Holder: Constitution doesn't cover terrorists

[The Northerner]

In his most forceful defense yet of the Obama administration's use of lethal force against U.S. citizens linked to terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday that the Constitution does not protect U.S. suspects plotting to kill other Americans.

Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an "imminent threat" of attack against the USA and whose capture is "not feasible."

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a U.S. citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," Holder said, according to a text of his speech. "In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force."

The attorney general's remarks come as civil rights advocates have condemned such killings, including the fatal military drone strike in September against Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. U.S. government officials have asserted that al-Awlaki helped direct the failed Christmas Day bombing of a commercial airliner over Detroit in 2009 and the failed effort to blow up U.S. cargo planes with explosives planted in printer cartridges in 2010.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to obtain Justice Department memos authorizing the action and detailing how the government places Americans on "kill lists."

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-05/eric-holder-killing-us-citizens-terrorist-threat/53374776/1

[white_wolf]

1. So who decides who is a "terrorist."

Secondly, what is the point of a constitution if it does not protect those the State opposes? I think this is a dangerous road.

[neverforget]

3. Us peons don't get to know that because it's SECRET. Evidence? Trust us.

From the article:
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," Shamsi said.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The erosion of rights continues and will only get worse.

[no_hypocrisy]

21. Exactly!

[unkachuck]

28. '...who decides who is a "terrorist."'

....that is the question....

....it's easy when the self-described 'terrorist' is on TV ranting and raving with American blood on his hands....

....but not so easy when they drag you out of bed in the middle of the night and then call you a 'terrorist', never to be heard from again....

[socialindependocrat]

2. Can the ACLU now be considered "supportive of terrorists"?

I can understand some people getting anal and sticking to the letter of the law but who in the hell got them provoked enough to go after something stupid like this.

The person is a leader in a foreign terrorist group
and has sworn to kill Americans. Maybe we should give
him three meals and a cot and spend $30K a year to
incarserate him while we figure if he was abused by his
parents.

I know, I'm heartless.

[Fumesucker]

4. Who's Next?

Who's next to lose their constitutional rights?

How about meth cookers?

[Occulus]

83. Don't give them ideas.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Really? Leader of a foreign terrorist group? When do we get to see the

evidence of that? According to Holder and Obama... never.

[sabrina 1]

15. No, maybe we should file charges, hold a trial publicly to prove those charges,

then if someone is convicted at least the public has some idea of what evidence the government has against this person. I find it incredible that people are willing to give the Government total free reign to order the death penalty without even filing charges and without producing any evidence whatsoever.

A government can tell us anything they want, as they have done with Awlaki, but to simply accept any government's word on something as serious as taking a life, is not democratic, it is monarchical. I thought we fought a revolution to rid us of that kind of dangerous rule.

If our Constitution cannot hold up when it is NECESSARY, then throw it in the garbage. It's in circumstances like these that it is put to the test. Frankly I think it would hold up. But we'll never know, because now we just take the word of the government and anyone can be killed without charges, without trial and without conviction. I have to say I never, ever thought it would get this bad.

[JDPriestly]

25. No, you are not heartless.

You just haven't read the Constitution, and you don't know English/American history.

The president can lift habeas corpus at times of insurrection. But the terrorists do not pose a threat of insurrection.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution

2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

http://constitutionus.com/

And the Bill of Rights -- Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

Article [IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article [V]

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.
Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

http://constitutionus.com/

A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then he must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called "habeas corpus".[1] For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ('protection of freedom'). ..

. . . .

n the 17th century the foundations for habeas corpus were "wrongly thought" to have originated in the Magna Carta.[4] This charter declared that

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "The King is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted." The procedure for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, following judicial rulings which had restricted the effectiveness of the writ. A previous law (the Habeas Corpus Act 1640) had been passed forty years earlier to overturn a ruling that the command of the King was a sufficient answer to a petition of habeas corpus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Definition: Habeas Corpus, literally in Latin "you have the body" is a term that represents an important right granted to individuals in America. Basically, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them. The individual being held or their representative can petition the court for such a writ.

According to Article One of the Constitution, the right to a writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety." Habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War and Reconstruction, in parts of South Carolina during the fight against the Ku Klux Klan, and during the War on Terror.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/americanhistoryterms/g/d_habeascorpus.htm

I don't see that we have either a rebellion or an insurrection that threaten public safety.

As far as I can tell, we have not had a terrorist attack since 2001. One successful terrorist attack does not make a rebellion or an insurrection. The damage that the killing of this man did to our integrity as a nation of laws and not of men is greater than any threat we have thus far faced. That is my opinion.

The right to a trial, to due process, that is to appear and to be heard, to face witnesses against you and to be judged by a jury of your peers is so precious. To allow our fears to deprive any American of those rights in the absence of an insurrection or rebellion is a mistake beyond comprehension.

Our leaders are over-reacting to their fears and to political pressure to show how tough they can be.

[socialindependocrat]

42. Thank you for all that information

I read every bit.

The question I have is: Does this apply to a person because he/she is an American citizen - no matter what country they are in?

Secondly, where does the line get drawn between insurgents that we kill by drone attack and Americans who are acting as insurgents (i.e., hiding and moving frequently in order to avoid apprehention).

Do we spend the time hunting them down in foreign countries so that we can bring them back for trial or do we treat them as insurgents and shoot on sight?

It said that the information said that he was involved in the planning of two attacks in the U.S. - Just trying to understand...

[JDPriestly]

57. Here is the problem --

assuming everything you said to be true (because I don't know whether it is or not), if we can define someone in another country who is an American citizen as a "terrorist" based on acts performed in this country by other people, not the person labeled a "terrorist," then what is to prevent the leader of another country from identifying someone in this country as a "terrorist" and killing that person arbitrarily.

Taking out terrorists sounds like a good idea until you think about how the tables could be turned. This could turn into an invitation to even more terrorism. That is what worries me. We could be asking for trouble here.

[socialindependocrat]

59. But the reverse would be this...

If the leader of another country identified one of their people as a terrorist and had him killed on U.S. soil.

I would think that the U.S. would say - Don't worry about it , we'll take him out ourselves. And I would suspect that if the U.S. was willing to do that the other country would't bother to send members of their intelligence force to the U.S. (maybe they would) but the job would get done one way or the other.

I haven't heard of anyone getting killed on U.S. soil by foreign operatives.

But I do hear that your main concern is in identifying terrorists and not just having some person in power be able to identify a target, without proof, and have them killed but to have some trial before punishment.

If we did that we would have the insurgents we've identified thru "intelligence" - go to Afganistan - shoot 200-300 people in order to get to the suspect and then bring that suspect back for trial. That's following the rules/law but is that what we have to go thru with all the insurgents who have been identified... or just the American citizens?

JD, thanks again for taking the time to present this information.
I really am seriously trying to noodle on this one.

[hifiguy]

61. People have been killed by foreign operatives on US soil.

I suggest you google "Orlando Letelier." He was killed by operatives of the fascist Pinochet regime in Chile back in the 1970s. Those of us who know our history know two things: the US installed the Pinochet regime by supporting the overthrow and murder of a democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, and that Pinochet was unquestionably ultimately responsible for the hit on Letelier, which was carried out by, you guessed it, right-wing Cuban exiles. Ronni Moffitt was killed in the same bombing. Ms. Moffitt was an American citizen.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letelier_case#Investigation_and_prosecution

I will let some of our resident history experts like Octafish supply evidence of other instances.

[JDPriestly]

68. Actually, I believe that there has been at least one case.

Marcos Orlando Letelier del Solar (April 13, 1932 – September 21, 1976) was a Chilean economist, Socialist politician and diplomat during the presidency of Socialist President Salvador Allende. As a refugee from the military dictatorship of US-backed General Augusto Pinochet, Letelier accepted several academic positions in Washington, D.C., where he was assassinated by Pinochet's DINA agents in 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Letelier

I don't know much about it beyond that information.

Human rights, the Constitution and due process must take precedence over other concerns because they are the foundation for a system of trust and integrity. You make a good point about killing 300-400 people to bring one person to justice. But the alternative is vigilante justice. President Obama may use this tool judiciously, but would you want some of the other potential presidents wielding it for their crazy purposes? I would not.

I heard a radio program with Ian Masters on KPFK tonight in which he interviewed a news reporter who was in Chechen when Putin massacred people there. That is a perfect example of the kind of horror that can result when the world accepts just killing by drone without a clear declaration of war or due process.

And don't say we are at war with "terror." That is like being at war with the bogeyman. Here, there and everywhere.

If the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords was not considered to be a terrorist, then I do not know how you define "terrorist."

[socialindependocrat]

70. Yes, look at McCain - he wants to go toSyria!

Your statement from last post resident Obama may use this tool judiciously, but would you want some of the other potential presidents wielding it for their crazy purposes? I would not.

Look at McCain - we are in a precarious position with Israel and Iran and the moran is talking about getting into Syria! And he may have been president if it weren't for his choice of the wrong VP.

[JDPriestly]

71. Rules can be fetters, but they can also protect us.

At the very least, there should be some judicial, that is objective third-party, review of decisions about who is considered to be a terrorist. I seriously doubt that our government wants to punish or even investigate people for their ideas or thoughts, but it is so easy to cross over the line, so easy. And no matter who the president is, he or she is under tremendous pressure to "keep us safe" and to make sure that the American public knows that they are being kept safe.

It is hard to balance national security and human rights. At this time, I think we are going to far in the direction of national security. We do live in a dangerous world, but we are spending too many of our resources on protecting ourselves and not enough on enjoying just being Americans and living our lives in freedom.

[Canuckistanian]

5. It doesn't DEFINE a "terrorist", either

Only citizens and criminals. Is this such a difficult concept?

[MNBrewer]

9. Where does the Constitution define criminals?

[Recursion]

22. "Hostis humani generis" was a well-established concept in 1789

I personally think the Constitutional status of antiterrorism efforts should be based on Congress's express power in Article I, Section 8:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Though much better definition needs to be made (the definition of "piracy" was and is fairly clear in naval law; the extension of that to terrorism seems natural, at least to me, but needs to be equally clearly defined).

[JDPriestly]

26. Our Bill of Rights was more recently enacted and limits any

right of the Congress to pass a law that would permit the draconian action that President Obama took. He suspended the right to a fair trial, to due process and to habeas corpus and simply killed someone. And on top of that Americans are not permitted to see the evidence against that person. It is a horrendous violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Habeas corpus may only be suspended in the case of rebellion or insurrection. The terrorists have not created a rebellion or an insurrection. They are quite simply criminals and should be treated as such.

Piracy on the high seas is a different matter. And the section you refer to simply grants CONGRESS NOT THE PRESIDENT the authority to "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." That quote is from Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It does not describe a power that Congress had given the president at the time of the killing of the person in question.

http://constitutionus.com/

Does our Constitution mean anything in this post-9/11 era?

Does it protect us at all any more?

[Luminous Animal]

6. That would be "alleged" terrorists. Accused by secret tribunals with secret evidence.

[The Northerner]

10. +1 That's a more precise description

[zorahopkins]

8. Thank You, Mr. Attorney General

This statement from Attorney General Holder does not bother me in the least.

I love our Attorney General, for he keeps me safe.

Thanks be to our glorious Attorney General -- and all of his brave staff members -- for their wonderful wisdom and for keeping us all safe from the hated terrorists.

I trust our most benevolent Attorney General to always identify terrorists where ever they are.

I do not question the decisions of our most trustworthy Attorney General. He is so kind and watches over me so well.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

(Just please do not ever come for me.)

[cthulu2016]

11. Unfair headline and a bad article.

I am not defending the general policy on its merits (I agree with the ACLU), merely noting that the USA Today article is foolish.

Holder did not say that the Constitution doesn't cover terrorists. He did not say it does not apply to terrorists. And in saying it does not protect terrorists he was saying it does not protect terrorists sufficiently to prevent bombing them, not that it is utterly inaplicable.

