4 ms·

Procedural Due Process [0]: "Procedural due process is a legal doctrine in the United States that requires government officials to follow fair procedures befor

by imron 10y ago

Procedural Due Process [0]: "Procedural due process is a legal doctrine in the United States that requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. When the government seeks to deprive a person of one of those interests, procedural due process minimally requires for the government to afford the person notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker. Procedural due process is required by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." They deprived him of his life and did not afford him notice, the opportunity to be heard, or a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker. That's why people are skeptical when Holder said his death met the requirements for due process. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_due_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_due_process

eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
> They deprived him of his life and did not afford him notice, the opportunity to be heard, or a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker. How do we know that? Genuine question. May be they sent him a court notice to his last known address (in US or in foreign countries) asking him to appear in the court. What makes you believe that this did not happen? Are you implying that Anwar never knew that US law agencies were looking for him?
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  If you're sending a letter to an address in Denver, when you know he's in Yemen, you're not acting in good faith. That said, I find it hard to believe that he was not aware that the United States government was looking for him.
- rhizome 10y ago
  The Federal death penalty is only used for crimes involving death, and they don't use the post office for capital trial information, scheduling, and/or notifications.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The death penalty is a punishment in response to ordinary criminal acts. Even countries that have abolished the death penalty reserve the right to kill people in war. There is a fundamental difference between policing and military action. Applying civilian legal standards to military situations is a bad idea because it inevitably results in watering down ordinary criminal protections to accommodate the needs of military situations.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      You don't have to condescend to me. On what principle(s) was al-Awlaki subject to anything other than ordinary criminal due process?
      - rayiner 10y ago
        How was I being condescending? I was simply explaining the important difference between the criminal justice system, which exists to maintain internal order and the security of individuals, and the military, which exists to protect the nation from foreign threats. Al Awalki was in a foreign country--where U.S. criminal laws presumptively do not apply--organizing armed action by foreigners against the United States. It's an archetypal act of war, rather than a crime.
        rhizome 10y ago
        Are you really saying that whenever a US citizen is out of the country, the US government is de jure entitled to kill them?
        rayiner 10y ago
        Your question is disingenuous because it ignores the factual context. Due process is inherently concerned with the particular factual circumstances. It has never meant that you get a full trial in every circumstance. So no, the U.S. government is not entitled to kill a U.S. citizen once he leaves U.S. soil as a categorical rule. But it can do so if it provides process commensurate with the circumstances. Which brings us back to the question: What process is "due" to someone who commits something that is not a crime, but rather is an archetypal act of war, from foreign soil?
rayiner 10y ago
The "notice, opportunity to be heard" stuff is from, IIRC, a welfare benefits case. It's a judicial gloss on what "due" means in a range of ordinary contexts, but those words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

by imron 10y ago

eh78ssxv2f 10y ago

> They deprived him of his life and did not afford him notice, the opportunity to be heard, or a decision made by a neutral decisionmaker. How do we know that? Genuine question. May be they sent him a court notice to his last known address (in US or in foreign countries) asking him to appear in the court. What makes you believe that this did not happen? Are you implying that Anwar never knew that US law agencies were looking for him?

jonathankoren 10y ago
If you're sending a letter to an address in Denver, when you know he's in Yemen, you're not acting in good faith. That said, I find it hard to believe that he was not aware that the United States government was looking for him.
rhizome 10y ago
The Federal death penalty is only used for crimes involving death, and they don't use the post office for capital trial information, scheduling, and/or notifications.
- rayiner 10y ago
  The death penalty is a punishment in response to ordinary criminal acts. Even countries that have abolished the death penalty reserve the right to kill people in war. There is a fundamental difference between policing and military action. Applying civilian legal standards to military situations is a bad idea because it inevitably results in watering down ordinary criminal protections to accommodate the needs of military situations.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    You don't have to condescend to me. On what principle(s) was al-Awlaki subject to anything other than ordinary criminal due process?
    - rayiner 10y ago
      How was I being condescending? I was simply explaining the important difference between the criminal justice system, which exists to maintain internal order and the security of individuals, and the military, which exists to protect the nation from foreign threats. Al Awalki was in a foreign country--where U.S. criminal laws presumptively do not apply--organizing armed action by foreigners against the United States. It's an archetypal act of war, rather than a crime.
      - rhizome 10y ago
        Are you really saying that whenever a US citizen is out of the country, the US government is de jure entitled to kill them?
        rayiner 10y ago
        Your question is disingenuous because it ignores the factual context. Due process is inherently concerned with the particular factual circumstances. It has never meant that you get a full trial in every circumstance. So no, the U.S. government is not entitled to kill a U.S. citizen once he leaves U.S. soil as a categorical rule. But it can do so if it provides process commensurate with the circumstances. Which brings us back to the question: What process is "due" to someone who commits something that is not a crime, but rather is an archetypal act of war, from foreign soil?

rayiner 10y ago

The "notice, opportunity to be heard" stuff is from, IIRC, a welfare benefits case. It's a judicial gloss on what "due" means in a range of ordinary contexts, but those words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution.