|
Post by jsquare on Apr 29, 2024 20:55:24 GMT -5
was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to the USA? American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and killing them without due process is illegal. That didn't answer my question. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2024 21:08:44 GMT -5
was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to the USA? American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and killing them without due process is illegal. It's not any more legal to kill non-Americans, is it? Anyway, what if al-Awlaki had announced an intention to run for President? Then would Obama have killed a political rival? What if Biden declares Trump a terrorist? Then can he have him executed without trial? I think sometimes a President has to make decisions that can lead to people being killed. It may in fact be appropriate to deliberately target an assassination (although US policy has flipped back and forth on that one). But I don't think the President should be legally immune from consequences. Just like anyone who kills someone and claims self-defense is liable to be tried in court to see if that defense is accepted by a jury, there should be some way (other than the strictly political process of impeachment and removal) for a President's decisions to be legally challenged.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 29, 2024 21:11:25 GMT -5
American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and killing them without due process is illegal. It's not any more legal to kill non-Americans, is it? Anyway, what if al-Awlaki had announced an intention to run for President? Then would Obama have killed a political rival? What if Biden declares Trump a terrorist? Then can he have him executed without trial? I think sometimes a President has to make decisions that can lead to people being killed. It may in fact be appropriate to deliberately target an assassination (although US policy has flipped back and forth on that one). But I don't think the President should be legally immune from consequences. Just like anyone who kills someone and claims self-defense is liable to be tried in court to see if that defense is accepted by a jury, there should be some way (other than the strictly political process of impeachment and removal) for a President's decisions to be legally challenged. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen National Security Court Type: U.S. Supreme Court Last Update: October 19, 2011 www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-challenge-proposed-killing-us-citizen
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2024 21:21:38 GMT -5
It's not any more legal to kill non-Americans, is it? Anyway, what if al-Awlaki had announced an intention to run for President? Then would Obama have killed a political rival? What if Biden declares Trump a terrorist? Then can he have him executed without trial? I think sometimes a President has to make decisions that can lead to people being killed. It may in fact be appropriate to deliberately target an assassination (although US policy has flipped back and forth on that one). But I don't think the President should be legally immune from consequences. Just like anyone who kills someone and claims self-defense is liable to be tried in court to see if that defense is accepted by a jury, there should be some way (other than the strictly political process of impeachment and removal) for a President's decisions to be legally challenged. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama - Constitutional Challenge to Proposed Killing of U.S. Citizen National Security Court Type: U.S. Supreme Court Last Update: October 19, 2011 www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-challenge-proposed-killing-us-citizenThis was a lawsuit brought on behalf of al-Alwaki by his father. That was kind of a wild decision. The court ruled that nothing was preventing al-Awlaki from walking up to the US embassy and filing suit in court on behalf of himself -- even though he believed the US had implemented a "shoot on sight" policy toward him. As it happens, the US later did kill him.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2024 21:40:49 GMT -5
Another interesting thing about that 2010 decision is that the court stated as a fact that the US would not shoot al-Alwaki if he walked up to the embassy gates, because that would be against both domestic and international law. But if the President is immune to all such laws.....
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 29, 2024 22:39:00 GMT -5
was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to the USA? American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and killing them without due process is illegal. Have you heard of “stand your ground” and “self defense?”
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 29, 2024 22:43:11 GMT -5
We know Presidents have ordered people to be killed before. Even US citizens. Obama, for instance, ordered drone strikes on US citizens. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki... How about if Biden decided to just walk out on the street and kill somebody at random? Would he be allowed to do it? How would you articulate (in law) the difference between these two acts? Either the president has the authority to decide if the assassination of a US citizen is justified, or not. I do think there could be a difference if the decision is unilateral-the president acts alone- or a decision made by a committee-say, the joint chiefs of staff. Did Obama originate the plan and execute it? Did someone else initiate the plan, discuss logistics, ask for the president’s confirmation, then execute the plan?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 29, 2024 22:45:15 GMT -5
American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and killing them without due process is illegal. Have you heard of “stand your ground” and “self defense?” Are you seriously equating individual self defense with the power of the state over its subjects?
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 29, 2024 22:49:33 GMT -5
Have you heard of “stand your ground” and “self defense?” Are you seriously equating individual self defense with the power of the state over its subjects? No, I was just quoting your statement and asking if you realize what you said is not true in certain circumstances in the US.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 29, 2024 22:52:41 GMT -5
Are you seriously equating individual self defense with the power of the state over its subjects? No, I was just quoting your statement and asking if you realize what you said is not true in certain circumstances in the US. In what circumstances can the military legally assassinate an American citizen?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 29, 2024 23:53:03 GMT -5
No, I was just quoting your statement and asking if you realize what you said is not true in certain circumstances in the US. In what circumstances can the military legally assassinate an American citizen? Well, apparently when they use a missile fired from a drone and the US citizen is in Yemen. At least, no charges have ever been filed over that.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 29, 2024 23:58:22 GMT -5
No, I was just quoting your statement and asking if you realize what you said is not true in certain circumstances in the US. In what circumstances can the military legally assassinate an American citizen? Are you unable to answer my question? Was Al Awlaki a clear and present danger to this country?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 30, 2024 6:19:19 GMT -5
In what circumstances can the military legally assassinate an American citizen? Are you unable to answer my question? Was Al Awlaki a clear and present danger to this country? Why does it matter? Who makes that determination? Trump could’ve called Biden a “clear and present danger” to the country in 2020.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 7:27:58 GMT -5
Are you unable to answer my question? Was Al Awlaki a clear and present danger to this country? Why does it matter? Who makes that determination? Trump could’ve called Biden a “clear and present danger” to the country in 2020. Because of facts and reality. Al-Awlaki's message became overtly supportive of violence, and he condemned the U.S. government's foreign policy towards Muslims. He was linked to Nidal Hasan, the convicted perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate a bomb on Northwest Airlines Flight 253.[11] The Yemeni government tried al-Awlaki in absentia in November 2010 for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[12][13] U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[14] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 30, 2024 8:44:05 GMT -5
Why does it matter? Who makes that determination? Trump could’ve called Biden a “clear and present danger” to the country in 2020. Because of facts and reality. Al-Awlaki's message became overtly supportive of violence, and he condemned the U.S. government's foreign policy towards Muslims. He was linked to Nidal Hasan, the convicted perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate a bomb on Northwest Airlines Flight 253.[11] The Yemeni government tried al-Awlaki in absentia in November 2010 for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[12][13] U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[14] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States. You ignored the “who” question. Presumably the commander in chief would have the final say over who is a “clear and present danger”.
|
|