DOJ Justifies Drone Strikes Against Americans

I do not wish to speculate on hypothetical circumstances. I don't believe this forum has the membership that has the intellectual robustness to venture into that territory competently.

 

A.) That question was not directed to you.
B.) I fully understand that you do not have "the intellectual robustness to venture into that territory competently". However, several others here do have that intellect, IMO.

 

No, there are no circumstances where the government can deprive a citizen of due process. The Fifth Amendment guarantees this (emphasis mine):

"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 offense 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."

Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment reiterates the due process guarantee (emphasis mine):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is simply no question about this. Whether a citizen belongs to a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda, the KKK, the Black Panthers, the Weatherman group, etc.) is totally irrelevant.

 

First off, a declaration of war qualifies as "due process". (And that is from one of the most conservative judges I know - Napolitano.) Just how do you think we managed to fight the Civil War? However, ever more obvious than that, if someone has a gun pointed at Obama (or any other President, Senator, Representative, et al), just what "due process" would you want them to undertake before they "deprive him of life"? If you don't like that example, a 707 is heading straight for and know to be aiming for the World Trade Center and there is a drone aimed at the plane, what "due process" do you want for the passengers let alone the pilot?

 

'Nough said.

 

Yep! You have proven at least the first two parts of my hypothesis.

 

First, there is no declared war against Al Qaeda. Yes, we're fighting them but there is no declared war. There was a nebulous declaration by the Bush administration of a "war on terror" against terrorist groups, but it's not even referred to as that under Obama. Janet Napolitano refers to it as "man-caused disasters".

Second, and this is probably where the confusion arises, is the difference between an IMMINENT threat and an IMMEDIATE threat. There is a world of difference. Eric Holder uses the justification of IMMINENT threat to authorize the killing of American citizens. It's a slippery slope when a justification of IMMINENT threat is used to kill. No one is questioning the right to defense in case of IMMEDIATE threat, but remember, IMMINENT and IMMEDIATE are two distinctly separate things.

Let's take for example the assassination of JFK:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald sits in his home and plots the assassination. For the sake of argument, let's say that the government somehow found out about the plot. Would the government have the authority to go into Oswald's home and kill him? No, because it's an IMMINENT threat and not an IMMEDIATE threat.

2. Lee Harvey Oswald is sitting in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle aimed at JFK's head. If a Secret Service agent shot and killed Oswald at that moment, he is justified because of the IMMEDIATE threat.

Anyone pointing a firearm at a president, senator, etc. poses an IMMEDIATE threat (the same as if they were to point it at you or me). Anyone flying planes into buildings poses an IMMEDIATE threat. US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki sitting in Yemen discussing plans to attack America is not an IMMEDIATE THREAT, only IMMINENT.

As another example, let's use Bill Ayers' attack on the Pentagon:

1. Ayers is sitting in his apartment constructing a bomb. Does the government have the right to go in and kill him? No, absolutely not. If so, they would have deprived him of due process.

2. Ayers reaches down to light the fuse of the bomb as it's sitting in front of the Pentagon. Can the government kill? Yes, he's posing an IMMEDIATE threat.

Under the auspices of IMMINENT threat, the government can declare that anyone is a threat and can kill them. Perhaps they don't like Louis Farrakhan. Or David Duke. Or Al Sharpton. They can be declared a threat and killed without charge and without trial. As you can see, Holder has opened a can of worms.

 

View attachment 1544
Little Joe, from the time I've known RLM on this forum, I've never known him to agree simply to be in agreement. You've failed to realize that, at least from what I've seen, RLM is certainly opinionated, but doesn't tow the party line like you do. If he sees something he disagrees with, he will call that person out on it. There have been times that RLM and I don't see eye-to-eye on an issue, but he's open-minded enough to look at both sides before forming an opinion. I respect him for that.

 

Oh, there absolutely is a declaration of war against Al Qaeda. The AUMF qualifies regardless of what Obama and company call it. There are no requirements for the format of a declaration of war given in the Constitution. Again straight from Napolitano.

And, yes, imminent threat also qualifies.

So now there are two cases when there are "circumstances where the government can deprive a citizen of due process".

 

And you missed the fact that most of this side can disagree without insulting each other or posting ridiculous pictures or babble.

 

A "declaration of war" and "use of military force" (as the AUMF authorizes) are two different things. A declaration of war is a formal act where one nation declares war upon another nation. The AUMF authorizes the use of military force against those who planned the 9/11 attacks. Al Awlakii was never charged nor indicted and no evidence was ever presented that he helped plan the 9/11 attacks. Certainly, he preached to the 9/11 attackers and he called for jihad against the United States and his actions could have deemed him an imminent threat, but certainly not an immediate threat (unless he was piloting a plane headed for the Trade Center, pulling the trigger on Ft. Hood soldiers or trying to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear). If you can show me where he posed an immediate threat, I'll agree that Obama was justified in killing him.

If we are going to deem someone an "imminent threat" and kill them for speaking out against us and our establishment, then I see a lot of Occupy Wall Street types who had better be looking over their shoulder.

 

No where in the Constitution does it impose any such requirements on a "declaration of war". Only that it be approved. It does not say "formal". It does not specify anything about one nation. And, perhaps more importantly, it does not specify foreigners only nor outside the USA.

And, yes, a general ordering his troops to attack this or that poses and imminent threat. That has been ruled so be the supreme court.

 

I wasn't attempting to define "declaration of war" from a Constitutional standpoint, but was merely giving the dictionary definition of "declaration of war". Indeed, the power rests in the Congress to "declare war", but it doesn't outline the steps necessary in doing so. As far as I'm aware, the Congress has not declared war against al-Qaeda. However, it certainly has authorized "use of military force" against those who planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 per the AUMF. Please note that the AUMF authorizes force specifically against those persons who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. Al-Awlaki did none of those things and our government has neither shown nor proven that he did. He was never charged with any of those things, he was never indicted and no evidence was ever put forth that he did any of those things.

Your assertion that al-Awlaki posed an "imminent threat" is countermanded by Hess v. Indiana in which the court ruled that [speech which advocated violence] did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because [the] speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

A general ordering troops to attack would be an immediate threat, not an imminent threat.

 

But the Constitution is the only place that counts.

And the line after "planned, authorized, committed or aided" is;

So if you do not think Al Qaeda "aided" "those who planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11", they definitely "harbored" them and continue to promote "international terrorism against the United States"

Further, your "imminent threat" argument only works for those not involved with terrorism or those not covered "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States".

 

Agreed. But, the US hasn't declared war against al Qaeda; the president only has authority to use military force against those members who planned, carried out, harbored, etc. There are many members of al Qaeda who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The AUMF doesn't authorize us to kill them.

Oh, absolutely! We should track down every last bastard who planned the attacks and slaughter them. The AUMF has given us that authority and I have no problem with that. But, just because a person is a professed member of al Qaeda doesn't mean they, necessarily, had anything to do with 9/11.

My "imminent threat" argument dealt with aspects of the right to free speech. Al-Awlaki, as an American citizen, had every right to speak out against America and even advocate for violence against us. The court case I referenced above emphasizes that. If he's advocating an "illegal action at some indefinite future time", he's covered. It's no different than advocating that the State House in Wisconsin be burned down. This speech is covered under the First Amendment. We may not like what they say. We may detest what they say. But, as citizens, we enjoy the freedom of speech.

 

The only thing we are disagreeing with is the AUMF. I have no idea how you are reading that to be limited to only those carried out 9/11. Bin Laden was "the founder of al Qaeda, the jihadist organization that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States". In other words, Bin Laden was Al Qaeda.

AUMF;

Al Qaeda planned 9/11. Al Qaeda authorized 9/11. Al Qaeda committed 9/11. Al Qaeda aided 9/11. Al Qaeda harbored those involved with 9/11. How on Earth is Al Qaeda excluded from the AUMF?

 

Under the authority of AUMF, the president is authorized to use force against those who planned, authorized, committed, etc. the attacks on 9/11. The AUMF is very specific in that it states that the president is authorized to use force against those responsible for 9/11.

The key aspect I think you're missing is that it only gives him authority to use force against the persons who were responsible for 9/11. Yes, certainly members of Al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11 including bin Laden, KSM, etc. It doesn't give him the power to hunt down any person who professes to be a member of Al Qaeda unless they were involved (planned, coordinated, assisted, etc.) with the 9/11 attacks.

As of 2006, there were thousands of members of Al Qaeda estimated to be in over 40 countries worldwide. The AUMF didn't give the president authority to kill all those people, only those responsible for 9/11. It's impossible for all those thousands of members to have known or been involved in 9/11. Now, those thousands are certainly not "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination, but they're also "not guilty" for 9/11. Therefore, if they're not guilty for 9/11, the president has no authority to use force against them under the AUMF.

 

I quoted the AUMF above - word for word. It is not specific only to those who participated in 9/11, but very general to encompass those who may be even remotely connected to future attacks.

How can you prevent future attacks if you cannot take care of the peoples planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the terrorist attacks.

 

Think of it this way. Does the AUMF give authorization to the president to kill anyone who sheltered or clothed bin Laden? Or gave him food? Assisted him in hiding? Absolutely, yes!

On the other hand, does the AUMF give the president authorization to kill an Al Qaeda member building a bomb in Madagascar who knew nothing about what was going to transpire on 9/11 and never aided, comforted, harbored, assisted, etc. any of those who planned or carried out the attacks on 9/11? No.

The AUMF deals specifically with those involved with 9/11.

 

Why are you adding limits to the AUMF? It says word for word;

We agree Al Qaeda is the organization planning and carrying out the attacks. i.e. Al Qaeda is part (even the primary part) of "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Therefore, the AUMF can read;

There is no limit there as to who Al Qaeda's members of leaders are, were, or will be just like the USA is still USA founded by Washington (even though all those members and leaders are now long gone), Bush's USA or even Obama's USA.