Do American citizens deserve due process and a trial before being executed?

[Lyric]

I don't quite understand how this question NEEDS to be asked, but apparently there's some dispute about this? Anyway--poll on.

[change_notfinetuning]

1. Not if a professor of constitutional law says they do not, right? n/t

[Renew Deal]

2. You're not asking the right question.

The question should be "Do American citizens who are known terrorists on foreign land plotting against the US deserve due process and a trial in an American court before being executed?"

[EFerrari]

6. How anyone can make such a claim after the HUNDREDS of times

this government has been WRONG about what it "knows" about "terrorists" is flabbergasting to me. Seriously.

[Renew Deal]

15. Because it's a more accurate question

No one agrees that American citizens should be executed without a trial, but that question is misleading.

[EFerrari]

19. It's not more accurate. Your revision assumes exactly what can't be assumed,

the government's knowledge as any kind of standard. Let alone, if they really know anything.

[Renew Deal]

32. It is more accurate

They have knowledge that this person is up to something. The person invoved is on foreign land where the US doesn't have jurisdiction. The president saw enough information to approve it. I don't have an issue with it. Obviously it doesn't work if the person is on US territory where. In that case, it's unacceptable. I understand your mistrust of the government. Many people distrust the government when their side isn't in control. Currently it's the teabaggers.

[EFerrari]

36. If I told you Hugo Chavez "had knowledge" that required the assassination

of a Venezuelan, you'd flip like a pancake. :)

[Renew Deal]

44. That's funny

You have to have some faith in this stuff. Also, Venezuala runs their country differently. But if the story was that a "known political opponent" of Chavez was targeted in this way, then yes, it would be an issue.

That's not what we're talking about here.

[EFerrari]

51. We are taking about extrajudiical executions.

[noiretextatique]

71. "you have to have faith in some stuff"

i'm not so sure this man would agree with you. of course he is dead, so he can't agree or disagree.

Cameron Todd Willingham in his cell on death row, in 1994. He insisted upon his innocence in the deaths of his children and refused an offer to plead guilty in return for a life sentence.

He was executed because of the BLIND faith people had in the arson investigators, who were later proven to be totally wrong. he was executed even though the all-knowing powers that be had evidence of his innocence.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann#ixzz0kX5Jqzpg

there are many things i have faith in, but the justice system is not on the list.

[EFerrari]

92. When did we get so free with the very lives of other human beings?

And, have faith in the government? The same intel people that missed the Ft. Hood shooter, that faked a case again Bruce Ivins, that captured and tortured, even killed innocent people at Abu Graib, Bagram and Gitmo?

It's not reasonable to ask anyone to "have faith" in this process.

[noiretextatique]

123. not reasonable at all

it's insane, actually.

[huskerlaw]

122. Right...

Venezuela doesn't have the same Constitution we do and thereby doesn't have to treat its citizens the same way we do.

We don't have to have faith in the government. In fact, things like the Due Process clause were put into the Constitution for the very reason that we often should NOT have faith in the government.

[amborin]

164. like Mr. Arar?

[Hannah Bell]

167. what a bunch of hooey. if they have evidence, let them present it at trial.

otherwise, you're suggesting we should just take their word for it.

which = fascism

[KittyWampus]

is it accurate to use the innocuous term "bad buy"? Making it sound like someone who just happens

to have bad manners?

[EFerrari]

53. What about you? Would you like to have a trial before you're shot?

It was one of these "judgment calls" that got Fred Hampton murdered.

At least the FBI had the decency to lie about that for years.

[Hosnon]

106. Exactly. Why not just let the executive branch of every level of government deal with

all the people who are criminals? The cops arrest the individuals - clearly they know who the bad guys are.

That's not a recipe for abuse, nope...

[Truth2Tell]

50. What do you mean "No One" agrees?

You agree. You've said so plainly.

[Renew Deal]

55. