[Doofy]

Obama authorises killing of radical Muslim cleric Anwar al Awlaki | Mail Online

Which is fair enough, I suppose. But hardly constitutional. And since Barry took an oath to uphold the constitution on live TV, that would make him guilty of wire fraud.

Al-Awlaki has been linked to Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Wait. I thought that Fort Hood shooting was all about stress?

[lpkmckenna]

Daily Fail? No thanks.

[Dork.]

Don't you remember when the Chief Justice made Barry put the wrong words in the Oath? Now, he's really president of Kenya.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Daily Fail? No thanks.

OK. Telegraph then.

Killing of radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, authorised by US - Telegraph

The Obama administration has authorised the killing of a radical Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen believed to be hiding in Yemen and thought to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the US to participating in them.

Al-Awlaki has emerged as a prominent al-Qaeda recruiter and has been tied by US intelligence to the 9/11 hijackers, along with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, as well as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people in November at Fort Hood, Texas.

But perhaps you won't believe it unless a leftie rag mentions it, so here's The Grauniad...

White House approves assassination of cleric linked to Christmas bomb plot | World news | guardian.co.uk

Born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, Awlaki has been accused of encouraging terrorism in his sermons and writings. He is believed to be in hiding in Yemen's rugged Shabwa or Mareb regions, an area that has become a haven for jihadis. He has been linked to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November, and to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day

...and the NYT:

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Don't you remember when the Chief Justice made Barry put the wrong words in the Oath? Now, he's really president of Kenya.

So, your prez goes completely unconstitutional in a move which would have most of you lefties turning up for a zillion man protest march if Bush did it, and all you can do is come out with a pointless comment? Very good Dork.

[SpaceMonkey]

It's not unconstitutional.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Wire fraud, eh.

[The Final Dakar]

Doesn't this sort of fall under the crush a kids balls line of thinking?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's not unconstitutional.

So there's nothing about due process in the bill of rights? It's completely constitutional to just pick out a US citizen and have him offed?

Good job nobody innocent is on those watch lists then.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Wire fraud, eh.

Yep.

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

We all saw him swear oath over the wire.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So there's nothing about due process in the bill of rights? It's completely constitutional to just pick out a US citizen and have him offed?

Good job nobody innocent is on those watch lists then.

It's completely constitutional to pick out a U.S. citizen and have him offed if he is presenting an imminent, deadly threat. Consider a situation, for example, in which police are forced to essentially summarily execute a hostage-taker, without trial, in order to protect the hostage.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's completely constitutional to pick out a U.S. citizen and have him offed if he is presenting an imminent, deadly threat. Consider a situation, for example, in which police are forced to essentially summarily execute a hostage-taker, without trial, in order to protect the hostage.

OK - I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter. For future reference, show me where in the constitution that can be found.

Even so, why would you execute someone who was involved with an army major suffering stress?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK - I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter. For future reference, show me where in the constitution that can be found.

He is not being charged with a crime, so the 5th Amendment does not apply. He has been included under the same authorization that Congress provided the President following the September 11 attack to use military force against al Qaeda. The Constitution does not limit the abilities of the U.S. government to use deadly force to defend against military threats to the United States, except if those actions take place on U.S. soil.

Even so, why would you execute someone who was involved with an army major suffering stress?

I assume that is not why they want to see him captured or killed. At some point recently it was determined that al-Awlaki was no longer simply advocating or justifying violent acts against the United States, but was actively involved in planning them. This judgment was made through the consultation of multiple agencies with their own legal departments, and with the consultation of the appropriate members of Congress.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So there's nothing about due process in the bill of rights? It's completely constitutional to just pick out a US citizen and have him offed?

If he's committed treason, yes, the president can have him killed without due process. The U.S. Constitution left treasonous matters directly in the purview of the Congress.

[The Final Dakar]

You don't get a trial if you've committed treason?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If he's committed treason, yes, the president can have him killed without due process. The U.S. Constitution left treasonous matters directly in the purview of the Congress.

Strictly speaking, no, under the Constitution the legal charge of treason requires a specific burden of proof ("No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.") and the due process associated with a "conviction." Which should hardly be surprising, given that the Founding Fathers were committing treason themselves! The Constitution leaves the punishment for treason, though, up to Congress.

But like I said, he is not being charged with treason.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

He is not being charged with a crime, so the 5th Amendment does not apply.

So you're saying that the US prez can order a hit on any innocent US citizen at will?

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The Constitution does not limit the abilities of the U.S. government to use deadly force to defend against military threats to the United States, except if those actions take place on U.S. soil.

Again, I ask you - show me where in your constitution it says that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So you're saying that the US prez can order a hit on any innocent US citizen at will?

