- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 57,626
- Reaction score
- 32,161
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Maybe there was some urgent reason that they had to take him out right away. I'm sure he's not the only U.S. citizen abroad who is involved in terrorist activities, but we don't see all of them being targetted.
So the US government can take any US citizen out without due process if there's an "urgent reason"? Doesn't sound Constitutional to me.....
It should be plainly obvious by now that the government is increasingly ambivalent to the rights of American citizens.
He probably was a scumbag terrorist, but he was still an American citizen. Since when can the government choose to kill a citizen without due process?
To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the National Security Council’s approval, required no judicial review.
“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”
Administration officials take the view that no legal or constitutional rights can protect Mr. Awlaki, a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States and who the C.I.A. believes is actively plotting violence. The attempted bombing of Times Square on May 1 is the latest of more than a dozen terrorist plots in the West that investigators believe were inspired in part by Mr. Awlaki’s rhetoric.
“American citizenship doesn’t give you carte blanche to wage war against your own country,” said a counterterrorism official who discussed the classified program on condition of anonymity. “If you cast your lot with its enemies, you may well share their fate.”
Charge him with treason and prosecute him. But, in my opinion, this should be an illegal act.
Prosecuting somebody in absentia is not illegal.
Oh, so he was prosecuted?
This idea that people have that it is 'unconstitutional' for the U.S. government to green light assassinations on declared and proven enemies of the state is based on a fictitious sense of just what the constitution does. The U.S. government has been doing this sort of thing since the creation of the constitution.
I don't know and couldn't say. The article only says the CIA was authorized to kill a U.S. citizen and has people complaining about how 'illegal' that is. My thoughts are this:
The constitution states that a person can't be convicted of treason without the testimony of two people.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
My thoughts is that a lot of these guys have been convicted in absentia by the previous administration but due to people who perceive such practices to be 'illegal' - that hasn't been made 'public' yet.
Imagine if Bush had done this.
He probably did. My guess is that, sadly, this is a lot more common than it appears. Every time the New York Times finds out about something like this, there are probably ten other times when it goes unreported.
With that said, the government shouldn't be doing it REGARDLESS of who is president. Extrajudicial killings of one's own citizens should not be something that the United States of America does. It sounds more like something Iran or North Korea does.
Actually, I recall an executive order by one president (not sure who) declaring this as illegal. And if Bush had done it, with his non-adoring press we would have surely found out about it.He probably did. ...
This idea that people have that it is 'unconstitutional' for the U.S. government to green light assassinations on declared and proven enemies of the state is based on a fictitious sense of just what the constitution does. The U.S. government has been doing this sort of thing since the creation of the constitution.
This idea that people have that it is 'unconstitutional' for the U.S. government to green light assassinations on declared and proven enemies of the state is based on a fictitious sense of just what the constitution does. The U.S. government has been doing this sort of thing since the creation of the constitution.