The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Prove it, don't ignore the Constitution.

[southsider2k5]

Prove it, don't ignore the Constitution.

 

No argument for imminent danger?

[StrangeSox]

No argument for imminent danger?

Having allegedly plotted attacks in the past doesn't make you an imminent danger in perpetuity.

 

Otherwise the government could simply assert that someone was responsible without actually showing that they were and assassinate them at any time in the future.

[Balta1701]

No argument for imminent danger?

There are 2 issues in your post here.

 

First, how do you define "Imminent". "Conspiring to commit acts at some unknown point in the future and having done so in the past" may or may not reach the legal standard of "Imminent".

 

Secondly, how do you define "Danger" if he's not the one personally committing the violent act?

 

You're right, it seems like the President ought to be able to do this...but I don't think the law is clear on where the limits are. We have a U.S. citizen who went overseas and joined a group who the U.S. has taken out an AUMF against, but the U.S. itself is not considered to be at a state of war, there is no single entity at which the U.S. is at war with, and this "Citizen" had no option to defend himself in courts.

 

It's murky enough that I'm uncomfortable with either answer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Based on what? Where is the due process that establishes his guilt and threat? All we have are State Secret claims. Is anyone who advocates for violence against the US government fair game for assassination?

 

Go check his wikipedia page and see all the crap he's done. He's clearly a traitor to the country and he's clearly an imminent threat. Look at all the foiled plots that are attributable to him or his teachings. I'd think that would be enough.

 

Literally shooting at American soldiers poses a clear imminent threat. Giving speeches that call for violence against the US does not. There is a significant difference between literally or figuratively shooting at someone.

 

Imminent is just one (undefined) part of the equation. There's also a likelihood of action element that I think would be clearly established. The guy is a recruiter of terrorists in an organization that has been deemed an enemy. He gives speeches railing against the US and calling on his followers to attack the US. I'd say that's an actionable threat. If I remember right even the Brandenburg decision (might be a later one) said "imminent" does not mean "absolute 100% chance it will happen immediately."

[Jenksismyhero]

There are 2 issues in your post here.

 

First, how do you define "Imminent". "Conspiring to commit acts at some unknown point in the future and having done so in the past" may or may not reach the legal standard of "Imminent".

 

Secondly, how do you define "Danger" if he's not the one personally committing the violent act?

 

You're right, it seems like the President ought to be able to do this...but I don't think the law is clear on where the limits are. We have a U.S. citizen who went overseas and joined a group who the U.S. has taken out an AUMF against, but the U.S. itself is not considered to be at a state of war, there is no single entity at which the U.S. is at war with, and this "Citizen" had no option to defend himself in courts.

 

It's murky enough that I'm uncomfortable with either answer.

 

I agree.

 

[StrangeSox]

Go check his wikipedia page and see all the crap he's done. He's clearly a traitor to the country and he's clearly an imminent threat. Look at all the foiled plots that are attributable to him or his teachings. I'd think that would be enough.

 

Wikipedia isn't due process, nor does citing it prove that he's an "imminent threat."

 

Imminent is just one (undefined) part of the equation. There's also a likelihood of action element that I think would be clearly established. The guy is a recruiter of terrorists in an organization that has been deemed an enemy. He gives speeches railing against the US and calling on his followers to attack the US. I'd say that's an actionable threat. If I remember right even the Brandenburg decision (might be a later one) said "imminent" does not mean "absolute 100% chance it will happen immediately."

 

Does the US government have carte blanch to kill US citizens who advocate, promote or organize violent acts without due process?

 

edit: his ties to Al Qaeda and operational support are merely US government assertions at this point.

Edited September 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

It's murky enough that I'm uncomfortable with either answer.

 

I'm not uncomfortable that this guy is dead but I am uncomfortable with a legal theory that allows the President to assassinate a US citizen.

[StrangeSox]

Should Obama Have Killed Awlaki?

The counter-argument here is that Awlaki effectively lost whatever constitutional protections citizenship affords when he took up arms against his country and was found on a battlefield. ... in this specific case, it looks like Awlaki was a traitor to his country and had given aid and comfort to its enemies. But is executive decree of guilt enough to have Americans - even loathesome ones - killed?

 

What check is there on this power?

[Balta1701]

I'm not uncomfortable that this guy is dead but I am uncomfortable with a legal theory that allows the President to assassinate a US citizen.

See, that's the problem...when you add in the circumstances and the existence of an AUMF, it makes the whole deal more complicated. If there were no AUMF in existence regarding Al Qaeda then clearly this would be illegal...but he's essentially become a combattant in something that the U.S. has authorized military force against, but he of course has had no ability to receive due process to challenge that.

 

It's murky enough that I'd like to see better law written to clarify this exact case.