Essentially, yes, within the broad authority of issues concerning national security. The President cannot order a hit on a U.S. citizen in response to an alleged criminal violation, for example. But where Congress has authorized the President to commit resources to defend against a foreign threat, U.S. citizens overseas can be targeted as a matter of national security.

This is not to say that I necessarily think this is a good loophole, but it's there, and it exists because of the Constitution and not in spite of it.

Again, I ask you - show me where in your constitution it says that.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to: "raise and support armies," to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations," to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to otherwise "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." As Commander in Chief, the President executes these powers (which is why I noted this action was taken under the authority that Congress granted to use military force against al Qaeda). Congress could, if it wanted to, legally prohibit the President from targeting U.S. citizens in its military authorization/appropriations bills.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which is fair enough, I suppose. But hardly constitutional. And since Barry took an oath to uphold the constitution on live TV, that would make him guilty of wire fraud.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep.

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property...

We all saw him swear oath over the wire.

Read that again and tell me it makes any sense...

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Read that again and tell me it makes any sense...

Barry doesn't get paid for his job?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, your prez goes completely unconstitutional in a move which would have most of you lefties turning up for a zillion man protest march if Bush did it, and all you can do is come out with a pointless comment? Very good Dork.

Yes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to: "raise and support armies," to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations," to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to otherwise "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." As Commander in Chief, the President executes these powers (which is why I noted this action was taken under the authority that Congress granted to use military force against al Qaeda). Congress could, if it wanted to, legally prohibit the President from targeting U.S. citizens in its military authorization/appropriations bills.

So, doesn't a later "amendment" trump whatever is stated in earlier documents? If it doesn't, why call it an "amendment"?

[turtle777]

Best thing Obama has done so far

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, doesn't a later "amendment" trump whatever is stated in earlier documents? If it doesn't, why call it an "amendment"?

Which amendment are you referring to? The text of the Fifth Amendment reads:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It does not trump Congress' ability to define and respond to threats against the United States. al-Awlaki is not being held to answer for a "crime," that is, a violation of U.S. laws. The call to capture or kill him is in response to a judgment that he presents an imminent national security risk.

[besson3c]

This thread needs more chimp twats.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread needs more chimp twats.

Thank Mohammed that you are willing to be the answer to your own question

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Thank Mohammed that you are willing to be the answer to your own question

-t

It was really more of a declarative statement than a question...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread needs more chimp twats.

And sluts.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It was really more of a declarative statement than a question...

Well, thanks for volunteering anyways

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It does not trump Congress' ability to define and respond to threats against the United States.

We must be reading different documents then.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We must be reading different documents then.

That's a cop-out. Why do you disagree? The text quite clearly refers to criminal matters in terms of the specific requirement for an indictment by Grand Jury, and the more inclusive phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" simply affirms existing law (so as to ensure equal treatment under it), it does not revise it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, thanks for volunteering anyways

-t

Hay SpaceMonkey, we have our slut right here!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's a cop-out. Why do you disagree?

Is attacking the US an infamous crime or not?

If it's a crime then it's covered, due process applies.
If it's not a crime then you're saying that the US can execute innocent US citizens at will.

But then we know that already.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread needs more chimp twats.

Looks like it's got plenty to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Looks like it's got plenty to me.

Is that women in your signature supposed to be the Keymaster from Ghostbusters?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is that women in your signature supposed to be the Keymaster from Ghostbusters?

No.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No.

Wait, I meant the Gatekeeper. Is it the Gatekeeper?

[Doofy]

What you talkin' about foo?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What you talkin' about foo?

The woman in your signature looks like the Gatekeeper, which makes me wonder if you are the Keymaster and maybe you've put the Gatekeeper in your signature so that one of us will let you know when and where we see her?

Also, on a totally different note, do you like ChatRoulette?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The woman in your signature looks like the Gatekeeper, which makes me wonder if you are the Keymaster and maybe you've put the Gatekeeper in your signature so that one of us will let you know when and where we see her?

I repeat: What you talkin' about foo?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Also, on a totally different note, do you like ChatRoulette?

No idea. Not got enough bandwidth to even think about trying it.

Interesting diversionary tactics though.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Is attacking the US an infamous crime or not?

If it's a crime then it's covered, due process applies.
If it's not a crime then you're saying that the US can execute innocent US citizens at will.

