The Glade 4.0

That isn't apparent at all. That's just what the Obama administration's lawyers are saying that they believe. Pro tip: the executive branch has no authority to decide what is and isn't legal.


On a personal dimension, I couldn't give less of a **** about Al-Awlaki or his life if I tried. But like Talya said, how I feel about him isn't even remotely relevant to the legality of the situation.


Wow, you're so cool and edgy as ****. I wish I could be just like you I guess when appeal to emotion isn't working for you, it's time to make sideways ad hominem attacks on the gladers who don't share your opinion.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

This is a very good point, I didn't catch that it meant state and not the feds.

The United States government has no business murdering people without some sort of due process. Just because they aren't U.S. citizens and don't have the protection of the Constitution, doesn't mean we can kill anyone we feel has wronged us.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see these terrorists strung up by their scrotums just as much as everyone else, but I don't like the idea of lobbing missiles into foreign countries, killing anyone in the general vicinity on the off chance we might have a chance to murder someone we have a grudge against.

Capture them, try them, convict them, and THEN punish them...

To compound that further, this one WAS a U.S. citizen.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yes however Yemen falls outside of the US's jurisdiction. Good try though, this is why the US civil rights apply to non-citizens in the US, her territories. Which is why terrorists found here also get a trial.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Just for perspective.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/04/al ... underwear/

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Allegedly. That's just piss poor reporting.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Well I am glad bulletins are evidence in the tria....oh wait.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No, due process has exceptions. Says so right there in #5 - "...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"

Now, you can argue all you want about a comma, a lack of a comma, whatever, but the word "except" specifically allows for exceptions, by definition.

That takes "due process" from being an absolute to being ... not an absolute. Let the semantic games begin from that point, but I'm not playing, I'm just saying that due process isn't an absolute. I'll bet the government has a ton of semantic ammo stocked for just this occasion.

Pro tip: use a dictionary.



See previous paragraph and hire yourself a lawyer. Since due process isn't an absolute, it's open to intrepretation.



Since we're getting personal... Yes, I am cool. It has to do with the temperature. Not so edgy though ... I'd say you're edgy. I'm thinking you need your meds checked, your paranoia is showing, 'cause I don't need sideways ad homs. If I want to call you a whiny *****, I'll just call you a whiny *****.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Pro-tip: A single exception for a narrowly and explicitly defined group of individuals in contractual service to the U.S. government does not provide for multiple exceptions.

Now, you can continue to try and argue all you want that you're right and this doesn't matter, but the fact is ...

The President broke the law and issued an illegal order; and everyone who followed that order **** up, too.

It's ground for impeachment and actual criminal prosecution.

_________________

The grammar isn't ambiguous in the slightest. Keep trying though ...

_________________

I've read the constitution. I'm not asking it's position, I'm asking yours.

Anyway, I think that is ill conceived. If an American chooses to fight with an organization at war with the US, they make themselves a target. Same as a defector that goes to the other side in battle would. Same as those who assist an invasion of the US.

War is war. You accept the consequence for your decisions to enter it.

Vindicarre:

Parallelism will tell you what to do with the final clause of the 14th Amendment ...

And I sincerely doubt anyone really wants to apply it as its written, but your reading it fallacious as well.

Arathain:

Elmo's position is that you either follow the law as it exists, or your abandon that law. Since our government is in the practice of ignoring the Constitution ...

_________________

American spies for Germany got trials. The Nazi party leadership got trials. Saddam got a trial.

My position is that we should obey the Constitution which includes due process for all citizens unless actively engaged in the hostilities (ie firing) against us.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm glad you agree there are exceptions to due process.

Never spoke to that, just limited my argument to the facts that there are exceptions to due process and voiced a guess that the administration has arguments that it's legit.

So, take your strawman and go home, Khross.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

There exists exactly one exception to the due process in the United States, and it is quoted in this very thread. There are not exceptions; there is an exception.

You will have to demonstrate that there are more constitutionally proscribed exceptions to defend your continued use of the plural.

So, no, there isn't a strawman here. Not one ...

You're wrong.

Admit it or keep trolling. Either way ...

You're still wrong.

_________________

Edit: capital crimes, not treason. Hurf.


"Well, if you ignore all the counter arguments, I win."

But fine -- let's ignore it, shall we? Because while Khross's observation about the commas is correct, the argument you're trying to make is still erroneous.

1. It allows for an exception, which is clearly and explicitly enumerated. That exception (without commas for your benefit...) is for cases "arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger". Al-Awlaki wasn't in the land or naval forces or in the Militia. So whatever case there is against him for capital or heinous crimes, it certainly didn't arise in any of those services.
2. The exception given doesn't apply to "due process" in the first place; it applies to whether or not someone can be put to trial for capital or heinous crime without the indictment of a grand jury. Due process hasn't even been mentioned yet at that point in the amendment. It's all the way down in the third cola. Its has nothing whatsoever to do with the word "except" in the first cola.

Again, see 2) above. You're conflating due process with the right to a grand jury. But setting that aside, your argument boils down to:

The word 'except' is used somewhere in the 5th amendment. Therefore anything the executive branch does vis-a-vis the 5th is permissible.

This is simply preposterous. Even if you weren't wrong about 'except' applying to 'due process', see 1) above.

• The exception is specifically enumerated. It is literally given as a closed set. Thus it isn't open to interpretation.
• Even if it were open to interpretation, that wouldn't make every interpretation equally valid. Otherwise the 5th amendment -- and probably the entire Constitution -- is a null document.
• And even if every interpretation were somehow equally valid, that still wouldn't make it the executive branch's role to interpret the law or to rule on the constitutionality of the law or of its own actions.

There's certainly no irony in this statement...

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

It occurs to me that most people have no idea what "due process of law" means.

_________________

I am fairly sure it involves Khross and snuggleuglimzubbles.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Due Process of Dr. Doom says I should just kill you for being aggravating sock-puppet ...

_________________

First of all, when we (or for that matter, any other country) choose to attack another country in furtherance of whatever national goal we happen to be pursuing, we are not "murdering" anyone, any more than Japan murdered anyone by attacking Pearl Harbor. We also do not need to give them due process of any kind or description. Matters of due process, trial, arrest, and so forth, are matters of domestic justice; not for dealing with foreign enemies unless it happens to be beneficial to us to pursue that course of action.

Second, capturing, trying, and convicting them is not always practical, rhetorical questions saying "well, but if we could blow him up,why couldn't we capture him?" notwithstanding; the 2 are entirely different types of operations. There is no reason we should be pursuing legal niceties in dealing with foreign terrorists or foreign nations.

As for "lobbing missiles on the off chance" we are not doing any such thing, and no one is advocating that. We have probably made some ill-advised attacks in the past, but that is not the same thing as simply slinging ordinance all over the place hoping to luck out.

The problem in this case stems exclusively, and entirely, from the fact that this guy was an American citizen. For that reason, unless he were directly either A) fighting against Americans B) directly commanding those actively doing so or C) was killed in the process of attacking another legitimate target, then he should not have been assassinated in this or any other fashion.

We had an obligation we failed to meet to capture and try this ******* (or at least, attempt to). We have no such obligation towards any other foreigner except insofar as its A) beneficial to us and B) we have any pertinent treaty obligations.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________

I thought the Geneva convention didn't count against people who aren't in uniform.

They don't ...

My personal opinion ... would be almost universally reviled by these forums.

_________________

I did not "read it fallacious". I cited excerpts that were indirect contrast to Lex's assertions.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko