Posted on 09/30/2011 4:58:50 PM PDT by americanophile
Today in Yemen, U.S. air strikes killed American citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Al-Aulaqi has never been charged with a crime. Last year, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights represented Al-Aulaqi's father in a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone. We argued that such killings violate the Constitution and international law, but the case was dismissed in federal court last December.
In response to today's killing of Al-Aulaqi, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:
The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President — any President — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country. In a hearing before a federal court last November, government lawyers argued the president should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans he has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. As National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner added today: "If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."
(Excerpt) Read more at aclu.org ...
I’m not surprised you don’t get the connection.
I’m not surprised you made the connection. It makes as little sense as anything else you posted.
go back to stormfront
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
And the penalty for treason can be death, after two (or more) witnesses testify to the act.
Well, there were quite a few witnesses that this guy was adhering to our enemies - in fact at 9:53 this morning in Yemen pieces of him were adhering to a lot of the other jihadis’ in that convoy.
This POS sentenced himself to death.
“The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason” Was this guy less guilty than the Rosenbergs? This is a hot war, not a cold war. If you don’t have the stomach for it, just pretend it was a tragic case of friendly fire, which you surely haven’t gotten nearly as upset about in Afgahnistan, and that our drone was only going for the foreign terrorists in the convoy.
Pretty good trolling by the way! This was fun to vent over, just the same.
Wow. You really have no concept of the rule of the law. You simply see an outcome you agree with and therefore call is ‘legal.’
Think about that.
No, the president did that.
Nothing but attempts to justify it, never even a question about the Constitution or Due Process in a situation that at very least raises some serious questions.
Cival law has nothing to do with this. It is called war
I would say he was a fugitive running from the law. If a police officer makes clear that he is placing you under arrest and you run away, then he is within his legal rights to shoot you dead. Similarly, al-Aulaqi knew he was wanted by the US government for charges of terrorism, treason, etc, but he ran away to Islamic countries to hide from our justice system rather than turn himself in for trial.
You and the ACLU can walk around with lots of high ideals of how you think the world should be, but out in the real world there is a need and a duty to protect people from violent criminals. If al-Aulaki wanted justice in our court system he could have come anytime. Instead he promoted and enabled acts of violence against the U.S. and its citizens while avoiding putting himself somewhere where he could be apprehended. Out of self defense we needed to kill him.
No, it’s called a secret, non-judicially reviewed, executive assassination of a U.S. citizen in an undeclared war in a non-combatant nation. The had months to review it and to write CYA Justice Department memos, they just didn’t bother to follow the Constitution.
File charges then. Your so up on what is and what isn’t legal. You do have that right.
Let me take a wild ass guess here. You’re a fervent supporter of Ron Paul
It's not analogous, and it's wrong anyway.
"Similarly, al-Aulaqi knew he was wanted by the US government for charges of terrorism, treason, etc, but he ran away to Islamic countries to hide from our justice system rather than turn himself in for trial."
Actually, he hasn't been charged with anything...that's the point! No charges, no indictment, nothing. Just secret, executive-ordered assasination.
"You and the ACLU can walk around with lots of high ideals of how you think the world should be, but out in the real world there is a need and a duty to protect people from violent criminals."
What a sad commentary on how you view the Constitution - just some high ideal that has not application to the real world. Don't look now, but you've just trashed your own rights.
"If al-Aulaki wanted justice in our court system he could have come anytime. Instead he promoted and enabled acts of violence against the U.S. and its citizens while avoiding putting himself somewhere where he could be apprehended."
Alleged. He was never charged with anything, nor were any of your allegations of criminality demonstrated."
"Out of self defense we needed to kill him."
Yes, but we didn't need to ignore the Constitution in the process.
What?
That is my understanding, thanks. .
What summons?
Well, never mind, he left no forwarding address anyway.
Who declares them “enemy of the state”? Having already been called terrorists are Christians or the TEA party people soon to be called enemy of the state? The people at Waco only had weapons to protect themselves but never raised a finger against the government. The lady holding her baby in the house on Ruby Ridge never attempted to “take up arms against the state”. Claim “this is different” all you want but we are a nation of laws or we are not. Due process should mean something to those of us who claim to be conservatives and constitutionalists.
Of course I understand the threat Al Awlaki was and understand that he had to be stopped but the lack of concern on this forum with a President that can sign away the rights of a citizen (yes I know that there is doubt he was even a citizen) should concern us.
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.