PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Would you assassinate an American citizen who is part of AQ?


dirk digler
01-27-2010, 03:26 PM
I find this story interesting and obviously very complex. Do you go ahead and kill him or try to capture him?

White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.

One of the people briefed said opportunities to "take out" Awlaki "may have been missed" because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which would specifically target an American citizen.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 03:29 PM
If the government can "take him out" then why can't they arrest him and go through the procedure of a fair trial?

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 03:32 PM
If the government can "take him out" then why can't they arrest him and go through the procedure of a fair trial?

That is a good question I don't know.

FishingRod
01-27-2010, 03:42 PM
If the government can "take him out" then why can't they arrest him and go through the procedure of a fair trial?

It is easier to shoot a missile from 10, 20, 500 miles away than it is to get people in the middle of a hostile situation, grab a person and leave without getting good guys killed in the process. I'm not advocating assassinating American citizens. Though it does present a rather interesting ethical/legal dilemma to ponder

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 03:44 PM
It is easier to shoot a missile from 10, 20, 500 miles away than it is to get people in the middle of a hostile situation, grab a person and leave without getting good guys killed in the process. I'm not advocating assassinating American citizens. Though it does present a rather interesting ethical/legal dilemma to ponder

It definitely does pose a very interesting question. I am anxious to hear the resident conservatives view of what they would do.

Cannibal
01-27-2010, 03:49 PM
Government assassinations of "suspected citizens"? Isn't that illegal?

I hate terrorists and actually despise their culture, but I don't want the government "taking people out", especially when they are citizens of this country.

I could definately see the government getting trigger happy and the line between terrorist/innocent citizen blurred if allowed to do this.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 03:52 PM
Nope.

That's the military (or President, or CIA, or whoever) acting as judge, jury and excecutioner.

No dice, if you can kill him, you can catch him. If you attempt to do so and he fires on you, at that point he's an enemy combatant and you can go ahead and be done with him.

But you can't just issue an assassination order on him.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 03:52 PM
Government assassinations of "suspected citizens"? Isn't that illegal?

I hate terrorists and actually despise their culture, but I don't want the government "taking people out", especially when they are citizens of this country.

I could definately see the government getting trigger happy and the line between terrorist/innocent citizen blurred if allowed to do this.

I agree but then again you can't forget about taking arms up against this country.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 03:56 PM
Nope.

That's the military (or President, or CIA, or whoever) acting as judge, jury and excecutioner.

No dice, if you can kill him, you can catch him. If you attempt to do so and he fires on you, at that point he's an enemy combatant and you can go ahead and be done with him.

But you can't just issue an assassination order on him.

But what if is already behind some of the terror attacks against the US?

patteeu
01-27-2010, 03:56 PM
If the government can "take him out" then why can't they arrest him and go through the procedure of a fair trial?

If a hunter can kill a bear with a high powered rifle, why can't he wrestle him to the ground and hog tie him?

Seriously, isn't the answer to your question obvious? They can kill people in the tribal regions with standoff weapons from unmanned drones even if they can't physically get into a position to capture and extract the target.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:01 PM
But what if is already behind some of the terror attacks against the US?

Based on the word of intelligence sources?

I'll buy the argument when a person doesn't have our Constitutional due process liberties.

However, this person is a citizen and has a right to have a jury of his peers determine if he was truly 'behind some of the terror attacks against the US'.

Unless he engages an arresting force, he's still entitled to his trial. It's no different than someone suspected of murder on US soil.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 04:02 PM
It's an interesting question. Normally, I would say no. In the case where an American has expressed his allegiance to an enemy and taken refuge in hostile territory during a war, I think he should be stripped of his citizenship and treated like any other member of the enemy.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:03 PM
If a hunter can kill a bear with a high powered rifle, why can't he wrestle him to the ground and hog tie him?

Seriously, isn't the answer to your question obvious? They can kill people in the tribal regions with standoff weapons from unmanned drones even if they can't physically get into a position to capture and extract the target.

You underestimate the capabilities of our drones and troop carriers.

If a drone can shoot him, it can gas him and whoever comes to rescue him. We can have a Ranger unit deployed to the scene within an hour.

It requires more effort, but it can still be done. If he's a citizen, he's entitled that right.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 04:05 PM
If a hunter can kill a bear with a high powered rifle, why can't he wrestle him to the ground and hog tie him?

Seriously, isn't the answer to your question obvious? They can kill people in the tribal regions with standoff weapons from unmanned drones even if they can't physically get into a position to capture and extract the target.

Er...yeah. I thought it was an American actually in America. I'm just failing left and right today. What I can say? Rare form.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 04:06 PM
Based on the word of intelligence sources?

I'll buy the argument when a person doesn't have our Constitutional due process liberties.

However, this person is a citizen and has a right to have a jury of his peers determine if he was truly 'behind some of the terror attacks against the US'.

Unless he engages an arresting force, he's still entitled to his trial. It's no different than someone suspected of murder on US soil.

My first inclination is to agree with you but then again he has taken up arms against this country in a foreign land.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 04:06 PM
We've had testimony from the traitor himself on several occasions via videotape. Here's one example: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/197224.php

patteeu
01-27-2010, 04:09 PM
You underestimate the capabilities of our drones and troop carriers.

If a drone can shoot him, it can gas him and whoever comes to rescue him. We can have a Ranger unit deployed to the scene within an hour.

It requires more effort, but it can still be done. If he's a citizen, he's entitled that right.

I think you overestimate our capabilities to do anything like this without great risk to those Rangers. Besides, an hour is way too long.

I'll grant that it can potentially be done, but at great risk and with great potential for failure. I also don't believe that we have any reliable way to gas someone like that.

Edit: If this was really a possibility, we wouldn't be using so many lethal drone attacks. We'd be gassing high value targets and then sending in Ranger teams to capture them for interrogation.

