General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

33. Why would he be indicted? And, if you read the decision, the government acknowledged that a

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:31 PM

Feb 2013

surrender would trigger due process rights as outlined by Hamdi and its progeny. Again--if you read pages 16, 17, and 18, you will see that the DOJ agreed with the court that a custodial enemy combatant has significant rights that a non-custodial combatant does not.

Judge Bates also detailed how Awlaki had the ability to post hundreds of YouTube videos (Anthony Weiner was instrumental in getting them taken down, fyi) but chose not to seek representation in any of those videos. A video calling on the ACLU or the CCR, or a phone call would have secured him representation.

As Judge Bates makes clear, due process rights are reserved for those who participate in the process.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why do we have a Judicial branch of government, anyway? [View all] MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 OP

Ummm....... Revanchist Feb 2013 #1

That's Third Way Manny for you. longship Feb 2013 #2

Judicial Branch of Government Quiz leftstreet Feb 2013 #3

100% boooooya! xtraxritical Feb 2013 #17

me too! even in spite of the fact that two of the questions were so badly worded.... lastlib Feb 2013 #34

To overturn Progressive legislation when it gets dangerous to the 1% Recursion Feb 2013 #4

For when it gets close enough to steal, we need deciders. lonestarnot Feb 2013 #5

To select the President when OldHippieChick Feb 2013 #6

And in close cases, there's always the dunking stool.... Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #7

All cases should be settled by the DU jury system. Skip Intro Feb 2013 #8

Six deciders??? Too many chefs spoil the pot, too much hassle plus that awful transparency TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #11

In FL, most juries are made up of 6 members. Only murder is 12 jurors. glowing Feb 2013 #14

Hear, hear! Let's call in a Drone strike on the Supreme Court... AzDar Feb 2013 #9

Then we wouldn't have to pay pensions. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #10

manny's right....we have drones now...no need. n/t pepperbear Feb 2013 #12

Ask Bush ll. Jamaal510 Feb 2013 #13

Are you channeling Nancy Grace? nm rhett o rick Feb 2013 #15

Because Due Process is so 20th Century - n/t coalition_unwilling Feb 2013 #16

Yeah, but we know judges are not sensible people jsr Feb 2013 #18

Ah, you answered your own question. Judges don't "figure out if someone's guilty." nt Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #19

Kick woo me with science Feb 2013 #20

so torture camp creators and WMD conspirators can NOT BE CHARGED with anything just1voice Feb 2013 #21

Judges don't determine guilt. They determine the law. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #22

Bench trials. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #23

Only if the defendant wishes, generally. Mr. Awlaki could have had one, had he msanthrope Feb 2013 #24

Yemeni murder trial. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #25

If I had chosen to live in a country, like Mr. Awlaki, I would not balk at its msanthrope Feb 2013 #26

Didn't he rule that Awlaki's dad had no standing to stop his son's secret execution order? nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #29

Why not read it and find out what he said about Awlaki's rights? The reason msanthrope Feb 2013 #30

Was Awlaki indicted? MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #31

Why would he be indicted? And, if you read the decision, the government acknowledged that a msanthrope Feb 2013 #33

Interesting points, but I can't imagine that it's OK to sentence people to death MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #35

You have made a fundamental error in your assessment of Mr. Awlaki that suggests ignorance of his msanthrope Feb 2013 #36

Excellent suggestion, Manny! LittleBlue Feb 2013 #27

Tradition of course Fumesucker Feb 2013 #28

Hear, hear. "Due process" can easily be carried out by secret police. DirkGently Feb 2013 #32