Ron Paul Condemns Al-Awlaki's Killing

[Viva Las Espuelas]

and regarding Al-Awlaki.....Obama really wanted that trophy.

All to easy.....

Oh, and we didn't kill saddam. Nor did we try him, but yeah "junior really wanted that trophy"

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Question:
For all the people completely ok with this, does this mean torturing is ok? Being that they have " declared war" on us.

[vy65]

SCOTUS hasn't really ruled on it, albeit has hinted towards extraterritoriality of that amendment. Actual reading material, starting on page 1940:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawr...3n4Lichter.pdf

Definitely still a gray area, IMO.

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about detention of U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. We're talking about entertaining cons utional rights in a war zone. The court's have rejected due process arguments in this context:

Kar asserts that the "due process violation in this case derives from the totality of cir stances defining [his] indefinite, arbitrary and prolonged detention," focusing on three specific cir stances:

(1) his detention without charge, and therefore, without notice of any charge; (2) his lack of opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner at the Detainee Status Board hearing; and (3) his continued detention despite being found innocent. See Dkt. 18, at 27-29.

(1) Kar was both charged and given notice of the charge. The officer who interrogated him only hours after his arrest "explained about the washing machine timers," which was the factual basis for his arrest. Compl. ¶ 28. Kar then received formal notice of the cause of his detention on July 1, in the form of a letter from the Detainee Status Board stating that the military suspected that he possessed explosive materials. Id. ¶ 48. Thus, he did receive "notice of the factual basis for" his detention. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 533, 124 S.Ct. 2633.

(2) At his Detainee Status Board hearing, Kar was not permitted to summon certain government personnel as witnesses, was refused access to his interrogators' reports, and was denied access to counsel. He asserts that, taken together, these facts offended the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Hamdi that a detainee is en led to "a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker," and "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel." Id. at 533, 539, 124 S.Ct. 2633.

The Hamdi decision applied the Mathews balancing test, weighing the individual's interest against the government's interest. See id. at 529, 124 S.Ct. 2633. If those interests are weighed here, they strike a different balance.

Kar was being held on the battlefield, where, as the Hamdi Court noted, the government has a strong interest in ensuring that the "military officers who are engaged in the serious work of waging battle ... [are not] unnecessarily and dangerously distracted by litigation," and a strong interest in protecting reports that might divulge military tactics. Id. at 531-32, 124 S.Ct. 2633. The government's inability or unwillingness to summon certain military personnel as witnesses and its refusal to turn over reports that might divulge interrogation techniques were acceptable given the interests at stake.

The Court's observation that Hamdi "unquestionably [had] the right to access to counsel" was made in the context of a habeas proceeding in Virginia. Id. at 539, 124 S.Ct. 2633. The differences between such a proceeding and a Detainee Status Board in Baghdad are obvious. No court has found a right to counsel in such a proceeding, in such a place, at such a time, and it certainly cannot be said that Kar had a "clearly established" right to counsel.

(3) I cannot find a cons utional violation in Kar's detention for six days following the Status Board's pronouncement of his innocence. The government could not simply open the door and let Kar walk free into the middle of Baghdad. Under the cir stances, the two days that it took to formalize the Status Board's decision, and the four days that it took to arrange for Kar's release, were not unreasonable given the government's interest in ensuring Kar's proper and safe release.

Here's a little summary of the case: Cryus Kar, a U.S. citizen, was seized and detained by the U.S. military in Baghdad for nearly two months in 2005. He sues for violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The defendants—the Secretary of Defense, two generals, and John Does—move to dismiss. The motion will be granted.

[vy65]

Right. She believes Awlaki deserves due process but she doesn't want her organization defending him as though he was an ordinary US citizen. Those positions aren't diametrically opposed. Maybe YOU didn't read this part of the article

Where does she say that? She says she opposes assasinations - not that Awlaki is en led to due process. You understand there's a difference there, right?

That's what our courts are designed to decide.

Why wouldn't it?

Our courts are designed to protect militant ideologues making death threats on americans, recruiting soldiers in a jihad against civilians, while hiding in the mountains in Yemen?

So you have no basis for claiming the first amendment would protect this type of speech and you're just asking me a question to hide your ignorance?

[ChumpDumper]

Question:
For all the people completely ok with this, does this mean torturing is ok? Being that they have " declared war" on us.

Do you think torture is ok?

[clambake]

All to easy.....

