3 ms·

Killing "terrorists" (whatever that word means) without judicial oversight is counter to the idea of due process. It's something a lot of people rightfully dis

• jonstewart 14y ago
  One of the major legal arguments this paper makes, and backs up with cited case law, is that "due process" does not necessarily imply a court ruling. The "due" in due process has meaning, which is that the process should fit the circumstances. This also doesn't apply to garden variety terrorists, but to "Al-Qaida and associated forces" specifically, against whom Congress declared war. Personally, I find the issue perplexing. But this is analogous to a design document/specification for a function of government, and one of the requirements of the implementation is that it must be legal. So, this lays out a design which purports to legal. Perhaps it isn't, in which case a successful legal counterargument must be made. Perhaps it shouldn't be, in which case lobbying the legislative branch is the best way to proceed.
• anigbrowl 14y ago
  No it isn't. You may not like the AUMF [1] but it defines who terrorists are (albeit broadly) and empowers the executive to use military force against them. The constitution promises due process of law, not that said law will be administered by the judicial branch. 1. Authorization for Use of Military Force, SJ Resolution 23 http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.htm...
  • adventured 14y ago
    The due process of law the Constitution attempted to enshrine was very specifically meant to ensure that justice is carried out by the judicial system. Great lengths were taken in fact to secure that outcome. The framers were extraordinarily clear on this. You're exactly wrong.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      Extraordinarily clear? Whole books have been written about the meaning of the two overlapping due process clauses in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been defined by centuries-long conflicts between two wildly different schools of thought (subtantitive and procedural due process). Supreme Court justices have had to construct arguments over which amendments to the Constitution even incorporate the Bill of Rights over the states. Every time you think that some power must obviously be invested in the judicial system, remember to run the sanity check: nobody elects the judicial system. They're accountable to nobody. The framers did not want our country governed by philosopher kings. I don't think this leg of the conversation has much to do with the issue at hand --- if there's one thing the Constitution is extraordinarily clear about, it's that the Executive commands the military, and DOJ's reasoning regarding drone strikes depends on their military nature --- but I'm in the middle of _Democracy and Distrust_ right now, and maybe it gets clearer later in the book but the impression I get is that "Due Process" is anything but clear and simple.
      • euroclydon 14y ago
        Looks like a good book. An Amazon review mentions that Ely reasons one-man-one-vote as the fundamental guiding principal for apportionment. Have you read that part yet? I guess the Senate gets an exemption...
    • anigbrowl 14y ago
      This is rather begging the question by defining the issue as justiciable from the outset, in similar fashion to the religious argument that 'the existence of creation implies a creator, therefore God exists.' It's my view that the pursuit of military objectives is very much the province of the executive, and that the elimination of Anwar Al-Awlaki was an entirely legitimate military objective since Al-Awlaki was (at the least) involved in rallying supporters to his cause and exhorting them to kill Americans, and arguably directly involved in the planning and authorization of such operations, exactly the sort of threats the Executive branch is responsible for addressing.