4 ms·

Alright man. I can tell you have a big stake in this. Obviously you’re not reading/engaging with the source material. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking questions

Alright man. I can tell you have a big stake in this. Obviously you’re not reading/engaging with the source material. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking questions that have been answered. I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat. The first, for example, law enforcements confrontation with a dangerous individual. Second, the impossible weight put on the govt to observe due process in the face of imminent threats. Please refer to the court cases above. They are cited for a reason. Those are not my words. They are not the words of the executive branch. Those cases/opinions are the words of the judiciary. Refer to them. If Al-awlaki hadn’t been a combatant in a foreign force targeting the US, this may not have applied. But he was. If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable. Being in Yemen, and the fact that both the DOD and CIA said it was not possible to launch an operation (given they had attempted, which they said they had) for capture due to extraordinary circumstances, it was not in the govts court to provide due process in the face of imminent threat. In the case of Al-awlaki the self-defense justification holds merit when the United States' response to an armed attack is necessary and proportionate. The United States can invoke self-defense prior to an actual attack. U.S. citizens who serve as soldiers for the enemy can be shot without trial during military operations but must be afforded a trial as traitors if they can be captured (Which the military apparatus deemed not possible). For example, before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf.138 Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial. You can’t ‘assassinate’ an individual once they enter the throngs of a foreign force. They are considered a legitimate military target. targeted killing" denotes a state's intentional and premeditated use of lethal force through agents acting under color of law against a specific, reasonably unobtainable individual. Targeted killing and assassination are similar but distinct operations that commentators often conflate. assassinations are killings that are politically motivated and use subterfuge, while targeted killings are military strikes. This distinction is important because President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12,333 bans assassination. Please, just read the documents. Thanks.

yucky 4y ago
>I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat. There was no imminent threat. He was not on a battlefield. He was not in the active process of causing harm. Nobody would care if we were killed on an battlefield having taken up arms against US soldiers. But that isn't what happened. And the people who killed him can't just change the definition of the battlefield to "the world" and call it justifiable. I mean, they can and they did because neocons are gonna neocon. But it's very clearly and obviously unconstitutional. >If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable. That's not true, and in fact the correct interpretation of the "active threat" requirement can be found in numerous police shootings or barricaded gunman situations. An oft cited example is the BLM activist who murdered 5 cops in Dallas from a barricaded nest in a parking garage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police.... Authorities sent in a robot with explosives to kill him, and it can be justified with very few people arguing against. An anti-US dissident saying provocative things in a blog or on youtube videos, is not the same. >Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial. On what charge? He was never charged with a crime. That was the entire point of the lawsuit, so why are you being dishonest?
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  The AUMF says nothing about geography. Refer to the comment above. Hamdi rendered the constitutional override argument unnecessary. AUMF stood in for a declaration of war endorsed by all three branches. And before you say, “Acts of Congress cannot and do not supersede the Constitution”, Stop putting arguments into my mouth. I am arguing that the constitution was followed in this situation. The entire question is what process is due, and it is far from clear that the necessary process was a trial. Irrelevant example. Imminent. Not active. He held the rank of ‘regional commander’ within Al-Qaeda. The government’s actions are consistent with the DPC because al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him, and because of his asserted operational role and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life. And the court case ruled what? Nothing. It was dismissed. >Charged with what? He had notice that the US was after him and, if he wanted, he could have submitted to the court system. The Supreme Court has consistently held, most notably in Matthews v. Eldridge, that the amount of process due is context dependent.

yucky 4y ago

>I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat. There was no imminent threat. He was not on a battlefield. He was not in the active process of causing harm. Nobody would care if we were killed on an battlefield having taken up arms against US soldiers. But that isn't what happened. And the people who killed him can't just change the definition of the battlefield to "the world" and call it justifiable. I mean, they can and they did because neocons are gonna neocon. But it's very clearly and obviously unconstitutional. >If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable. That's not true, and in fact the correct interpretation of the "active threat" requirement can be found in numerous police shootings or barricaded gunman situations. An oft cited example is the BLM activist who murdered 5 cops in Dallas from a barricaded nest in a parking garage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police.... Authorities sent in a robot with explosives to kill him, and it can be justified with very few people arguing against. An anti-US dissident saying provocative things in a blog or on youtube videos, is not the same. >Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial. On what charge? He was never charged with a crime. That was the entire point of the lawsuit, so why are you being dishonest?

trevorboaconstr 4y ago
The AUMF says nothing about geography. Refer to the comment above. Hamdi rendered the constitutional override argument unnecessary. AUMF stood in for a declaration of war endorsed by all three branches. And before you say, “Acts of Congress cannot and do not supersede the Constitution”, Stop putting arguments into my mouth. I am arguing that the constitution was followed in this situation. The entire question is what process is due, and it is far from clear that the necessary process was a trial. Irrelevant example. Imminent. Not active. He held the rank of ‘regional commander’ within Al-Qaeda. The government’s actions are consistent with the DPC because al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him, and because of his asserted operational role and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life. And the court case ruled what? Nothing. It was dismissed. >Charged with what? He had notice that the US was after him and, if he wanted, he could have submitted to the court system. The Supreme Court has consistently held, most notably in Matthews v. Eldridge, that the amount of process due is context dependent.