He is saying that within the overall Constituional scheme, balancing the 4th and 5th amendments against war powers and rules of war, that the Constitution does not preclude the bombings.

One can argue whether that conclusion is valid, but the headline and first paragraph of the article suggest a simplistic Bush-esque framing that Holder did not actually state.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Thanks. I was lazily assuming that Holder said what the headline said.

Your post prompted me to read the actual article, in which Holder is quoted as saying that the Constitutional right to due process is "ironclad".

[JDPriestly]

27. If Holder is so concerned about international law and the rules of war,

why hasn't he indicted or called a grand jury regarding George W. Bush's many violations of those laws and rules?

[JDPriestly]

54. Here is what the LA Times reports.

Such killings can be ordered "in full accordance with the Constitution," but it requires "at least" an imminent threat in a situation where capture is not feasible, and when the strike is "conducted in a manner consistent" with the rules of war, Holder said.

\\http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-holder-awlaki-20120306,0,4658910.story

Here are my problems with his theory, assuming the LA Times reported it correctly.

To understand, we have to agree that the law must be at least capable of being universally applied. By that I mean that the law that applies to me or you must also apply to the President and the Attorney General and people in other countries. We all have to follow the same laws.

Who decides what is an imminent threat? What is the criteria to be applied? Or is the president entitled to decide this arbitrarily according to his own personal vales or agenda? So far, in this situation, we have not been shown any evidence of an imminent threat. There may well have been one, but who knows?

Capture is not feasible. That suggests to me that if it isn't easy to catch someone then you can just kill them without further ado. Hmm. Applying that universally, it puts everyone in worse danger than any one person could ever pose.

Finally, the killing has to be conducted in a way that is consistent with the rules of war. What does that mean? What are the rules of war? Do the rules of war permit one country to go into another and simply kill a resident of the second country even though the two countries are not at war?

Then, finally, if it is legal for the US to get drones and kill a target in country X like Yemen, what is to prevent another country from getting drones and killing Americans in our country? What you do unto others, others may well do unto you. Aren't we asking for trouble here? Shouldn't we work with international agencies like the UN to protect ourselves against terrorists? Why did we just do this on our own? That's just not smart in my opinion. And the argument that this was not extra-Constitutional and incredibly arrogant does not wash with me, at least not with more explicit evidence about what threat existed, why we could not capture this person and what the rules of war would have really required.

[woo me with science]

12. We are losing our country.

Wake the hell up, America. Occupy.

The one percent have purchased both parties, and we are moving steadily toward corporate fascism.

Occupy now, because they are impoverishing us (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002388577), stripping away our civil rights, and putting measures into place to prevent occupation later.

Occupy now. It has never been more important.

[Bonobo]

13. And how do you determine he or she is a terrorist?

Just saying so doesn't make it so.

[provis99]

34. the Star Chamber determines who is a terrorist.

or enemy of the King, or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_chamber

[izquierdista]

14. It covered John Brown, didn't it?

Stupid fuck should be busted back to junior high social studies. What a joke.

[Recursion]

24. Most of Brown's raiders were killed by Lee's Marines

Brown was kept (barely) alive for a show trial

[bornskeptic]

30. Brown was captured. Holder's statement refers to terrorists "whose capture is not feasible."

al-Awlaki's family was told that he would be given a fair trial if he turned himself in. He refused to do so and his capture was obviously not feasible.I don't know that Constitutional protections have ever been interpreted by courts to apply to persons outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

[unblock]

16. did holder just define himself as a terrorist?

methinks he did....

[markpkessinger]

17. Holder is surely one of Obama's WORST appointments . . .

. . . along with Summers and Geithner!

[rustydog]

18. The Constitution covers every person inside this country

How dare you spew such unAmerican tripe? The constitution and the laws she defends covers every human being held in this country whether they are an American Citizen, Foreign national, "illegal" or Terrorist.

go back to school Eric, you flunked basic everything.

[TheKentuckian]

36. and always covers the government.