Donger
01-27-2010, 04:12 PM
He's a traitor. You kill traitors. Simple.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 04:14 PM
I think you overestimate our capabilities to do anything like this without great risk to those Rangers. Besides, an hour is way too long.

I'll grant that it can potentially be done, but at great risk and with great potential for failure. I also don't believe that we have any reliable way to gas someone like that.

Edit: If this was really a possibility, we wouldn't be using so many lethal drone attacks. We'd be gassing high value targets and then sending in Ranger teams to capture them for interrogation.

Yep. I don't know how feasible that is or even if it is possible. Really if you were going to do that Delta or the Seals would have to be right there to capture after the gassing occurred.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 04:16 PM
He's a traitor. You kill traitors. Simple.

It is not that simple since he hasn't been convicted of anything. He is still an American citizen.

LOCOChief
01-27-2010, 04:17 PM
If the government can "take him out" then why can't they arrest him and go through the procedure of a fair trial?


What if he doesn't feel like being arrested? They can't count on being able to "just arrest him"

Hog Farmer
01-27-2010, 04:17 PM
So I guess if Osama Bin Laden threw on a disquise, changed his name , slipped into America and became a citizen we should be apprehensive about assasinating him ?

If we have intelligence that this guy is a member of Al Qaeda and wants to do america harm, Kill him!

Donger
01-27-2010, 04:23 PM
It is not that simple since he hasn't been convicted of anything. He is still an American citizen.

I doubt that he's sitting at the Yemeni Sandals Resort and Convention Center sipping on a soda.

Bowser
01-27-2010, 04:27 PM
If he is in their midst, planning deadly actions against America and her interests, I don't see what the problem is.


If he is in country, then you have quite the slippery slope. I'd probably say no in that case....

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 04:28 PM
Assassination is a tricky question, but I'd be fine with this particular individual suffering a fatal "fall" down a flight of stairs as he was "trying to evade capture."

Eventually though, government wouldn't be satisfied with going after citizens who happen to be terrorists and they'd start targeting malcontent PTA members who don't volunteer quickly enough for the bake sale.

Then where would we be?

I'd be looking at the sky all day long. That's where I'd be.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 04:29 PM
I doubt that he's sitting at the Yemeni Sandals Resort and Convention Center sipping on a soda.

hell he might be.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:30 PM
He's a traitor. You kill traitors. Simple.

Benedict Arnold would have been given a fair trial.

Aldrich Aimes, the Rosenbergs...all of them got their trials.

You can't selectively utilize the tennants of the Constitution or its privileges.

The man is a citizen and as such is entitled to the protections of the Constitution until he is determined by those very processes to no longer be deserving of them.

Any of y'all that were excited about the SCOTUS decision that are likewise saying "kill him" have a serious consistency issue.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 04:33 PM
Benedict Arnold would have been given a fair trial.

Aldrich Aimes, the Rosenbergs...all of them got their trials.

You can't selectively utilize the tennants of the Constitution or its privileges.

The man is a citizen and as such is entitled to the protections of the Constitution until he is determined by those very processes to no longer be deserving of them.

Any of y'all that were excited about the SCOTUS decision that are likewise saying "kill him" have a serious consistency issue.

It's unknowable whether Benedict Arnold would have received a fair trial.

The Rosenbergs likely didn't receive one. (Trial, yes. Fair, not so much.)

vailpass
01-27-2010, 04:37 PM
You underestimate the capabilities of our drones and troop carriers.

If a drone can shoot him, it can gas him and whoever comes to rescue him. We can have a Ranger unit deployed to the scene within an hour.

It requires more effort, but it can still be done. If he's a citizen, he's entitled that right.

:spock:

stevieray
01-27-2010, 04:38 PM
what would Jack Bauer do?

Donger
01-27-2010, 04:39 PM
Benedict Arnold would have been given a fair trial.

Aldrich Aimes, the Rosenbergs...all of them got their trials.

You can't selectively utilize the tennants of the Constitution or its privileges.

The man is a citizen and as such is entitled to the protections of the Constitution until he is determined by those very processes to no longer be deserving of them.

Any of y'all that were excited about the SCOTUS decision that are likewise saying "kill him" have a serious consistency issue.

And tell me, what did all of those have in common?

TrebMaxx
01-27-2010, 04:39 PM
He's a traitor. You kill traitors. Simple.

I'm on your side.:thumb:

patteeu
01-27-2010, 04:42 PM
Benedict Arnold would have been given a fair trial.

Aldrich Aimes, the Rosenbergs...all of them got their trials.

You can't selectively utilize the tennants of the Constitution or its privileges.

The man is a citizen and as such is entitled to the protections of the Constitution until he is determined by those very processes to no longer be deserving of them.

Any of y'all that were excited about the SCOTUS decision that are likewise saying "kill him" have a serious consistency issue.

Here's a hypothetical for you. A man you know to be a citizen steals some valuable military secrets and is flying them to an enemy during wartime. If the enemy gets these secrets, many of your countrymen will die. Can you shoot his plane down or do you have to let him go until you can someday aprehend him and bring him to trial?

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:42 PM
And tell me, what did all of those have in common?

Pretty much nothing.

Ames was given a life sentence after a trial, the Rosenbergs were executed, Arnold ended up in Great Britain.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:43 PM
It's unknowable whether Benedict Arnold would have received a fair trial.


Not really.

John Andre was no different than Arnold except that he got caught.

He was given a fair trial and hanged.

But he got his trial and Arnold would have as well.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 04:46 PM
Nope.

That's the military (or President, or CIA, or whoever) acting as judge, jury and excecutioner.

No dice, if you can kill him, you can catch him. If you attempt to do so and he fires on you, at that point he's an enemy combatant and you can go ahead and be done with him.

