4 ms·

> So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sinc

> So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sincerely appreciated. I think you'll be waiting a long time for rayiner to give you one.

euroclydon 13y ago
Clearly it is the "time of war."
- greenyoda 13y ago
  The "time of war" clause applies to soldiers serving in the U.S. armed forces, who are subject to military law. It doesn't apply to random U.S. citizens.
  - brymaster 13y ago
    That won't dissuade him. We live in strange times where people practicing cognitive dissonance want to deny others their basic rights because "terr'rists wanna blow you up!"
- brymaster 13y ago
  Nope. Even in a time of war, you are entitled to your due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    Judicial process is a subset of due process. You'll notice the comment I was responding to mentioned judicial process. If a US citizen takes up arms with an enemy whom the US is at war with, then the process which he is due does not extend past accurate sighting before the trigger is pulled. Of course it's a tragedy if a citizen is killed in time of war if it turns out they were not actually engaged in combat alongside the enemy, but war is tragic in general.
    - zdean 13y ago
      And herein lies the beauty of the war on terror, drugs, internet piracy, etc. You (the gov'nt) don't have to define who the enemy are, what actually constitutes an act of combat, or how we know the war has come to an end. Read the Patriot Act. Read the rules of engagement for taking out U.S. citizens. It would not take a stretch of Eric Holder's imagination to think that downloading the Wikileaks file constitutes an act of aggression against the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas...

euroclydon 13y ago

Clearly it is the "time of war."

greenyoda 13y ago
The "time of war" clause applies to soldiers serving in the U.S. armed forces, who are subject to military law. It doesn't apply to random U.S. citizens.
- brymaster 13y ago
  That won't dissuade him. We live in strange times where people practicing cognitive dissonance want to deny others their basic rights because "terr'rists wanna blow you up!"
brymaster 13y ago
Nope. Even in a time of war, you are entitled to your due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- euroclydon 13y ago
  Judicial process is a subset of due process. You'll notice the comment I was responding to mentioned judicial process. If a US citizen takes up arms with an enemy whom the US is at war with, then the process which he is due does not extend past accurate sighting before the trigger is pulled. Of course it's a tragedy if a citizen is killed in time of war if it turns out they were not actually engaged in combat alongside the enemy, but war is tragic in general.
  - zdean 13y ago
    And herein lies the beauty of the war on terror, drugs, internet piracy, etc. You (the gov'nt) don't have to define who the enemy are, what actually constitutes an act of combat, or how we know the war has come to an end. Read the Patriot Act. Read the rules of engagement for taking out U.S. citizens. It would not take a stretch of Eric Holder's imagination to think that downloading the Wikileaks file constitutes an act of aggression against the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas...