should be abandoned. Until such time as the United States has so little resources that providing due process threatens our survival, then we owe due process to every US citizen who is taken into custody by agents of the US government.
If the situation here degrades to the point that the government cannot supply due process to our citizens then the government forfeits its authority.
I can agree with that, however the UCMJ offers due process and in my view that’s where that due process should take place.
The words “due process” actually hang upon the definition of “due”, not “process”. If an American citizen chooses to wage war on a foreign battle field as an illegal combatant, they have zero judicial process from the American courts due to them.
One can voluntarily waive “due process” rights, including in the voluntary service as an illegal combatant on the battle field.
Your sentence begins with a conditional clause. Who decides whether such a citizen has committed all the elements of the crime you describe?
Let's see what the Constitution suggests:
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.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Gee, ... Look at that. Some key words and phrases: convicted, testimony, witnesses, overt act, Court, Congress
What do you make of all that?
Hmmm... I will choose not to go into all the gruesome details of my own involvement with the UCMJ.
The UCMJ seems to me to be a hybrid mechanism designed to protect soldiers from injustices while offering a way to maintain discipline within a military organization.
As I recall there are three levels of Courts Martial, with increasing punishment available to the prosecution in exchange for more complexity and safeguards for the accused. In addition the military uses non-judicial punishment and administrative punishment for lesser offences. The prosecutor is the commanding officer or an officer higher in the chain of command. The judge and "jury" are a panel of officers chosen by the military.
Who would be the commanding officer for a combatant captured outside the U.S.? Does the Judge Advocate General's office supply a defense attorney? Would this mechanism apply only to those captured by our military on a battlefield or would it apply to anyone committing a crime outside the U.S.?
I view the trade-off in allowing Courts Martial for soldiers to be a necessity for maintaining military discipline. If this mechanism were to be tweaked even more to accomodate those accused of treason, I think there is a possibility that "justice" would be completely sacrificed.
My own experience was that I stood no chance whatever to defend myself from two MPs who swore to lies. I was not going to face a jury of my peers who might have had doubts about the MPs. I was going to face officers who were colleagues of those who commanded the MPs.
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.