But you can't just issue an assassination order on him.On this we agree. Attempt capture and if he fires on you. Level the place.

Unless we have hard evidence he is plotting the violent overthrow of the US government or was directly responsible for the deaths of Americans. We can't just go around killing people without hard evidence.

Donger
01-27-2010, 04:47 PM
Pretty much nothing.

Ames was given a life sentence after a trial, the Rosenbergs were executed, Arnold ended up in Great Britain.

Ames and the Rosenbergs were where when they were arrested?

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:53 PM
Here's a hypothetical for you. A man you know to be a citizen steals some valuable military secrets and is flying them to an enemy during wartime. If the enemy gets these secrets, many of your countrymen will die. Can you shoot his plane down or do you have to let him go until you can someday aprehend him and bring him to trial?

You all keep slipping in the "I know" issue.

According to the laws we work under, I don't know anything until a jury determines I do. Now those laws are often relaxed during wartime, Japanese Interment camps are ample evidence of it (and clearly a dark moment in our history), but we shouldn't disregard them entirely.

In the case above, I don't believe you can just kill the man. Furthermore, I believe the Ames case shows that, as a nation we don't endorse it either. Ames directly led to the death of many CIA operatives and there's a very good chance we knew about it. History suggests we could've taken him out and saved more of our men but we instead built a case against him (and moved assets where we could b/c we knew what he was doing).

The Constitution matters, fellas. It doesn't say someone has a right to a jury trial unless a CIA operative really really thinks he's a bad guy. It says a citizen has a right to trial of his peers...period.

You can't just ignore the parts of it you don't like. It's a very tough document, it has some parts that cut both ways, but that's just the nature of the beast.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 04:55 PM
Ames and the Rosenbergs were where when they were arrested?

And if you're arrested in the Laos you don't expect your rights as a US citizen to follow you there? I know I'd want my government to have my back.

Constitutional rights don't stop at the border. They inure to you the moment you become a citizen and at all points you remain a citizen; they don't have a zip code rule.

Donger
01-27-2010, 05:02 PM
And if you're arrested in the Laos you don't expect your rights as a US citizen to follow you there? I know I'd want my government to have my back.

Constitutional rights don't stop at the border. They inure to you the moment you become a citizen and at all points you remain a citizen; they don't have a zip code rule.

If I were a terrorist hanging out in Yemen, collaborating with a known and deadly enemy?

Yeah, I'd pretty much expect to be dead at any time.

This guy forfeited his Constitutional rights when he cuddled up with al Qaeda, IMO. I doubt that he's as concerned with his rights as you seem to be for him.

As to my point, it was easy to arrest Ames and the Rosenbergs. They were on our soil. I wouldn't risk another American's life to afford this prick an arrest.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 05:07 PM
Just kill him already. Why leave him alive, so our government can charge us a bizzillion dollars to take care of him before Obama gives him the keys to the city?

bkkcoh
01-27-2010, 05:09 PM
It is easier to shoot a missile from 10, 20, 500 miles away than it is to get people in the middle of a hostile situation, grab a person and leave without getting good guys killed in the process. I'm not advocating assassinating American citizens. Though it does present a rather interesting ethical/legal dilemma to ponder

If he is participating in the action they claim him to be doing, in my opinion, he has lost his American Citizenship status.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 05:10 PM
You all keep slipping in the "I know" issue.

According to the laws we work under, I don't know anything until a jury determines I do. Now those laws are often relaxed during wartime, Japanese Interment camps are ample evidence of it (and clearly a dark moment in our history), but we shouldn't disregard them entirely.

In the case above, I don't believe you can just kill the man. Furthermore, I believe the Ames case shows that, as a nation we don't endorse it either. Ames directly led to the death of many CIA operatives and there's a very good chance we knew about it. History suggests we could've taken him out and saved more of our men but we instead built a case against him (and moved assets where we could b/c we knew what he was doing).

The Constitution matters, fellas. It doesn't say someone has a right to a jury trial unless a CIA operative really really thinks he's a bad guy. It says a citizen has a right to trial of his peers...period.

You can't just ignore the parts of it you don't like. It's a very tough document, it has some parts that cut both ways, but that's just the nature of the beast.

Sorry friend, you're wrong. It's not that tough of a document. As they say, it's not a suicide pact. You *can* know things without a trial. There's no way we'd let that plane get away and we shouldn't.

Furthermore, I know of no history that suggests we ever knew enough to take out Ames at a particular time to save our men. Link it if you've got it. We caught him because we saw the effects (eg compromised agents being taken out) and methodically narrowed the search for the mole and because he had unexplainable financial achievements not because we were aware of specific secrets about to be passed. We convicted him largely on evidence recovered after he was arrested.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 05:14 PM
It's an interesting question. Normally, I would say no. In the case where an American has expressed his allegiance to an enemy and taken refuge in hostile territory during a war, I think he should be stripped of his citizenship and treated like any other member of the enemy.

Another reason to declare war.

ChiefaRoo
01-27-2010, 05:15 PM
Yes - Fire that sucker

patteeu
01-27-2010, 05:18 PM
And if you're arrested in the Laos you don't expect your rights as a US citizen to follow you there? I know I'd want my government to have my back.

Constitutional rights don't stop at the border. They inure to you the moment you become a citizen and at all points you remain a citizen; they don't have a zip code rule.

Do non-citizens have a right to a trial when arrested for a crime in the US? Do their rights stop at the border?

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 05:48 PM
Do non-citizens have a right to a trial when arrested for a crime in the US? Do their rights stop at the border?

Of course. You ever read the stories of illegals killing people while driving while intoxicated?

patteeu
01-27-2010, 05:49 PM
Of course. You ever read the stories of illegals killing people while driving while intoxicated?