[NutmegYankee]

76. Such anger for someone who obviously didn't read the article

Holder never said it didn't cover people in this country.

[Odin2005]

19. Holder is a fucking LIAR!

[Vattel]

20. Holder is either stupid or deliberately ignoring the crucial issues.

Anyone has the right to kill those who would otherwise commit murder. But the problem is the danger of the executive branch with no oversight having the power to just assert that someone must be killed because they are "pose an imminent threat."

[saras]

29. He's doing his job. If he doesn't someone else does, like Obama, and that doesn't look good

[Enrique]

31. Holder just goes along

just an obedient corporate lawyer. I hope there are some independent minds somewhere in our government. Dawn Johnsen would have been nice.

[leveymg]

32. Without a viable social compact, we return to a war of all against all.

We're all now equally unjustified to make the same judgements in the absence of an effective constitutional guarantee that covers everyone. Only greater violence can come of this, and all will believe themselves justified in murdering each other as terrorists.

[Oasis_]

33. Citizens abroad..

Is the key. They're treated as unlawful combatants--with no protections inherent. This isn't Padilla (apprehended at O'Hare) but on foreign soil, so any Executive action to eliminate them is completely within the law and scope of Article II.

Holder is completely correct, imo.

Oasis

[leveymg]

35. "The Constitution doesn't stop at the nation's edge." Perhaps, Holder never read that.

What abot you? What do you see is the distinction?

[Oasis_]

37. I believe it does

Would you agree with meekly knocking on the door, attempting to peacefully arrest then advising the domestic born terrorist of Miranda? How about affording additional 5th and 6th Amendment rights and protections? Turning over the classified information obtained to counsel?

No thanks. I'd rather employ the Executive (as outlined in War Powers) to reach the decision and hopefully eliminate the threat.

The Judicial system shouldn't (and was never intended) to determine guilt or innocence for those actively engaged in hostile action against the United States on foreign soil.

Oasis

[leveymg]

38. The Bill of Rights isn't void simply because it's more difficult to effect an arrest in some

places than in others. Otherwise, they could simply drop a bomb on your house because you refuse to open the door.

[Oasis_]

39. It's absolutely void

on foreign soil if the suspect has lent material support or engaged in hostilities against the United States.

Domestic born terrorists outside of US borders enjoy no Constitutional protection. The Geneva Conventions LOAC rules are very clear. Unlawful combatants may be disposed of.

We committed a huge tactical blunder with John Walker Lindh. He should have been summarily executed as a result of his support (materially and directly) of and with AQ. It would have been wholly consistent with GC mandates.

It set a pretty terrible precedent, imo.

Oasis

[leveymg]

40. Wouldn't you have at least wanted to torture him first?

You know, just for kicks since he's unprotected by either the Constitution or the GCV
? Hmm?

[Oasis_]

45. No, I wouldn't

Torture is prohibited under the GC. Summarily executing him would have been acceptable and within the terms outlined in its provisions.

Oasis

[white_wolf]

47. Executing a U.S. citizen without a trial is a violation of due process.

Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? Seriously,this is basic stuff here.

[Oasis_]

49. You evidently

Possess a basic misunderstanding (willfully or via ignorance) of the BoR.

Oasis

[white_wolf]

51. You have no concept of rule of law...

otherwise you wouldn't call for summary executions.

[Bradical79]

82. Does the BoR distinguish between someone on U.S. soil vs. someone abroad? If so, where?

[TransitJohn]

41. Good fucking lord

When I read posts like this, I can't believe it's still DU. Advocating for execution. Pro-death penalty views used to be verboten here.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. The poster is advocating for assassination, which is different from execution

[white_wolf]

46. It's so wonderful to see DUer's advocate for execution, without trial nonetheless.

I was just thinking the other day, "Our government doesn't kill enough people. They need to kill more, and trials are just an inconvenience." Seriously, when did it become acceptable to advocate simply killing people without trial? Should the State be able to pull people off the streets and execute them simply because the state claims they are terrorists? Does the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" mean anything to you?

[Oasis_]

48. Nice strawman

"Our government doesn't kill enough people. They need to kill more, and trials are just an inconvenience."

A citizen of the United States the Executive has determined to to be a hostile adversary of the United States and actively engaging in said hostilities while on foreign soil is a target for elimination.

I'm sure in your fantasy land none of these really exist, and if they do we should just ask them nicely (or if need be really extra-EXTRA nicely) to turn themselves in.

It doesn't work that way in the real world. Thankfully.

AG Holder is absolutely correct, as is President Obama. The Constitution affords none of the protections you and others would wish it to grant domestic terrorists actively plotting and acting overseas.

Oasis

[white_wolf]

50. You advocated for the summary execution of John Walker.

A U.S. citizen who had been captured, and you just wanted to kill him without trial. I ask you once again, does the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" mean anything to you?

[Oasis_]

52. In his particular case?

No, absolutely not. He should have been summarily executed as he was not protected under the GC and he was an active and armed adversary of the United States on foreign soil. He was a willful participant who engaged in war-like acts against the United States.

Again, he was not a protected under GC protocols and mandates.

Oasis

[eridani]

72. He was guilty of absolutely NOTHING other than being born too late

http://100777.com/node/231/print

According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Right up until 9/11, the US was officially allied with the Taliban due to their commitment to eliminate poppy growing. Given crappy TV reception in rural Afghanistan, how was Walker supposed to know that we switched sides?

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Article II doesn't deal with war against non-state entities

It's, unfortunately, one of those things that wasn't a particularly pertinent topic in 1789. Traditionally you're right that we don't give judicial rights to people engaging in armed conflict against the United States and US citizenship generally doesn't get you excused. If it was advantageous for us to assassinate a US citizen who had gone to Germany and joined the Nazis, we certainly would've done it.

The problem, though, is that this isn't a traditional war. We're not fighting a clearly defined enemy. This conflict have a clear end date, whereas World War II (at least in Europe) reached a clear end once American troops were marching in the streets of Berlin. Nor does it have a clearly defined war zone.

So essentially you're giving the government war powers to use without all of the traditional confines of war. In the confines of war, if you stay the hell away from the war zone you'll likely get your due process should you be accused of treason. But this isn't limited to any war zone. Yes right now it's being done with drone bombs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. But there's legally nothing stopping the government from using a sniper rifle to kill a U.S. citizen in London.

[white_wolf]

55. You've hit on how this is so worrisome.

Since this is war between ideologies and ideology isn't confined to a single country, the warzone is at risk of being defined wherever the government wants it to be.

[Oasis_]

56. Absolutely

The manner in which we deal with accused terrorists at home must adhere to the protections afforded and articulated in the BoR. (the Padilla case was a poster child for everything the Bill of Rights sought to protect us against--It was a document drawn and designed during war)

His detention without formal charge was completely unconstitutional, yet he was at least provided due process (which the Bush administration at the time argued against) as he was captured on US oil. As a citizen he should have been prosecuted and tried under US criminal law and procedure.

I agree this is an inherently open-ended war against terrorism. The battlefield is globally based, however. So while we must protect the rights of the accused in this country---anyone operating with a declared enemy (such as AQ) in a foreign territory while not in uniform is subject to the unlawful combatant statutes of the GC.

Oasis

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Forgive me, but I don't trust the government with that kind of power

If the subject in question is residing in the parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen where our military is actively engaged in combat with Al Qaeda then that's one thing. But I don't support circumventing the Bill of Rights by declaring that there's a "global battlefield".

I'm can deal with the idea that people surrender their protection under the Bill of Rights when they enter a battlefield where the US military is actively engaged in combat against an enemy. I'm not okay with the idea that people surrender their protection under the Bill of Rights every time they leave US soil.

[Recursion]

58. Article I, Section 8 does

"Piracies... and offenses against the laws of nations", based on the fairly old concept of hostis humani generis.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. Article I Section 8 doesn't say anything about declaring war on pirates

It authorizes congress to punish pirates as a law enforcement matter.