It depends. What the first phrase in the Fifth Amendment says is that to prosecute someone for violating U.S. law, they must be indicted by a Grand Jury in a court of law. For obvious reasons, the activities of a U.S. citizen in a foreign country may still present a security threat to the United States even if they do not technically violate U.S. law, and for jurisdictional reasons it may be impossible to prosecute them anyway. If Congress has authorized the President to use military force in some foreign location to eliminate that threat, then that is "due process of law" for depriving that person of "life, liberty, or property" irrespective of whether they have violated an actual U.S. criminal code of law. I don't really know what you mean by "innocent" in that context, since that not a legal definition granted by courts under any circumstances.

These distinctions are also why since 9/11, terrorists actually captured in the United States have gone through the U.S. court system and not the military system. If Al-Awlaki decides to hide out in Idaho, they probably will not be able to execute him without trial.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I repeat: What you talkin' about foo?

I find it convenient that you apparently don't know anything about the Gatekeeper and Ghostbusters once the identify of your signature girl has been revealed. It would seem to me that if I wanted to keep people away from her that I would probably pretend like I didn't know anything about anything, and possibly pretend I was Mr. T just to throw off our scents even more...

Interesting diversionary tactics though.

Well, perhaps you'll find her there?

[besson3c]

This is a nice little thread you have going on here, Doofy... The U.S. Constitution, chimp twat, Mr. T, the Gatekeeper, sluts... This thread really has something for everybody!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It depends. What the first phrase in the Fifth Amendment says is that to prosecute someone for violating U.S. law

It doesn't say that though, does it - It doesn't specify "US" law.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I find it convenient that you apparently don't know anything about the Gatekeeper and Ghostbusters once the identify of your signature girl has been revealed. It would seem to me that if I wanted to keep people away from her that I would probably pretend like I didn't know anything about anything, and possibly pretend I was Mr. T just to throw off our scents even more...

I repeat: What you talkin' about foo?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, perhaps you'll find her there?

Why would I need to find someone I haven't lost?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It doesn't say that though, does it - It doesn't specify "US" law.

Sure it does. The Constitution, as stated in the preamble, is the "Constitution for the United States of America." That's the overriding context for everything else in the document. If a U.S. citizen commits a crime in another country, they are not entitled to Fifth Amendment rights just because. They are subject to the whims of that country's judicial system, balanced by whatever diplomatic sway the United States may have there. "Crimes" referred to in the Fifth Amendment are established by laws issued by the U.S. Congress.

[andi*pandi]

Besson, perhaps Doofy is too old to have seen the original Ghostbusters movie, or perhaps he spent the 80s in a drug-crazed groupy haze.

(I know, not helping.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sure it does. The Constitution, as stated in the preamble, is the "Constitution for the United States of America." That's the overriding context for everything else in the document. If a U.S. citizen commits a crime in another country, they are not entitled to Fifth Amendment rights just because. They are subject to the whims of that country's judicial system, balanced by whatever diplomatic sway the United States may have there.

So, if a US citizen commits "a crime against the US" in a foreign country, that individual should be subject to the whim's of the host country's judicial system, balanced by whatever diplomatic sway the US may have there.

Let's face it - the US does whatever it wants, whenever it wants with no regard for the rule of law. Always has done, always will do. Even when there's a "change" of president in place.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Besson, perhaps Doofy is too old to have seen the original Ghostbusters movie, or perhaps he spent the 80s in a drug-crazed groupy haze.

Correct answer.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, if a US citizen commits "a crime against the US" in a foreign country, that individual should be subject to the whim's of the host country's judicial system, balanced by whatever diplomatic sway the US may have there.

No, you are conflating two separate things that I wrote. Sorry about that. If a U.S. citizen violates a U.S. law while in another country, then under normal circumstances the United States would naturally ask him to be extradited for prosecution in the United States. If a U.S. citizen violates some other country's laws, then usually they have to face trial there, and whatever constitutional rights they have as a U.S. citizen do not apply.

With respect to Al-Awlaki, we are in a third situation. He may or may not have violated U.S. laws or the laws of his host country, but practically speaking it is irrelevant because he has been judged to be part of a foreign organization that Congress has, for reasons of national security, separately authorized the President to use lethal means to eliminate. Fundamentally, it is no longer a criminal matter, so whatever Fifth Amendment protections he has do not apply.

Let's face it - the US does whatever it wants, whenever it wants with no regard for the rule of law. Always has done, always will do. Even when there's a "change" of president in place.

The rule of law in this case has been established by Congress. If Al-Awlaki wants to increase his chances of enjoying a U.S. court trial, he should move back to the U.S. so as to be out of the jurisdiction of that "rule of law" and firmly under the jurisdiction of U.S. criminal law. This distinction has nothing to do with what I wrote in the first paragraph, but rather relates to other standing legal limitations on the President's ability to use military force within the boundaries of the United States (and thus limiting the scope of Congress' said authorization).