5 ms·

Isn't there a process of removing citizenship from someone who has committed treason? Why not at least go that route, vs blatantly killing citizens?

by daenz 6y ago

Miner49er 6y ago
Cause then they would actually have to prove the person they killed committed treason.
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  I’m more interested in hearing why you believe Anwar al-Awlaki hadn’t committed treason.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - orhmeh09 6y ago
    Shouldn’t you explain what he did that qualified as treason under US law?
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Or, if it's so incredibly obvious, why can't he be tried and sentenced by the normal process of law? "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area. That only would seem to follow if the argument was that we couldn't get him by a drone strike, which obviously is not the argument, as drone strikes don't really do a good job of hauling people before a court.
        monocasa 6y ago
        If we can indiscriminately bomb 10s of thousands of civilians in the area, we can drop down a helicopter to pick him up.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        No, the whole reasons for a drone war is that drones work very well in conditions where you can't safely land people on the ground to do things, or even operate manned aircraft without unreasonable risk of losses.
        monocasa 6y ago
        If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. If the question is politics: we're nearing 100k Yemeni civilians dead, they won't say no, and won't have the choice anyway.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. Air superiority, or even air supremacy, doesn't make putting feet on the ground safe.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. No, taking unnecessary risks to do things that aren't legally required for enemies in war is kind of the opposite of the point of being a soldier. > If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution The Constitution doesn't require the government to take any special restraint in war when someone fighting on the other side is a US citizen. There may be a good argument that the law ought to given the realities of modern war, sure. And that's a debate we should have.
    - sonotathrowaway 6y ago
      His arrested conspirators alleged under FBI questioning that he coordinated terrorist attacks. Working for a designated terrorist organization to commit terrorism is a crime in the United States, because terrorism is a crime.
  - afuchs 6y ago
    The issue raised from the article and this overall discussion isn't necessarily concerned with one individual case, it is about what processes should be followed to make such a determination regardless of who that individual is. Even if an individual appears to be obviously guilty, shouldn't some form of process be followed in all cases to prevent wrongful convictions and/or executions?
    - monocasa 6y ago
      And not just "some process", because the DoJ argues that they do follow a process. It's just not a process that involves the judiciary, or trials, or what have you.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Legally, since the US didn't declare war, he has an argument for this not to be treason. It's part of the issue when you start doing things outside of the law, it becomes difficult or impossible for administrations in the future to do things legally, and it tends to get worse from there.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    Reading his Wikipedia, it seems he was guilty of hate speech against the country, and his connection with committers of violence was through writing and "inspiring". If that's treason, then I suppose a future leftist Castro-esque president should be free to drone-murder hate speech mongers like Rush Limbaugh and many in the Fox News commentary department. America likes to talk about respecting democracy and the rule of law, but the way it acts is nowhere near that.
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    The requirement in the statute isn't just that he committed treason, actually. The loss of citizenship from committing treason doesn't actually occur until the conviction for treason. And conviction for treason is both statutorily and constitutionally impossible unless you have two witnesses testify to the commission of the same overt act, or unlesss you have a confession in open court. This was a very intentional protection by the founding fathers based on prior abuses of treason laws in England. So, even if he absolutely did commit treason, he is a citizen unless the prosecution both occurs and achieves all of that. Citizens deserve due process, period, since government conclusions and criminal charges can both be wrong, and loss of life is a very severe thing to make a mistake about.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    If you can't legally blow up citizens you cannot assert after the fact that in theory they could have lost their citizenship if you had actually bothered to collect evidence, go to court and present it. If you CAN legally murder your citizens then a lot of things cease to matter because you are no longer governed by the rule of law in the first place.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Isn't there a process of removing citizenship from someone who has committed treason? No. > Why not at least go that route, vs blatantly killing citizens? Because it doesn't exist, and if it did exist it would almost certainly be a contested judicial process which would bring in the same problem as criminal prosecution of enemy combatants that happen to be US citizens but are physically located in territory not practically subject to US or cooperative jurisdiction.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  I’m not super familiar with this area of law, but according to our government you may lose your citizenship if you commit an act of treason. See: https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship Edited for grammar
  - chaboud 6y ago
    You'd need to be convicted of an act of reason with due process, which would require a court, which would imperil state secrets. It's much easier to kill you and then say that you and your estate have no standing to challenge the official story to see if you were on a list because only people who know they are in the list can see if they're on the list.
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    Treason is defined in the Constitution (and in statute law) in a way that precludes conviction for treason except upon confession in open court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. Treason can't be proved merely by the executive branch deciding you've committed it. The loss of citizenship would only happen upon conviction by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction, according to the statute. Additionally, technically there are two other requirements before committing treason causes a loss of citizenship, just as with all the other potentially expatriating acts: the treason must be committed voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, as judged on a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e. more likely than not). This is a court proceeding and the claimed loss of citizenship can be challenged, though of course those requirements are more likely to be satisfied in treason cases than in some of the other potentially expatriating acts. None of this is consistent with a unilateral military strike.
xxpor 6y ago
It's not treasonous to be a terrorist. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." So a) terrorists aren't levying war, because they're not part of a state, and b) good luck ever fulfilling the 2 witness or confession requirement.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > terrorists aren't levying war, because they're not part of a state Being part of a state is not required to levy war.
  - stretchcat 6y ago
    As far as I am aware, America hasn't had a legally declared war since WWII, and hasn't convicted anybody of treason since then either. Even the Rosenbergs, executed for espionage, weren't convicted of treason. It sure seems to me like in practice, it's not possible for an American to commit treason if there isn't a proper war on. Am I missing something?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > As far as I am aware, America hasn't had a legally declared war since WWII, This is true under the “magic words” understanding of the power to declare war; but that more limited authorizations than those that simply and expressly “declare war” are nevertheless exercises of the Constitutional power to declare war and create a legal state of war is, however, well-established law, see, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800).
      - stretchcat 6y ago
        Then why has nobody been charged with treason since WWII? Is it just not cool to do anymore or something?
1cvmask 6y ago
You are technically removed from citizenship when killed.

Isn't there a process of removing citizenship from someone who has committed treason? Why not at least go that route, vs blatantly killing citizens?

by daenz 6y ago

Isn't there a process of removing citizenship from someone who has committed treason? Why not at least go that route, vs blatantly killing citizens?

Miner49er 6y ago

Cause then they would actually have to prove the person they killed committed treason.

sonotathrowaway 6y ago
I’m more interested in hearing why you believe Anwar al-Awlaki hadn’t committed treason.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- orhmeh09 6y ago
  Shouldn’t you explain what he did that qualified as treason under US law?
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Or, if it's so incredibly obvious, why can't he be tried and sentenced by the normal process of law? "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > "Oh he was on foreign soil so we couldn't get to him" doesn't hold a lot of water when children in the region are known for having clear skies as a PTSD trigger from the number of drone strikes we've done in the area. That only would seem to follow if the argument was that we couldn't get him by a drone strike, which obviously is not the argument, as drone strikes don't really do a good job of hauling people before a court.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        If we can indiscriminately bomb 10s of thousands of civilians in the area, we can drop down a helicopter to pick him up.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        No, the whole reasons for a drone war is that drones work very well in conditions where you can't safely land people on the ground to do things, or even operate manned aircraft without unreasonable risk of losses.
        monocasa 6y ago
        If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. If the question is politics: we're nearing 100k Yemeni civilians dead, they won't say no, and won't have the choice anyway.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > If the question is safety: we have complete air superiority over Yemen. Air superiority, or even air supremacy, doesn't make putting feet on the ground safe.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > It's never going to be perfectly safe, but that's literally the point of being a soldier. No, taking unnecessary risks to do things that aren't legally required for enemies in war is kind of the opposite of the point of being a soldier. > If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution The Constitution doesn't require the government to take any special restraint in war when someone fighting on the other side is a US citizen. There may be a good argument that the law ought to given the realities of modern war, sure. And that's a debate we should have.
  - sonotathrowaway 6y ago
    His arrested conspirators alleged under FBI questioning that he coordinated terrorist attacks. Working for a designated terrorist organization to commit terrorism is a crime in the United States, because terrorism is a crime.
- afuchs 6y ago
  The issue raised from the article and this overall discussion isn't necessarily concerned with one individual case, it is about what processes should be followed to make such a determination regardless of who that individual is. Even if an individual appears to be obviously guilty, shouldn't some form of process be followed in all cases to prevent wrongful convictions and/or executions?
  - monocasa 6y ago
    And not just "some process", because the DoJ argues that they do follow a process. It's just not a process that involves the judiciary, or trials, or what have you.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Legally, since the US didn't declare war, he has an argument for this not to be treason. It's part of the issue when you start doing things outside of the law, it becomes difficult or impossible for administrations in the future to do things legally, and it tends to get worse from there.
- netsharc 6y ago
  Reading his Wikipedia, it seems he was guilty of hate speech against the country, and his connection with committers of violence was through writing and "inspiring". If that's treason, then I suppose a future leftist Castro-esque president should be free to drone-murder hate speech mongers like Rush Limbaugh and many in the Fox News commentary department. America likes to talk about respecting democracy and the rule of law, but the way it acts is nowhere near that.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  The requirement in the statute isn't just that he committed treason, actually. The loss of citizenship from committing treason doesn't actually occur until the conviction for treason. And conviction for treason is both statutorily and constitutionally impossible unless you have two witnesses testify to the commission of the same overt act, or unlesss you have a confession in open court. This was a very intentional protection by the founding fathers based on prior abuses of treason laws in England. So, even if he absolutely did commit treason, he is a citizen unless the prosecution both occurs and achieves all of that. Citizens deserve due process, period, since government conclusions and criminal charges can both be wrong, and loss of life is a very severe thing to make a mistake about.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  If you can't legally blow up citizens you cannot assert after the fact that in theory they could have lost their citizenship if you had actually bothered to collect evidence, go to court and present it. If you CAN legally murder your citizens then a lot of things cease to matter because you are no longer governed by the rule of law in the first place.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Isn't there a process of removing citizenship from someone who has committed treason? No. > Why not at least go that route, vs blatantly killing citizens? Because it doesn't exist, and if it did exist it would almost certainly be a contested judicial process which would bring in the same problem as criminal prosecution of enemy combatants that happen to be US citizens but are physically located in territory not practically subject to US or cooperative jurisdiction.

Fezzik 6y ago
I’m not super familiar with this area of law, but according to our government you may lose your citizenship if you commit an act of treason. See: https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship Edited for grammar
- chaboud 6y ago
  You'd need to be convicted of an act of reason with due process, which would require a court, which would imperil state secrets. It's much easier to kill you and then say that you and your estate have no standing to challenge the official story to see if you were on a list because only people who know they are in the list can see if they're on the list.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  Treason is defined in the Constitution (and in statute law) in a way that precludes conviction for treason except upon confession in open court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. Treason can't be proved merely by the executive branch deciding you've committed it. The loss of citizenship would only happen upon conviction by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction, according to the statute. Additionally, technically there are two other requirements before committing treason causes a loss of citizenship, just as with all the other potentially expatriating acts: the treason must be committed voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, as judged on a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e. more likely than not). This is a court proceeding and the claimed loss of citizenship can be challenged, though of course those requirements are more likely to be satisfied in treason cases than in some of the other potentially expatriating acts. None of this is consistent with a unilateral military strike.

xxpor 6y ago

It's not treasonous to be a terrorist. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." So a) terrorists aren't levying war, because they're not part of a state, and b) good luck ever fulfilling the 2 witness or confession requirement.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> terrorists aren't levying war, because they're not part of a state Being part of a state is not required to levy war.
- stretchcat 6y ago
  As far as I am aware, America hasn't had a legally declared war since WWII, and hasn't convicted anybody of treason since then either. Even the Rosenbergs, executed for espionage, weren't convicted of treason. It sure seems to me like in practice, it's not possible for an American to commit treason if there isn't a proper war on. Am I missing something?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > As far as I am aware, America hasn't had a legally declared war since WWII, This is true under the “magic words” understanding of the power to declare war; but that more limited authorizations than those that simply and expressly “declare war” are nevertheless exercises of the Constitutional power to declare war and create a legal state of war is, however, well-established law, see, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800).
    - stretchcat 6y ago
      Then why has nobody been charged with treason since WWII? Is it just not cool to do anymore or something?

1cvmask 6y ago

You are technically removed from citizenship when killed.