I'm more into sci-fi and political memoirs.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 05:53 PM
Okay. Illegal aliens who hold high office on Vulcan killing people while driving intoxicated.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 05:53 PM
And getting their wee-wees squeezed.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 06:07 PM
Okay. Illegal aliens who hold high office on Vulcan killing people while driving intoxicated.

ROFL

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 06:39 PM
Do non-citizens have a right to a trial when arrested for a crime in the US? Do their rights stop at the border?

You think this is an apt analogy?

You all just keep ignoring the fact that it's a CIA operative or a couple of Generals or maybe even a fairly mid-level officer that's making the determination that "You did it".

Everyone keeps saying "if so and so did it, his rights are forfeit." I'm not willing to give the right to determine just exactly what so and so did to an appointed bureaucrat.

Y'all are awfully quick to punt some pretty damn important rights.

Norman Einstein
01-27-2010, 06:46 PM
I find this story interesting and obviously very complex. Do you go ahead and kill him or try to capture him?

If the government can "take him out" then why can't they arrest him and go through the procedure of a fair trial?

Assassinate? The snippit of the article you posted doesn't have enough of the article to know what they are talking about.

Killing someone is generally wrong.

Consider this, if you are in a building and are armed and someone opens fire on everyone in the room I think it would be justified to take him out. In that case you are trying to preserve the life of others.

If you are considering killing him as the police have him shackled and taking him away, then no. Once you are in custody you are protected.

If you are talking about an American citizen killing indescriminately going through the justice system and is condemned to death it's not assassination.

If you were to kill someone that has killed others and he hasn't been tried in the court you are no better than him/her regardless of their radical beliefs.

If a combatant is detained and has committed a crime that would be considered a war crime the Geneva Convention would cover their crime and punishment.

If a combatant is detained and has commited crimes against mankind and is not a member of an armed force they should be tried as those were destined for in GTMO, a military tribunal.

The guy with the shorts bomb (you know the guy that burned his balls off) should have no rights in US Courts and should be shipped to GTMO or back to the country of origin for the flight for punishment.

Now, for the most important question: Do you have a link or copy of the complete article?

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 06:48 PM
You think this is an apt analogy?

You all just keep ignoring the fact that it's a CIA operative or a couple of Generals or maybe even a fairly mid-level officer that's making the determination that "You did it".

Everyone keeps saying "if so and so did it, his rights are forfeit." I'm not willing to give the right to determine just exactly what so and so did to an appointed bureaucrat.

Y'all are awfully quick to punt some pretty damn important rights.

I guess I don't agree that his rights are important anymore.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 06:49 PM
...If you are considering killing him as the police have him shackled and taking him away, then no. Once you are in custody you are protected...

Until we strap him to a gurney and it's "game on" again.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 06:57 PM
I guess I don't agree that his rights are important anymore.

By who's determination?

Again, you continue to take at face value that the words of these intelligence sources are infallible.

You open this door and it won't be long at all before those same intelligence sources start to become a little less accurate.

In your hypothetical we have a person that has evidently taken video of himself killing Americans, written a letter to said effect and had it notarized, but the world doesn't work that way. These 'known' killers are often 'known' only because we have one or two intelligence sources that say they are. All you guys keep saying is 'we know this' and 'we know that' but nobody addresses how we know any of it. My guess is that we 'know' it in the same way we've known lots of things that turned out to be little more than WAGs.

Everyone just keeps saying "fuck him, he did it" without addressing the fact that we didn't receive this deterimination from on high. We have one or two sets of very fallible human beings that have made the call. In so doing, we've now decided to kill a US citizen.

No way. I'm not going to give intelligence sources, CIA operatives or appointed bureaucrats the rights of judge, jury and excecutioner. I'm really confused by those that would. How can you not see the Pandora's box you're opening here?

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 07:07 PM
By who's determination?

Mine, of course.

Again, you continue to take at face value that the words of these intelligence sources are infallible.

You open this door and it won't be long at all before those same intelligence sources start to become a little less accurate.

In your hypothetical we have a person that has evidently taken video of himself killing Americans, written a letter to said effect and had it notarized, but the world doesn't work that way. These 'known' killers are often 'known' only because we have one or two intelligence sources that say they are. All you guys keep saying is 'we know this' and 'we know that' but nobody addresses how we know any of it. My guess is that we 'know' it in the same way we've known lots of things that turned out to be little more than WAGs.

Everyone just keeps saying "**** him, he did it" without addressing the fact that we didn't receive this deterimination from on high. We have one or two sets of very fallible human beings that have made the call. In so doing, we've now decided to kill a US citizen.

No way. I'm not going to give intelligence sources, CIA operatives or appointed bureaucrats the rights of judge, jury and excecutioner. I'm really confused by those that would. How can you not see the Pandora's box you're opening here?

I already admitted my fear that this could trickle down to the PTA.

But I was joking. You seem to be serious.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 07:32 PM
You think this is an apt analogy?

You all just keep ignoring the fact that it's a CIA operative or a couple of Generals or maybe even a fairly mid-level officer that's making the determination that "You did it".

Everyone keeps saying "if so and so did it, his rights are forfeit." I'm not willing to give the right to determine just exactly what so and so did to an appointed bureaucrat.

Y'all are awfully quick to punt some pretty damn important rights.

If the CIA gets the "go ahead" to target this guy, you can bet it will be authorized at a higher level than an operative, a mid-level officer, or even a general.

You didn't answer my question.

Norman Einstein
01-27-2010, 08:00 PM
Until we strap him to a gurney and it's "game on" again.