Oh, and we didn't kill saddam. Nor did we try him, but yeah "junior really wanted that trophy"

viva taking up for b girl and now terrorist.

[ploto]

Don't we kill the enemy in war all the time. Isn't that what all the big supporters of war believe. If we are at war with Al-qaeda, then we kill them- do we not?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

viva taking up for b girl and now terrorist.

I believe in that 3 year old thread I owned up to my mistake....

Nice deflection :golfclap

[clambake]

I believe in that 3 year old thread I owned up to my mistake....

Nice deflection :golfclap

from defending a chick that tries to start a race riot, to defending al-queada.

whats your next loser move?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They should have tried him in absentia or the like.

[ElNono]

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about detention of U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. We're talking about entertaining cons utional rights in a war zone. The court's have rejected due process arguments in this context:

Here's a little summary of the case: Cryus Kar, a U.S. citizen, was seized and detained by the U.S. military in Baghdad for nearly two months in 2005. He sues for violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The defendants—the Secretary of Defense, two generals, and John Does—move to dismiss. The motion will be granted.

I don't agree at all that this case and that case are similar. At all.
That guy was arrested and seemingly charged, he was indeed in a war zone (Congress authorized military operations in Iraq), and he was let go once cleared of the charges.

Now, that doesn't automatically mean I think due process applies extra-territorially. I think events like this one will eventually cause the SCOTUS to be clear on it.

[vy65]

The court held that fifth amendment due process protections don't apply in a warzone where a US citizen was engaged in hostilities. You don't think that supports not extending due process protections to a US citizen inciting an enemy whom we've declared war on and who is in a region overflowing with Al-Qaeda?

Are there any cases that support your position? I mean, if you don't think they're analogous, you must have a more analogous case in mind, right?

[ElNono]

The court held that fifth amendment due process protections don't apply in a warzone where a US citizen was engaged in hostilities. You don't think that supports not extending due process protections to a US citizen inciting an enemy whom we've declared war on and who is in a region overflowing with Al-Qaeda?

Are there any cases that support your position? I mean, if you don't think they're analogous, you must have a more analogous case in mind, right?

I don't know that we've assassinated a US Citizen in a non-war zone before, without any kind of due process. Do you have any analogous case? Because the one you posted isn't it.

Not that I think anybody in the executive or the administration is going to get dragged to court over this, but it does raise the question where does the buck stop.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

from defending a chick that tries to start a race riot, to defending al-queada.

whats your next loser move?

I guess "owned up to my mistake" is too hard for you. Pity. And where did I say I supported al-queada? I'd hate for you to talk out of your ass twice in one sentence.

[vy65]

I don't know that we've assassinated a US Citizen in a non-war zone before, without any kind of due process. Do you have any analogous case? Because the one you posted isn't it.

Not that I think anybody in the executive or the administration is going to get dragged to court over this, but it does raise the question where does the buck stop.

Lol so you don't know of any other case then huh? You could just admit it you know.

You're also moving goalposts. We were talking about the extra territorial application of the fifth amendment, not assassinating us citizens, remember? Do you think the Kar case doesn't support withholding due process protections from US citizens caught in battlezones while fighting along with AQ?

[ElNono]

Lol so you don't know of any other case then huh? You could just admit it you know.

I never claimed there was another analogous case. As a matter of fact, the uproar, if any, about this case is that it's setting new ground. Do you know of any analogous case? I don't think there is.
I merely pointed to divergent case law that attempted to tackle the extra-territoriality of the 5th Amendment.

You're also moving goalposts. We were talking about the extra territorial application of the fifth amendment, not assassinating us citizens, remember? Do you think the Kar case doesn't support withholding due process protections from US citizens caught in battlezones while fighting along with AQ?

Fifth 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." (emphasis mine)

What is an assassination if not a deprivation of life? And what battlezone? He was residing in a country we're not at war with, as a civilian.

There's plenty of questions arisen by this case, IMO.
Can the administration simply assassinate any US Citizen they don't like residing in a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US? What about countries that deny an extradition? Does the 5th apply to US Citizens abroad?

I can't answer those questions. I think at some point they will need to be answered, and I think the venue to seek those answers will be the SCOTUS.

[clambake]

I guess "owned up to my mistake" is too hard for you. Pity. And where did I say I supported al-queada? I'd hate for you to talk out of your ass twice in one sentence.

my point is that you're a running comedy of errors.

[vy65]

I never claimed there was another analogous case. As a matter of fact, the uproar, if any, about this case is that it's setting new ground. Do you know of any analogous case? I don't think there is.
I merely pointed to divergent case law that attempted to tackle the extra-territoriality of the 5th Amendment.

I agree that there is no US court case dealing with a situation where a US citizen is summarily killed outside the US by US military forces.

What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is "divergent case law" regarding the extra-territorial application of the fifth amendment. The Kar case pretty explicitly says that a US citizen fighting along with an enemy in a foreign war zone has no fourth or fifth amendment rights. The ilaw journal you linked deals with an entirely different context - detainees claiming due process protection against their incarceration by US military forces abroad.

Fifth 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." (emphasis mine)

What is an assassination if not a deprivation of life? And what battlezone? He was residing in a country we're not at war with, as a civilian.

The whole issue is whether the fifth amendment applies outside the US at all - so I don't see what good quoting the amendment does for you.

The battlezone would be wherever Al-Qaeda resides and operates. We were never at war with Afghanistan - but the AUMF essentially desclared war on Al-Qaeda and legitimized the deployment of military forces. I don't see how this situation is any different, i.e., while we're not at war with the government of Yemen, we are at war with Al-Qaeda operatives, like Awlaki, working there.

There's plenty of questions arisen by this case, IMO.
Can the administration simply assassinate any US Citizen they don't like residing in a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US? What about countries that deny an extradition? Does the 5th apply to US Citizens abroad?

I can't answer those questions. I think at some point they will need to be answered, and I think the venue to seek those answers will be the SCOTUS.

Do you honestly think this case allows Obama to murder any US citizen he doesn't like?

[SnakeBoy]

Do you think torture is ok?

Are you ok with the Al-Awlaki killing?

[djohn2oo8]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Cons ution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[ElNono]

I agree that there is no US court case dealing with a situation where a US citizen is summarily killed outside the US by US military forces.

What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is "divergent case law" regarding the extra-territorial application of the fifth amendment. The Kar case pretty explicitly says that a US citizen fighting along with an enemy in a foreign war zone has no fourth or fifth amendment rights. The ilaw journal you linked deals with an entirely different context - detainees claiming due process protection against their incarceration by US military forces abroad.

The whole issue is whether the fifth amendment applies outside the US at all - so I don't see what good quoting the amendment does for you.

The battlezone would be wherever Al-Qaeda resides and operates. We were never at war with Afghanistan - but the AUMF essentially desclared war on Al-Qaeda and legitimized the deployment of military forces. I don't see how this situation is any different, i.e., while we're not at war with the government of Yemen, we are at war with Al-Qaeda operatives, like Awlaki, working there.

I just don't agree this person was on a war zone. Or your definition of a war zone. That means anywhere where there's a person of interest by the US military is automatically a war zone. That's just simply preposterous, not to mention very likely a flagrant violation of sovereignty.

Under that premise, China can send an drone and blow up Guantanamo under the guise they're at war with the Uygur.

Do you honestly think this case allows Obama to murder any US citizen he doesn't like?

I think it's a slippery slope that can be abused. It doesn't have to be Obama, it can be anybody that comes later on. What prevents, say, assassinating any US Wikileaks members overseas now? Where is the checks and balances on this authority?

Note that this is an entirely academic discussion. I don't think anybody is going to miss this , nor that any family he might have had are going to sue for violation of his 5th amendment right (although it wouldn't surprise me if it happened, lol).

[mingus]

Don't we kill the enemy in war all the time. Isn't that what all the big supporters of war believe. If we are at war with Al-qaeda, then we kill them- do we not?

no according to some of the crazies out there. we're supposed to put our lives and our citizens' lives in danger to protect terrorists.

[Capt Bringdown]

"Any place AQ resides and operates is a battle zone." Therefore, the entire globe, including the US, is a battle zone.
They don't call it the Global War on Terror for nothing.

Obama's death squads just terminated the 5th admendment. What are we fighting for again?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

my point is that you're a running comedy of errors.

If you accuse and stick to false assumptions, which you are doing, then yes. It is a comedy of errors. Whenever you're ready to stop with false accusations then maybe we can continue this. Is that too hard for you, clammy?

[ElNono]

no according to some of the crazies out there. we're supposed to put our lives and our citizens' lives in danger to protect terrorists.

We did it for Saddam and the oil. Who were the crazies then?