After 9/11 we decided rather than to deal with terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter, we would also deal with it as a military matter. Congress gave the President all of the authorization to fight terrorism with powers that are typically reserved for wars against another state (or at least a clearly defined non-state entity).

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution AFTER Article I Section 8 and the rest of it was written. Somewhere in the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th amendments didn't apply to pirates because of the concept of hostis humani generis, it would say that somewhere in the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th amendments.

[_ed_]

64. John Yoo-style reasoning

Interesting what a few years makes. I remember when claims of executive power around here were bad.

[think]

44. CIA Chief: Anwar al-Awlaki was US (FBI) asset:

Last edited Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Dead men tell no tales...

[mmonk]

60. Where in the Constitution does it say the rule of law doesn't apply to them?

[niyad]

62. somehow, I missed that exclusion when I was studying constitutional law

[msanthrope]

74. You didn't study the War Powers Act?

The AUMF of 9-18-2001?

What law school did you go to?

[Occulus]

84. A much better question is why you keep supporting such authoritarian interpretations

of our Constitution.

Both the pieces of law you are citing (and have been harping about all night long) were and are still debated as to the justness of the WPA and the AUMF themselves, all judicial findings of their validity notwithstanding. We do not, for the purposes of the discussions you've been crapping Authority into this entire time, care what the courts have said. Those findings can be addressed to the favor of the People if they pass new laws voiding or repealing or canceling these laws. The decisions simply do not have a place in this overall discussion.

Essentially, you are now and have been saying "Authority right! Authority right!" for two very bad moments in legal history (right up there with the incorrect interpretations that gave us "corporate personhood", the entire Jim Crow era, and the current situation regarding legal gay marriage). You've been ignoring that both the WPA and the AUMF may appear, very strongly, to be attempts to circumvent the safeguards built into the constitution and that's why everyone keeps 'trying to argue with you'.

Our Constitution states very specific methods of declaring war. These methods are quite easily understood, even on first reading, and are there and as clear as they are written for very good reason. Bearing that in mind, the laws and decisions you keep screaming about that we all should heed and give support to are not, in any conceivable sense of the word, small-d democratic laws, and the courts' interpretations involving their Constitutionality appear strongly to be war-supportive. They and the decisions supporting them break the Constitution, IMO, and nobody opposed to warfare in general (again IMO) can possibly support them as, ah, enthusiastically as you have been.

The power of the Executive Branch to wage warfare (I phrase it thus very specifically) has grown with the very two laws and associated decisions you're screaming about. I'm only saying many of us don't think you realize that that's a bad thing.

I'm only making an observation.

Have a nice night.

[_ed_]

63. Any Democrat who criticized John Yoo and defends this

is a massive hypocrite. If you were angry about Bush spying on American citizens without a warrant and are praising Obama's claim to the power to EXECUTE citizens without judicial process, then you really need to explain how being spied upon is worse than assassinated.

[joeybee12]

65. What part of the word "alleged" does this jackass not understand?

Holder, Arne Duncan, Salazar...three of the worst in the history of this country.

[quaker bill]

78. alleged bankrobbers and rapists occasionally

do not survive the arrest process. I have seen instances posted here and on the local news several times in the last day or two. No one seems to get too worked up about it around here.

Ram them with a patrol car, shoot them with a sidearm, pop them from a predator drone, dead is dead.

[woo me with science]

66. Kick

[woo me with science]

67. Kick

[MadHound]

69. Apparently it no longer covers citizens either. n/t

[steve2470]

73. kick nt

[niyad]

75. . . .

[NutmegYankee]

77. Modern day terrorism isn't much different than the Barbary wars.

This country fought and killed pirates without trial acting only on an authorization of congress and no formal declaration of war. If you had been an American who had become a pirate of Barbary, you would have been killed with your crew mates if we had the chance.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. So, Cheney goes free?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. good pic

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. yup

[BlueIris]

85. I still can't believe this man remains gainfully employed.

Very sad. His rationalizations mean nothing to me. He has no credibility left, and should resign.