I think they should be "executed" in the same manner they have killed Americans. Varied for each one found guilty and sentenced to death.

alanm
01-27-2010, 08:22 PM
I think it's safe to say it doesn't pay to take prisoners anymore.
Bust a cap in his ass and move on to the next target,
But that's just me.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 09:24 PM
If you think about this, if the POTUS ordered this American to be killed he could be charged with murder. Theoretically speaking anyway. Just food for thought.

alanm
01-27-2010, 09:32 PM
If you think about this, if the POTUS ordered this American to be killed he could be charged with murder. Theoretically speaking anyway. Just food for thought.Wouldn't a executive order to bring this guy in dead or alive override that?

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 09:34 PM
Wouldn't a executive order to bring this guy in dead or alive override that?

I honestly don't know but I don't know why it would either. He is still an American citizen and we have strict rules for denouncing citizenship.

pikesome
01-27-2010, 11:49 PM
I was wondering if they could just hold a trial in absentia to determine guilt/citizenship status and then proceed from there. Except the US, apparently, doesn't not try people in absentia. The rules allow for a trial if the defendant skips out during the process but not before arraignment.

Unless someone can find better info than I.

Here's the best summary I could find ATM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 11:55 PM
I was wondering if they could just hold a trial in absentia to determine guilt/citizenship status and then proceed from there. Except the US, apparently, doesn't not try people in absentia.

Not surprising. I don't think Absentia has an international airport anymore.

King_Chief_Fan
01-28-2010, 08:32 AM
I find this story interesting and obviously very complex. Do you go ahead and kill him or try to capture him?

without hestitation and a very clear conscience the bastard is eliminated

King_Chief_Fan
01-28-2010, 08:38 AM
Y'all are awfully quick to punt some pretty damn important rights.

and in our minds, justifiably so......even if you don't like it

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 11:49 AM
If you think about this, if the POTUS ordered this American to be killed he could be charged with murder. Theoretically speaking anyway. Just food for thought.

Without trial or a tribunal? I don't think there has ever been or ever will be a president with the balls to make such an order.

DJ's left nut
01-28-2010, 12:36 PM
and in our minds, justifiably so......even if you don't like it

And it once again establishes that most so-called 'principled' stances are really just partisian rhetoric. Patteau is all about getting rid of a jury trial for a capital crime in this thread, but he fought like crazy for corporate free speech rights in the other one -- partisian. BRC is all about protecting his rights in this thread, but had no problem pissing on 1st amendment rights in the other one -- partisian. Neither position is in any way consistent except for the fact that it's the stance their respective parties would likely take...

I'm not terribly interested in anyone ever defending the Constitution that would actually support killing this person. You don't get to back it only when you like what it says. It's most important to defend it when you hate it's ramifications. I despise those that would burn a flag, but it's unquestionably their right. I think hiding behind the 5th amendment to skate on a murder charge is deplorable, but it's a right even the most heinous have and I would defend.

The Constitution very clearly establishes that this person is still a citizen. It very clearly establishes that as a citizen he has a right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of his peers, not by the President or any member of the military or intelligence agency.

Nobody in this thread can make an argument that the Constitution sanctions this - give it a shot. All anyone says is "He forfeit his rights" and that's simply not true. There are steps to renouncing citizenship, there are steps to revoke citizenship. Neither happened here. This man still has his Constitutional rights.

I don't care what your opinion is, but remain consistent. You clearly fall in the "I like the Constitution when it's convenient" camp. I'll have to remember that...

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 12:46 PM
Without trial or a tribunal? I don't think there has ever been or ever will be a president with the balls to make such an order.

It has happened once before but the American wasn't the intended target and I don't think they even knew he was there.

An American citizen with suspected al Qaeda ties was killed in Nov. 2002 in Yemen in a CIA predator strike that was aimed at non-American leaders of al Qaeda. The death of the American citizen, Ahmed Hijazi of Lackawanna, NY, was justified as "collateral damage" at the time because he "was just in the wrong place at the wrong time," said a former U.S. official familiar with the case.

Ebolapox
01-28-2010, 12:57 PM
I'm likely not at ALL informed on this issue, but...

isn't it legally only considered assassination if the target is a political leader of what we consider a sovereign nation? I seem to recall there's some wiggle room in there as far as dictators and leaders in nations we don't recognize. it certainly wouldn't apply to this guy (assassination, that is--it WOULD be murder/killing, obviously--thin line.)

HonestChieffan
01-28-2010, 12:58 PM
I dont understand why its an issue. The fact he has chosen to be part of the enemy is enough. Take the shot.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:01 PM
I'm likely not at ALL informed on this issue, but...

isn't it legally only considered assassination if the target is a political leader of what we consider a sovereign nation? I seem to recall there's some wiggle room in there as far as dictators and leaders in nations we don't recognize. it certainly wouldn't apply to this guy (assassination, that is--it WOULD be murder/killing, obviously--thin line.)

?

Assassination may also refer to the government-sanctioned killing of opponents or to targeted attacks on high-profile enemy combatants.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:04 PM
I dont understand why its an issue. The fact he has chosen to be part of the enemy is enough. Take the shot.

Because he is still an American citizen. It would be different if he was killed while shooting or engaging US forces but having a hit put out on him is completely different topic.

Chiefnj2
01-28-2010, 01:09 PM
Expatriating acts include entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S Fighting for AQ is close enough.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 01:16 PM
And it once again establishes that most so-called 'principled' stances are really just partisian rhetoric. Patteau is all about getting rid of a jury trial for a capital crime in this thread, but he fought like crazy for corporate free speech rights in the other one -- partisian. BRC is all about protecting his rights in this thread, but had no problem pissing on 1st amendment rights in the other one -- partisian. Neither position is in any way consistent except for the fact that it's the stance their respective parties would likely take...

I'm not terribly interested in anyone ever defending the Constitution that would actually support killing this person. You don't get to back it only when you like what it says. It's most important to defend it when you hate it's ramifications. I despise those that would burn a flag, but it's unquestionably their right. I think hiding behind the 5th amendment to skate on a murder charge is deplorable, but it's a right even the most heinous have and I would defend.

The Constitution very clearly establishes that this person is still a citizen. It very clearly establishes that as a citizen he has a right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of his peers, not by the President or any member of the military or intelligence agency.

Nobody in this thread can make an argument that the Constitution sanctions this - give it a shot. All anyone says is "He forfeit his rights" and that's simply not true. There are steps to renouncing citizenship, there are steps to revoke citizenship. Neither happened here. This man still has his Constitutional rights.

I don't care what your opinion is, but remain consistent. You clearly fall in the "I like the Constitution when it's convenient" camp. I'll have to remember that...

Revoke his citizenship then have the turd "fall" down a flight of stairs. Better?

Mr. Flopnuts
01-28-2010, 01:19 PM
It's an interesting question. Normally, I would say no. In the case where an American has expressed his allegiance to an enemy and taken refuge in hostile territory during a war, I think he should be stripped of his citizenship and treated like any other member of the enemy.

If you're fighting with the enemy, you are the enemy. I don't see the problem here at all.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:20 PM
Expatriating acts include entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S Fighting for AQ is close enough.

AQ is not a foreign state. Good thinking though I have never heard of this until now.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001483----000-.html)), 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:


obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
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);
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);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 01:23 PM
AQ is not a foreign state. Good thinking though I have never heard of this until now.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001483----000-.html)), 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:


obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
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);
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);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).


Looks like #3 just needs a little tweaking and we're good.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:24 PM
Looks like #3 just needs a little tweaking and we're good.

or #2

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 01:26 PM
That is a good question I don't know.

Because dropping something explosive from the sky, in the silence of day or night is MUCH easier than being spotted driving-walking-air dropping into a remote region where these assholes hide like sewer rats.


We should absolutely set the example of our expectations by turning this asshole into a mushy spot on the ground where-ever we find him

patteeu
01-28-2010, 01:27 PM
And it once again establishes that most so-called 'principled' stances are really just partisian rhetoric. Patteau is all about getting rid of a jury trial for a capital crime in this thread, but he fought like crazy for corporate free speech rights in the other one -- partisian. BRC is all about protecting his rights in this thread, but had no problem pissing on 1st amendment rights in the other one -- partisian. Neither position is in any way consistent except for the fact that it's the stance their respective parties would likely take...

I'm not terribly interested in anyone ever defending the Constitution that would actually support killing this person. You don't get to back it only when you like what it says. It's most important to defend it when you hate it's ramifications. I despise those that would burn a flag, but it's unquestionably their right. I think hiding behind the 5th amendment to skate on a murder charge is deplorable, but it's a right even the most heinous have and I would defend.

The Constitution very clearly establishes that this person is still a citizen. It very clearly establishes that as a citizen he has a right to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of his peers, not by the President or any member of the military or intelligence agency.

Nobody in this thread can make an argument that the Constitution sanctions this - give it a shot. All anyone says is "He forfeit his rights" and that's simply not true. There are steps to renouncing citizenship, there are steps to revoke citizenship. Neither happened here. This man still has his Constitutional rights.

I don't care what your opinion is, but remain consistent. You clearly fall in the "I like the Constitution when it's convenient" camp. I'll have to remember that...

It's not a crime, it's warfare. The constitution doesn't specify any limits to the President's power to prosecute a war as the commander-in-chief of our military so any competing interests must be weighed against the security interest of the state. The sixth amendment only specifies a right to a trial for those who are facing criminal prosecutions (but does not limit this to citizens, btw). As I said before, this wouldn't be about a criminal prosecution so your talk of a capital crime is misplaced.

You still haven't answered my simple questions. Do non-citizens who are charged with a crime in the US have a right to a jury trial under our constitution? Assuming you come up with the correct answer, which is "yes", do their rights stop at the border?

Oh and FYI, consistency is not defined by agreement with DJ's left nut.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:35 PM
You still haven't answered my simple questions. Do non-citizens who are charged with a crime in the US have a right to a jury trial under our constitution? Assuming you come up with the correct answer, which is "yes", do their rights stop at the border?



You already answered your first question the second answer would be no.

If a non-citizen commits a crime in the US and they leave the US they still can be brought back to the US for trial granted the country they get captured in allows extradition.

of course I could be wrong about that...

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 01:36 PM
In this hypothetical we know the American is plotting terror and we have no other means to stop him?

Absolutely you make him a skid mark.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 01:36 PM
or #2

or #5

Tape: American al Qaeda member renounces citizenship (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/06/gadahn.tape/index.html)

(CNN) -- On a videotape released Sunday, American al Qaeda member Adam Yahiye Gadahn renounces his U.S. citizenship, destroys his passport and cites U.S. President Bush's upcoming trip to the Middle East.
art.gadahn.afp.gi.jpg

The 50-minute tape -- titled "An Invitation to Reflection and Repentance" -- was released by As Sahab, al Qaeda's video production wing and was provided to CNN by www.LauraMansfield.com, a Web site that analyzes terrorism.

In it, Gadahn renounces his citizenship to protest the imprisonment of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, a blind Egyptian Muslim leader serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban who was arrested in Afghanistan in 2001, and others.

Gadahn displays his passport to the camera, rips it in half and says, "Don't get too excited -- I don't need it to travel anyway."

...

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 01:37 PM
If the citizenship is the issue, once you've made a few videos declaring your allegiance to AQ and hate for America....terminate his citizenship, then terminate his use of oxygen.

DJ's left nut
01-28-2010, 01:38 PM
It's not a crime, it's warfare. The constitution doesn't specify any limits to the President's power to prosecute a war as the commander-in-chief of our military so any competing interests must be weighed against the security interest of the state. The sixth amendment only specifies a right to a trial for those who are facing criminal prosecutions (but does not limit this to citizens, btw). As I said before, this wouldn't be about a criminal prosecution so your talk of a capital crime is misplaced.

