4 ms·

>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. H

by yucky 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  Your citation directly disputes your claim., since it requires charges to be brought. Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime.
  - trevorboaconstr 5y ago
    No, in fact, it does not. It supports my claim. >Hamid only applies to those in custody. It is dictating what due process is required to those people who are already in custody. No portion of the constitution requires that you capture enemies in a war, and neither does any norm of international law. Al-Awlaki was not captured. It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki. It is not required that Al-Awlaki be captured.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The Constitution extends to Congress the power to declare war. But it did not, in fact, declare war, so your claims, like theirs, are irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is murder of US citizens under no legitimate authority. Your fancy document could be introduced as an attempt at a defense in the trial of the perps, and they could try to persuade a jury it justifies the murder, provided the judge allowed it. That is all the legal value it legitimately has.
      - trevorboaconstr 5y ago
        There’s about 3 legal documents and 4 Supreme Court cases cited in this thread. Your issues have been addressed in this thread. I would refer to them if I were you. Thanks. The laws of war apply under the AUMF.
        yucky 5y ago
        The AUMF was passed by Congress to go after those who planned 9/11, it's literally in the text of the law.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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. The Constitution doesn't refer to battlefields at all. It does give Congress the power to declare war, which it exercised via the AUMF. There are numerous cases establishing that, in war, US citizens who are combatants of the enemy are not entitled to special treatment.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Do we really need to point out that Congress did not, in fact, declare war?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Do we really need to point out that Congress did not, in fact, declare war? Congress did, in fact, declare war. It is well established in law that the Cobstitutional power to declare war doesn't require using any particular words, and that it may be conditional on either external events or executive determinations. The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war. It's not, but that actually isn't relevant and doesn't matter in the Al-Awlaki case anyway. The text of the AUMF specifically references those who participated in or planned 9/11, which means it's not relevant to Al-Awlaki. Also, Al-Awlaki's family offered to have him turn himself in the second he was charged with a crime but the US Government refused to charge him since that would immediately guarantee him Due Process which they specifically sought to avoid.
- yucky 5y ago
  He was not a combatant though, and he wasn't even in any of the countries we were "at war" with. So if the government can use the pretext of "bad person sides against US Government in Youtube videos" to reach out and assassinate the person anywhere on earth, (because global war on terror = whole globe), then they have de facto denied Constitutional rights to any US citizens who the government chooses to go after, and does not require the US Government to prove anything. Also, as has already been said in other posts, the Al-Awlaki family begged the US Government for over a year to charge him with a crime, ANY CRIME, so that he could turn himself in and have his day in court. The US Government refused to ever charge him with a crime specifically so they could deny him his rights. You guys need to stop pretending this was some American killed on a battlefield while shooting at US soldiers. All it does is make you look dishonest, so what is the point?

by yucky 5y ago

trevorboaconstr 5y 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 5y ago
Your citation directly disputes your claim., since it requires charges to be brought. Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime.
- trevorboaconstr 5y ago
  No, in fact, it does not. It supports my claim. >Hamid only applies to those in custody. It is dictating what due process is required to those people who are already in custody. No portion of the constitution requires that you capture enemies in a war, and neither does any norm of international law. Al-Awlaki was not captured. It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki. It is not required that Al-Awlaki be captured.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The Constitution extends to Congress the power to declare war. But it did not, in fact, declare war, so your claims, like theirs, are irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is murder of US citizens under no legitimate authority. Your fancy document could be introduced as an attempt at a defense in the trial of the perps, and they could try to persuade a jury it justifies the murder, provided the judge allowed it. That is all the legal value it legitimately has.
    - trevorboaconstr 5y ago
      There’s about 3 legal documents and 4 Supreme Court cases cited in this thread. Your issues have been addressed in this thread. I would refer to them if I were you. Thanks. The laws of war apply under the AUMF.
      - yucky 5y ago
        The AUMF was passed by Congress to go after those who planned 9/11, it's literally in the text of the law.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 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. The Constitution doesn't refer to battlefields at all. It does give Congress the power to declare war, which it exercised via the AUMF. There are numerous cases establishing that, in war, US citizens who are combatants of the enemy are not entitled to special treatment.

ncmncm 5y ago
Do we really need to point out that Congress did not, in fact, declare war?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Do we really need to point out that Congress did not, in fact, declare war? Congress did, in fact, declare war. It is well established in law that the Cobstitutional power to declare war doesn't require using any particular words, and that it may be conditional on either external events or executive determinations. The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war. It's not, but that actually isn't relevant and doesn't matter in the Al-Awlaki case anyway. The text of the AUMF specifically references those who participated in or planned 9/11, which means it's not relevant to Al-Awlaki. Also, Al-Awlaki's family offered to have him turn himself in the second he was charged with a crime but the US Government refused to charge him since that would immediately guarantee him Due Process which they specifically sought to avoid.
yucky 5y ago
He was not a combatant though, and he wasn't even in any of the countries we were "at war" with. So if the government can use the pretext of "bad person sides against US Government in Youtube videos" to reach out and assassinate the person anywhere on earth, (because global war on terror = whole globe), then they have de facto denied Constitutional rights to any US citizens who the government chooses to go after, and does not require the US Government to prove anything. Also, as has already been said in other posts, the Al-Awlaki family begged the US Government for over a year to charge him with a crime, ANY CRIME, so that he could turn himself in and have his day in court. The US Government refused to ever charge him with a crime specifically so they could deny him his rights. You guys need to stop pretending this was some American killed on a battlefield while shooting at US soldiers. All it does is make you look dishonest, so what is the point?