[StrangeSox]

See, that's the problem...when you add in the circumstances and the existence of an AUMF, it makes the whole deal more complicated. If there were no AUMF in existence regarding Al Qaeda then clearly this would be illegal...but he's essentially become a combattant in something that the U.S. has authorized military force against, but he of course has had no ability to receive due process to challenge that.

 

It's murky enough that I'd like to see better law written to clarify this exact case.

 

His ties to Al Qaeda are based on US government assertions and evidence that they refuse to share.

 

Awlaki emerged in recent years as one of the most recognizable figures associated with Al Qaeda, largely because US officials had linked him to high-profile attacks (and attempted ones), including Nidal Malik Hasan's Fort Hood rampage, Faisal Shahzad's botched attempt to explode a car bomb in Times Square, and Umar Abdulmutallab's failed Christmas Day plane bombing. Nevertheless, the extent of Awlaki's operational role in any particular plot was never proven, raising the uncomfortable question of whether or not the US government had asserted the authority to kill a US citizen based solely on his ability to "inspire" terrorism through extremist sermons and magazine articles.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/us-cit...l-awlaki-killed

[The Sir]

US citizen

 

He lost that status when he took up arms against the United States. I will shed no tears for him. Besides, if this wasn't justice, what would have been? Allowing him to live and continue to murder innocent people out of some refusal to extrajudicially execute a "US citizen" (and I use that phrase in the loosest way)? I don't think so. Regardless of the legal implications here, the world is now a better place and AQAP is substantially weaker. I'll take it!

 

Besides, he could have gotten his fair trial at any point by simply surrendering. But he didn't do that. Instead he continued to fight. And we have no obligation to capture individuals who take up arms against us and do not surrender to our forces, no different than the fact that a cop no longer has any obligation to capture the criminal who shoots at him.

 

Awlaki can burn in Hell. I hope his body is devoured by wild pigs.

[Balta1701]

He lost that status when he took up arms against the United States.

In spirit you're right, but the technical definition of citizenship requires him to swear allegiance to a foreign government.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

 

1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

7. Conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

It really does seem like there's reason to amend the law as it stands here to reflect this particular circumstance. If nothing else, some sort of (Brief) judicial review of the executive branch's claims that he has taken up arms against the U.S. and a rewording of this clause to weaken the standing of the term "State" appears to be required.

[The Sir]

In spirit you're right, but the technical definition of citizenship requires him to swear allegiance to a foreign government.

It really does seem like there's reason to amend the law as it stands here to reflect this particular circumstance. If nothing else, some sort of (Brief) judicial review of the executive branch's claims that he has taken up arms against the U.S. and a rewording of this clause to weaken the standing of the term "State" appears to be required.

 

If he passes that and manages to retain his US citizenship, it's only by the most by-the-book interpretation. Personally, I'd say living in Yemen and being in the leadership cadre of a fundamentalist organization that seeks the destruction of America falls under a couple of those guidelines. Namely, the ones about swearing allegiance to a foreign government and serving in a foreign military force. But that's just me.

[Balta1701]

If he passes that and manages to retain his US citizenship, it's only by the most by-the-book interpretation. Personally, I'd say living in Yemen and being in the leadership cadre of a fundamentalist organization that seeks the destruction of America falls under a couple of those guidelines. Namely, the ones about swearing allegiance to a foreign government and serving in a foreign military force. But that's just me.

Al Qaeda is neither a government nor is it an official public military force. Adding adjectives like Fundamentalist or "Seeks the destruction of America" does not change that fact. You're right on the merits but the law here does not reflect the situation...if a law is out of date, the right answer isn't to get annoyed with the people pointing out the problem and then ignore the law, it is to update the law to reflect the new reality.

 

And even then...there's an open question about what level of action is required for the U.S. President to be able to unilaterally declare that a person has sworn military allegiance to a non-state-entity. You don't want it to be too easy for the President to simply declare that someone isn't a citizen and then have no review possible. That'd be an enormous expansion of executive and government power.

[Texsox]

He lost that status when he took up arms against the United States. I will shed no tears for him. Besides, if this wasn't justice, what would have been? Allowing him to live and continue to murder innocent people out of some refusal to extrajudicially execute a "US citizen" (and I use that phrase in the loosest way)? I don't think so. Regardless of the legal implications here, the world is now a better place and AQAP is substantially weaker. I'll take it!

 

Besides, he could have gotten his fair trial at any point by simply surrendering. But he didn't do that. Instead he continued to fight. And we have no obligation to capture individuals who take up arms against us and do not surrender to our forces, no different than the fact that a cop no longer has any obligation to capture the criminal who shoots at him.

 

Awlaki can burn in Hell. I hope his body is devoured by wild pigs.

 

While I stop a little short of the blood thirsty rhetoric, I do agree with, and endorse, this message.

[The Sir]

Al Qaeda is neither a government nor is it an official public military force. Adding adjectives like Fundamentalist or "Seeks the destruction of America" does not change that fact. You're right on the merits but the law here does not reflect the situation...if a law is out of date, the right answer isn't to get annoyed with the people pointing out the problem and then ignore the law, it is to update the law to reflect the new reality.

 

Fair enough. In that case, the law is in need of a serious upgrade.

 

And no matter what, I continue to hold that al-Awlaki was an evil man who endangered our way of life. His death is a victory for our country. Citizen or not, I'm glad he's dead and I will never feel sympathy for him.

[The Sir]

While I stop a little short of the blood thirsty rhetoric, I do agree with, and endorse, this message.

 

Dude, it's just my style. You know that.

[Texsox]

Dude, it's just my style. You know that.

 

Careful, it was bordering on hyperbole, and that's my style. You work your side of the alley, I'll work mine.

[StrangeSox]

He lost that status when he took up arms against the United States. I will shed no tears for him. Besides, if this wasn't justice, what would have been? Allowing him to live and continue to murder innocent people out of some refusal to extrajudicially execute a "US citizen" (and I use that phrase in the loosest way)? I don't think so. Regardless of the legal implications here, the world is now a better place and AQAP is substantially weaker. I'll take it!

 

Besides, he could have gotten his fair trial at any point by simply surrendering. But he didn't do that. Instead he continued to fight. And we have no obligation to capture individuals who take up arms against us and do not surrender to our forces, no different than the fact that a cop no longer has any obligation to capture the criminal who shoots at him.

 

Awlaki can burn in Hell. I hope his body is devoured by wild pigs.

 

He never lost his status as a US citizen. Again, speech advocating violence against the government or even particular government officials is protected speech unless it poses an imminent threat eg "hey, shoot that guy standing next to you!" He didn't need a fair trial because he was never indicted for anything. Comparing someone who gives speeches advocating violence against the US (operational or material support for terrorism hasn't ever been shown) to someone actually firing at police or soldiers misses the point.

[StrangeSox]

Fair enough. In that case, the law is in need of a serious upgrade.

 

And no matter what, I continue to hold that al-Awlaki was an evil man who endangered our way of life. His death is a victory for our country. Citizen or not, I'm glad he's dead and I will never feel sympathy for him.

 

I don't feel any sympathy for him and I don't personally doubt that he actually was involved with Al Qaeda, even if no such evidence has been presented to the public or the courts.

 

My issue comes with the line that was crossed. The President now has the authority to unilaterally classify an American citizen as an imminent threat, refuse to present any defense for that classification and then kill that person. That's not a line I want my government to cross.

[StrangeSox]

Al Qaeda is neither a government nor is it an official public military force. Adding adjectives like Fundamentalist or "Seeks the destruction of America" does not change that fact. You're right on the merits but the law here does not reflect the situation...if a law is out of date, the right answer isn't to get annoyed with the people pointing out the problem and then ignore the law, it is to update the law to reflect the new reality.

 

And even then...there's an open question about what level of action is required for the U.S. President to be able to unilaterally declare that a person has sworn military allegiance to a non-state-entity. You don't want it to be too easy for the President to simply declare that someone isn't a citizen and then have no review possible. That'd be an enormous expansion of executive and government power.

 

And, again, the public doesn't actually have any evidence of his involvement with AQ. We have assertions by the US government and refusal to substantiate based on state secrets claims.

 

This criticism is part of the same line of classifying someone as an enemy combatant and then locking them up indefinitely, even if they're a US citizen. The Executive now has the power to completely circumvent the judicial branch up to and including killing a US citizen.

[Balta1701]

And, again, the public doesn't actually have any evidence of his involvement with AQ. We have assertions by the US government and refusal to substantiate based on state secrets claims.

 

This criticism is part of the same line of classifying someone as an enemy combatant and then locking them up indefinitely, even if they're a US citizen. The Executive now has the power to completely circumvent the judicial branch up to and including killing a US citizen.

Doesn't he have a substantial web video record establishing his affiliation with that group?

[The Sir]

I don't feel any sympathy for him and I don't personally doubt that he actually was involved with Al Qaeda

 

Good. I agree.

 

I'm just practical, and the fact that he is dead is all that matters to me. Crossed lines? Meh. He wasn't American like I'm American or even like you're American. So f*** him, he's dead and I'm happy.

 

In fact, this is great. An enemy of the United States of America got blown to bits and won't ever be coming down for breakfast again, and because it was done in a controversial manner, a politician who I don't like and sincerely hope gets crushed in 2012 doesn't gain any points, but actually loses them.

 

America wins.

[StrangeSox]

Good. I agree.

 

I'm just practical, and the fact that he is dead is all that matters to me. Crossed lines? Meh. He wasn't American like I'm American or even like you're American. So f*** him, he's dead and I'm happy.

yeah, f*** the constitution anyway, amirite?