You still haven't answered my simple questions. Do non-citizens who are charged with a crime in the US have a right to a jury trial under our constitution? Assuming you come up with the correct answer, which is "yes", do their rights stop at the border?

Oh and FYI, consistency is not defined by agreement with DJ's left nut.

I absolutely answered your question - it's irrelevant. Our rights as citizens are immaterial when discussing the rights of aliens, resident or not. It's not an apt analogy as they never had 'Constitutional' rights as citizens. Any trial they are given arises primarily from comity.

And we haven't declared war, so yes, this is a criminal matter against one of our own citizens.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 01:40 PM
It has happened once before but the American wasn't the intended target and I don't think they even knew he was there.


I was presuming the person you were talking about was in the U.S. In a foreign country you are basically going to pay the piper for your activities. Kind of like "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."

Chiefnj2
01-28-2010, 01:40 PM
AQ is not a foreign state.
[/LIST]

That's why I said "close enough".

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:41 PM
or #5

Tape: American al Qaeda member renounces citizenship (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/06/gadahn.tape/index.html)

(CNN) -- On a videotape released Sunday, American al Qaeda member Adam Yahiye Gadahn renounces his U.S. citizenship, destroys his passport and cites U.S. President Bush's upcoming trip to the Middle East.
art.gadahn.afp.gi.jpg

The 50-minute tape -- titled "An Invitation to Reflection and Repentance" -- was released by As Sahab, al Qaeda's video production wing and was provided to CNN by www.LauraMansfield.com (http://www.LauraMansfield.com), a Web site that analyzes terrorism.

In it, Gadahn renounces his citizenship to protest the imprisonment of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, a blind Egyptian Muslim leader serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban who was arrested in Afghanistan in 2001, and others.

Gadahn displays his passport to the camera, rips it in half and says, "Don't get too excited -- I don't need it to travel anyway."

...

Is that the same guy?

HonestChieffan
01-28-2010, 01:43 PM
Double tap him

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:43 PM
that isn't the same guy. The guy they are trying to get is the imam for the Fort Hood shooter among other things.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 01:50 PM
I absolutely answered your question - it's irrelevant. Our rights as citizens are immaterial when discussing the rights of aliens, resident or not. It's not an apt analogy as they never had 'Constitutional' rights as citizens. Any trial they are given arises primarily from comity.

And we haven't declared war, so yes, this is a criminal matter against one of our own citizens.

Constitutional law fail. Give a straight answer fail.

I'll help you. The answer is yes, but you don't want to admit this because then you're exposed for your own inconsistency because the logical conclusion you'd have to reach is that no terrorist, citizen or not, can ever be attacked in this way (at least absent a formal declaration of war*) because they all have a right to a trial.

---------
* I disagree with you about whether or not we're in a war for constitutional purposes, but rather than being side tracked by that tangential issue we can agree to disagree.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Expatriating acts include entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S Fighting for AQ is close enough.

AQ is not a foreign state. Good thinking though I have never heard of this until now.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001483----000-.html)), 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:


obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
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);
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);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).


That's why I said "close enough".

that isn't the same guy. The guy they are trying to get is the imam for the Fort Hood shooter among other things.

Close enough.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 01:53 PM
that isn't the same guy. The guy they are trying to get is the imam for the Fort Hood shooter among other things.

Oops, I stand corrected.

Garcia Bronco
01-28-2010, 01:56 PM
I would kill them and not think twice about it.

DJ's left nut
01-28-2010, 01:56 PM
Constitutional law fail. Give a straight answer fail.

I'll help you. The answer is yes, but you don't want to admit this because then you're exposed for your own inconsistency because the logical conclusion you'd have to reach is that no terrorist, citizen or not, can ever be attacked in this way (at least absent a formal declaration of war*) because they all have a right to a trial.


What?

Just exactly how the hell must one reach that conclusion?

Logically - a non-citizen terrorist isn't entitled to Constitutional rights because he's not a citizen. As such, the question is completely moot. Being on our soil isn't what gives one Constitutional rights; it's actually being a citizen. The SCOTUS has, on many occasions, parsed between the rights of citizens and non-citizen aliens.

How again do they all have a right to trial? Any other percieved 'right' to trial isn't a 'right' at all. It's either provided via statute or comity. It's a completely different question altogether.

I have absolutely no idea how your logic flows here; it makes no sense.

Bwana
01-28-2010, 01:59 PM
In a heartbeat.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 02:33 PM
What?

Just exactly how the hell must one reach that conclusion?

Logically - a non-citizen terrorist isn't entitled to Constitutional rights because he's not a citizen. As such, the question is completely moot. Being on our soil isn't what gives one Constitutional rights; it's actually being a citizen. The SCOTUS has, on many occasions, parsed between the rights of citizens and non-citizen aliens.

How again do they all have a right to trial? Any other percieved 'right' to trial isn't a 'right' at all. It's either provided via statute or comity. It's a completely different question altogether.

I have absolutely no idea how your logic flows here; it makes no sense.

I could be wrong on this but doesn't the Constitution apply to all citizens including illegals? Also the Supreme Court ruled just 2-3 years ago that foreigners have a right to habeas corpus.

The justices said the Constitution from the beginning enshrined the "privilege of habeas corpus" -- or the right to go before a judge -- as one of the safeguards of liberty. And that right extends even to foreigners captured in the war on terrorism, the high court said, particularly when they have been held for as long as six years without charges.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 02:43 PM
What?

Just exactly how the hell must one reach that conclusion?

Logically - a non-citizen terrorist isn't entitled to Constitutional rights because he's not a citizen. As such, the question is completely moot. Being on our soil isn't what gives one Constitutional rights; it's actually being a citizen. The SCOTUS has, on many occasions, parsed between the rights of citizens and non-citizen aliens.

