Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[rambone]

1, Were there proper proceedings?

Yes

Contrary to assertions to the contrary, there was no "secret commission". At all times between January 2010 and September 2011 Al awalaki knew or should have known that an order for his capture or death was put out by the United States government. This determination was made based upon credible intelligence gathered by multiple intelligence agiencies from multiple states.

It just seems a bit backward that's all... issuing the death warrant first and then expecting the suspect to come defend himself. I'm shocked he didn't race over here ASAP to receive some of that blind, impartial justice.

 

[Plinker]

The law under which Al Awlaki was passed by Congress as a result of the attacks on 9/11. It authorized action against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as any and all combatants engaged in combat with the United States.

Has this law been challenged for its constitutionality? I'm asking as an uninformed person.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It just seems a bit backward that's all... issuing the death warrant first and then expecting the suspect to come defend himself. I'm shocked he didn't race over here ASAP to receive some of that blind, impartial justice.

You may not like it, but hte fact is that he was provided with due process. I'm not shocked at all. He made a choice to remain outside US jurisdiction. That choice cost him his life.

Has this law been challenged for its constitutionality? I'm asking as an uninformed person.

No. I don't know what grounds there would be for such a challenge.

 

[GREEN607]

Very good. We're starting on the right path here. We have a definition. Notice that is says nothing about trials.

The questions - were there proper proceedings, did Al Awlaki know of the proceedings, did he have the opportunity to be heard before the government took action, and was the law under which the actions were ordered and taken arbitrary.

1, Were there proper proceedings?

Yes

Contrary to assertions to the contrary, there was no "secret commission". At all times between January 2010 and September 2011 Al awalaki knew or should have known that an order for his capture or death was put out by the United States government. This determination was made based upon credible intelligence gathered by multiple intelligence agiencies from multiple states.

2. Did Al Awlaki know of the proceedings?

Yes

In January 2010 the government announced they would kill or capture Al Awlaki. This was an open air announcement. In April 2010 his father sued the United States trying to have the kill order recinded. In May 2010 his father's case was dismissed.

3. Did he have the opportunity to be heard before the government took action?

Yes

Al Awlaki knew of the determination made agianst him. At any time he could have turned himself in and submitted to the US justice system, facing the allegations against him. Instead he chose to evade American jurisdiction and continue to perpetuate war against the United States.

4. Was the law under which the actions were ordered and taken arbitrary?

No.

The law under which Al Awlaki was passed by Congress as a result of the attacks on 9/11. It authorized action against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as any and all combatants engaged in combat with the United States.

There. Due process.

Ladies & gentlemen, please take note...... this post tells it like it is..... whether you like it or not; and whether you agree with it, or not. Hope some of you have learned something here today.......

 

[CampingJosh]

The law under which Al Awlaki was passed by Congress as a result of the attacks on 9/11. It authorized action against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as any and all combatants engaged in combat with the United States.

There. Due process.

Has this law been challenged for its constitutionality? I'm asking as an uninformed person.

I doubt it has been challenged, as the description here sure sounds like a bill of attainder, which is specifically restricted in Article 1 Section 9.

Of course, the Constitution has never been much of a restriction on Congress.

 

[GREEN607]

I'm shocked he didn't race over here ASAP to receive some of that blind, impartial justice.

Which proves just the point that some of us are trying to get you to see, here. He did not, because he was evil and evil men are afraid of true justice, (not just American justice)... but true justice.

Please rambone, try to understand. All al-Awlaki had to do to save his hide... was to return to the U.S or even just go to an American consulate in Yemen, and say "I am re-claiming my American citizenship; and I want to exercise my right to due process, and exercise my right to council, and exercise my right to be charged (or not) and have those charges explained to me, and exercise my right to trial by a jury of my peers".

He chose to personally 'remain at war' with the United States..... and he paid the just price.

 

[Bummer]

Ladies & gentlemen, please take note...... this post tells it like it is..... whether you like it or not; and whether you agree with it, or not. Hope some of you have learned something here today.......

Whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with it or not, what I wrote still stands It's all been choices. All he's doing is reiterating the official excuses for the choices that were made. Quite predictable really.

 

[Bummer]

I don't see Christians crashing airliners into skyscrapers.

Torquemada didn't have airplanes.

 

[GREEN607]

Whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with it or not, what I wrote stall stands It's all been choices. All he's doing is reiterating the official excuses for the choices that were made. Quite predictable really.

Well, your username is 'appropriate', anyway.......

 

[Zoub]

I remember once when I was young, in an area where maybe I should not have been but that was not my decision.

I was told by the locals: "Hey you Honky Mo***r F****r, you cross that line again and we are gonna kill you."

