5 ms·

Yes, that's a great point. But the nuances of that distinction are not covered well in the argument of this article. Which was kinda my point, that boiling this

by moskie 12y ago

Yes, that's a great point. But the nuances of that distinction are not covered well in the argument of this article. Which was kinda my point, that boiling this down to "the government shouldn't kill people without a trial" misses a lot of nuances that need to be taken into account.

streptomycin 12y ago
I disagree. This is covered by the article: In battle, combatants engaged in war against America get no due process and may lawfully be killed. But citizens not in a battlefield, however despicable, are guaranteed a trial by our Constitution. It's frustrating that, after reading all the other comments here and at the NY Times website, it seems like at least half of the people disagreeing with this article are doing so because they didn't read that passage.
- genericuser 12y ago
  Or rather they are talking about situations like the hostage example which they consider as taking place 'not in a battlefield'.
- moskie 12y ago
  I read it, and read that passage. And I don't believe those two sentences adequately cover the issue. Perhaps this discussion is tainted by the submission title: "Show us the legal case for executing a United States citizen without a trial." The hostage taker hypothetical is an example that goes against that. That person would be a citizen, not in a battlefield, guaranteed the right to a trial, executed by the government, without a trial. The article does not do a good job of distinguishing that example from Awl Alaki. Meaning I think the central argument isn't all that good, and needs to be more specific / nuanced.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The quoted passage is inaccurate. Citizens are guaranteed due process, on or off the battlefield. In situations involving the deprivation of life, that almost always means a trial. But a trial is not an inviolate requirement. What level of process "is due" is a context-sensitive question.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  The loophole in the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is worse than that. It is wide enough to fly an entire fleet of drones through, in formation. Firstly, there is no mention of citizenship. Secondly, the loophole covers any land force, sea force, or militia, and the service can be in any time of war (not necessarily currently engaged in battle) or any time of public danger. There is no mention of loyalty to the U.S. as enemy or ally. Obviously, the intent of the loophole was to address the question "How can we possibly fight a war if 23 people have to hear evidence before every musket ball flies?" But thanks to poor bounds checking, the protection against arbitrary extrajudicial executions is severely weakened. By a malicious reading of the amendment, I could argue that, by the tenets of Islam, every Muslim is a member of the militia, and that every member is called upon to wage war upon the unfaithful, heretics, and apostates. That is, they would all be "Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." They don't even need to be at war against the U.S. The loophole does not specify. It would seem that the source code for U.S. Government should be updated, and a patch released.
  - baldeagle 12y ago
    Yeah, but the minimum 34 maintainers (2/3s of the states) have been arguing about the colour of the bike shed since the time of mainstream horse drawn carriages. Little known fact: the most recent pull request accepted into the Repo was submitted in Sept 1789. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the...
  - dalke 12y ago
    Unless you can find something which revokes a statement in the Treaty of Tripoli - and given 200+ years it might well have changed - you can't apply your malicious reading because the US has said it does not have hatred or ill-will regarding the tenets of Islam. Specifically, the US Senate unanimously wrote that the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen" (that being the older term for Muslims). That nitpick aside, your statement is still true - the loophole would be to declare that, say, the tenants of the Wahhabi branch, or the Ahmadiyya branch, of Islam are not part of the true Muslim faith as meant in the Treaty of Tripoli.
- smsm42 12y ago
  "Battlefield" is a rather vague concept nowdays. What is the battlefield for a terrorist? Is a terrorist driving to deliver a bomb on a battlefield? What about one dialing a cellphone to explode the bomb he placed in a restaurant? What about one organizing this and recruiting people to commit such acts - is he on the battlefield or not? What if you can only locate this terrorist while he's driving to a meeting with his accomplices, but once he's done the only way you see him is by the next explosion on a crowded market? Is such person on a battlefield or not, and if so, when exactly he is on and off the battlefield? Can you target an enemy general who spent last 30 years never holding a weapon in combat but planning and executing hundreds of military operations?

by moskie 12y ago

streptomycin 12y ago

I disagree. This is covered by the article: In battle, combatants engaged in war against America get no due process and may lawfully be killed. But citizens not in a battlefield, however despicable, are guaranteed a trial by our Constitution. It's frustrating that, after reading all the other comments here and at the NY Times website, it seems like at least half of the people disagreeing with this article are doing so because they didn't read that passage.

genericuser 12y ago
Or rather they are talking about situations like the hostage example which they consider as taking place 'not in a battlefield'.
moskie 12y ago
I read it, and read that passage. And I don't believe those two sentences adequately cover the issue. Perhaps this discussion is tainted by the submission title: "Show us the legal case for executing a United States citizen without a trial." The hostage taker hypothetical is an example that goes against that. That person would be a citizen, not in a battlefield, guaranteed the right to a trial, executed by the government, without a trial. The article does not do a good job of distinguishing that example from Awl Alaki. Meaning I think the central argument isn't all that good, and needs to be more specific / nuanced.
rayiner 12y ago
The quoted passage is inaccurate. Citizens are guaranteed due process, on or off the battlefield. In situations involving the deprivation of life, that almost always means a trial. But a trial is not an inviolate requirement. What level of process "is due" is a context-sensitive question.
logfromblammo 12y ago
The loophole in the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is worse than that. It is wide enough to fly an entire fleet of drones through, in formation. Firstly, there is no mention of citizenship. Secondly, the loophole covers any land force, sea force, or militia, and the service can be in any time of war (not necessarily currently engaged in battle) or any time of public danger. There is no mention of loyalty to the U.S. as enemy or ally. Obviously, the intent of the loophole was to address the question "How can we possibly fight a war if 23 people have to hear evidence before every musket ball flies?" But thanks to poor bounds checking, the protection against arbitrary extrajudicial executions is severely weakened. By a malicious reading of the amendment, I could argue that, by the tenets of Islam, every Muslim is a member of the militia, and that every member is called upon to wage war upon the unfaithful, heretics, and apostates. That is, they would all be "Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." They don't even need to be at war against the U.S. The loophole does not specify. It would seem that the source code for U.S. Government should be updated, and a patch released.
- baldeagle 12y ago
  Yeah, but the minimum 34 maintainers (2/3s of the states) have been arguing about the colour of the bike shed since the time of mainstream horse drawn carriages. Little known fact: the most recent pull request accepted into the Repo was submitted in Sept 1789. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the...
- dalke 12y ago
  Unless you can find something which revokes a statement in the Treaty of Tripoli - and given 200+ years it might well have changed - you can't apply your malicious reading because the US has said it does not have hatred or ill-will regarding the tenets of Islam. Specifically, the US Senate unanimously wrote that the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen" (that being the older term for Muslims). That nitpick aside, your statement is still true - the loophole would be to declare that, say, the tenants of the Wahhabi branch, or the Ahmadiyya branch, of Islam are not part of the true Muslim faith as meant in the Treaty of Tripoli.
smsm42 12y ago
"Battlefield" is a rather vague concept nowdays. What is the battlefield for a terrorist? Is a terrorist driving to deliver a bomb on a battlefield? What about one dialing a cellphone to explode the bomb he placed in a restaurant? What about one organizing this and recruiting people to commit such acts - is he on the battlefield or not? What if you can only locate this terrorist while he's driving to a meeting with his accomplices, but once he's done the only way you see him is by the next explosion on a crowded market? Is such person on a battlefield or not, and if so, when exactly he is on and off the battlefield? Can you target an enemy general who spent last 30 years never holding a weapon in combat but planning and executing hundreds of military operations?