How again do they all have a right to trial? Any other percieved 'right' to trial isn't a 'right' at all. It's either provided via statute or comity. It's a completely different question altogether.

I have absolutely no idea how your logic flows here; it makes no sense.

The Constitution doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in the 6th amendment. Perhaps it should, and it wouldn't bother me if it did, but the reality is that it doesn't. It guarantees a right to a trial for the accused "in ALL criminal prosecutions" not just in prosecutions of citizens. I know of no case law that interprets this amendment to apply only to citizens (if you know of any you can lay it on me and I'll stand corrected). Instead, I find case law regarding deportation hearings for illegal immigrants drawing a distinction between the civil proceeding of a deportation and a criminal proceeding specifically to avoid the mandates of the 6th amendment, which of course implies that for criminal prosecutions, full 6th amendment protections are applicable even for non-citizens.

If you insist on thinking of a missile attack as an extra-judicial punishment for a criminal offense instead of an act of war, I don't see any constitutional basis for you to distinguish between that applied to a citizen and that applied to a non-citizen.

DJ's left nut
01-28-2010, 03:18 PM
I could be wrong on this but doesn't the Constitution apply to all citizens including illegals? Also the Supreme Court ruled just 2-3 years ago that foreigners have a right to habeas corpus.

Much like corporations, etc..., the Supreme Court applies it piecemeal.

Initially, Constitutional rights applied only to citizens. The SCOTUS has expanded those rights to certain classes in certain instances.

For instance, the right to vote is a Constitutional one and illegal immegrants to no have it. If you really break it down, they don't have 2nd amendment rights either.

King_Chief_Fan
01-28-2010, 03:20 PM
Oh and FYI, consistency is not defined by agreement with DJ's left nut. or his right nut

DJ's left nut
01-28-2010, 03:36 PM
The Constitution doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in the 6th amendment. Perhaps it should, and it wouldn't bother me if it did, but the reality is that it doesn't. It guarantees a right to a trial for the accused "in ALL criminal prosecutions" not just in prosecutions of citizens. I know of no case law that interprets this amendment to apply only to citizens (if you know of any you can lay it on me and I'll stand corrected). Instead, I find case law regarding deportation hearings for illegal immigrants drawing a distinction between the civil proceeding of a deportation and a criminal proceeding specifically to avoid the mandates of the 6th amendment, which of course implies that for criminal prosecutions, full 6th amendment protections are applicable even for non-citizens.

If you insist on thinking of a missile attack as an extra-judicial punishment for a criminal offense instead of an act of war, I don't see any constitutional basis for you to distinguish between that applied to a citizen and that applied to a non-citizen.

Citizen's rights are ironclad; they've been around since the document was drafted. It's taken SCOTUS opinions to expand them beyond that.

I will concede that I forgot about the Habeus Corpus opinion, it certainly provides a good starting point for the idea that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens. However, the SCOTUS also made it clear that their ruling was restricted to the facts of the case.

Much like Citizen's United, the Court could have issued a broad proclamation holding exactly what you suggested. However, unlike Citizen's, it was careful not to.

Negative implication doesn't work when discussing Supreme Court rulings.

Look at how we handled John Walker Lindh vs. how we've handled rank and file insurgents - it's not the same. We have clearly drawn a distinction between citizen combatants and non-citizen combatants.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 04:23 PM
Citizen's rights are ironclad; they've been around since the document was drafted. It's taken SCOTUS opinions to expand them beyond that.

I will concede that I forgot about the Habeus Corpus opinion, it certainly provides a good starting point for the idea that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens. However, the SCOTUS also made it clear that their ruling was restricted to the facts of the case.

Much like Citizen's United, the Court could have issued a broad proclamation holding exactly what you suggested. However, unlike Citizen's, it was careful not to.

Negative implication doesn't work when discussing Supreme Court rulings.

Look at how we handled John Walker Lindh vs. how we've handled rank and file insurgents - it's not the same. We have clearly drawn a distinction between citizen combatants and non-citizen combatants.

I'm not relying on negative implication for constitutional interpretation (I just offered that to you in the hope that you'd recognize your error), and I'm certainly not relying on a recent case like Citizen's United or the Habeas Corpus ruling (with which I disagree, btw). As far as I know, the sixth amendment has always applied to non-citizens just as it has applied to citizens. There's nothing in the document that leads me to believe that this was a judicial invention. Again I invite you to show me that I'm incorrect.

Just last October, the SCOTUS heard arguments in case called Padilla v Kentucky (http://www.acslaw.org/node/14460) (not to be confused with the cases involving US citizen and al Qaeda affiliate Jose Padilla). The issue in the case is whether or not the non-citizen defendant's sixth amendment right to effective counsel has been violated. Obviously, if the sixth amendment didn't even apply to non-citizens, the issue of effective counsel either wouldn't have been an issue or it wouldn't have hinged on the sixth amendment. I don't have a cite to offer you that's directly on point for the issue of a non-citizen's right to a trial, but I've offered you more than your naked assertions that the sixth amendment doesn't even apply.

dirk digler
02-04-2010, 12:41 PM
Update:

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair offered confirmation on Wednesday that the U.S. intelligence community is authorized to assassinate Americans abroad who are considered direct terrorist threats to the United States.

"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community," Blair told lawmakers at a House Intelligence Committee hearing. "If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

Some House members raised concerns about these latest developments. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who criticized the intelligence community this week for misconduct surrounding the 2001 attack on a plane piloted by American missionaries in Peru, questioned the policy.

"The targeting of Americans -- it's a very sensitive issue, but again there's been more information in the public domain than what has been shared with this committee," Hoekstra said. "There is no clarity...what is the legal framework?