Now, there was NO VISIBLE LINE, but I clearly understood where this invisible line was since I had just crossed it. They gave me fair warning. I could continue to go about my business but my business had better not take me over that line again. I chose not to cross that line again and not get stabbed. Others disagreed with me but since I was the one out there by myself and I was the one given the choice, F' you buddy, you go over there and cross their line but I am not. No one else wanted to go out there, they just wanted me to do it.

Al Awlaki was given fair warning. He continued to cross the line. Al Awlaki chose death before dishonor. Why is it so hard to ascribe 50% of the outcome to him? Why is it so hard to understand he would rather die fighting then face judgement for his actions and live (or die) on his knees?

Greg Gutfeld said it great the other day; when you rob a bank there is no guarantee you won't get killed doing it.

 

[Plinker]

I doubt it has been challenged, as the description here sure sounds like a bill of attainder, which is specifically restricted in Article 1 Section 9.

Of course, the Constitution has never been much of a restriction on Congress.

Exactly my thought. There was a lot of unconstitutional bills passed shortly after 9/11 and this sounds like it may be one of them.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Torquemada didn't have airplanes.

Waiting for Bitter to denounce the Spainish as not Christians....


If one does believe in the core beliefs of a religion, does that make you a believer of said religion?

 

[CampingJosh]

If one does believe in the core beliefs of a religion, does that make you a believer of said religion?

There is a significant difference between "believer" and "follower."

 

[bigg cheese]

no guarantee you won't get killed doing it.

If you're in the bank still robbing it. If you manage to get home, the police will not bomb your house. Nothing has been put forward that awlaki was an active shooter -- ever. They'll surround it and attempt to take you alive. Bad example.

 

[GREEN607]

I believe what 'we' did.... was fair and just. Not that I am, in any other respect, defending President Obama.

But maybe, just maybe, he is finally learning the truth in what Rudy Guilliani said..... "Change is not a destination; just as Hope is not a strategy."

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with it or not, what I wrote still stands It's all been choices. All he's doing is reiterating the official excuses for the choices that were made. Quite predictable really.

I don't understand what choices have to do with anything. Are you saying he didn't receive due process? What constitutes due proces in your mind?

I didn't reinterate excuses. I layed out the elements of due process and demonstrated how they were met. Do you disagree? If so address what I said with something other tham an esoteric rambling conspiracy rant.

 

[Bummer]

I don't understand what choices have to do with anything.

I do. The Congress had a choice. They could allow the miscreants to be brought to justice or they could not quite declare war. They chose the latter. High road/low road. They chose the low road.

Are you saying he didn't receive due process? What constitutes due proces in your mind?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...

He wasn't in the military so the rest is irrelevant.

What was he indicted for again? By whom?

I didn't reinterate excuses.

Sure you did.

I layed out the elements of due process and demonstrated how they were met. Do you disagree? If so address what I said with something other tham an esoteric rambling conspiracy rant.

What Grand Jury indicted him for what crime?

If you're planning to play the war card again we'll be right back to the original choice. I think we should have chosen the High Road. I explained why in one of my esoteric rambling conspiracy rants.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I do. The Congress had a choice. They could allow the miscreants to be brought to justice or they could not quite declare war. They chose the latter. High road/low road. They chose the low road.



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...

He wasn't in the military so the rest is irrelevant.

What was he indicted for again? By whom?



Sure you did.



What Grand Jury indicted him for what crime?

If you're planning to play the war card again we'll be right back to the original choice. I think we should have chosen the High Road. I explained why in one of my esoteric rambling conspiracy rants.

Due process has nothing to do with trials. You can receive a trail and not receive due process, and receive due process without a trial. Happens all the time.

He wasn't indicted. He was determined to be at war with the United States by act and association. It's totally fine that you think we should have "chosen the High Road" as you put it. But the plain fact is that he engaged with an enemy of the United States in the time of war. We were not required to indict him. He was given due process. He paid for that decision. No liberty lost, no tears shed. Bad (terrorist, enemy combatant, whatever you want to call him), no virgins.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Torquemada didn't have airplanes.

LOL - you can't be serious. The Spanish Inquisition took place in the 14th century. Muslims have been killing Christians in the name of islam since before that time, and they are still doing it.

Come on, you gotta do better than that Mr. Bummer.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

LOL - you can't be serious. The Spanish Inquisition took place in the 14th century. Muslims have been killing Christians in the name of islam since before that time, and they are still doing it.

Come on, you gotta do better than that Mr. Bummer.

And Jews murdered every man woman and child they came across from Egypt, to the "Holy Land." Whats your point? Is this a "do as i say, not as i do" post?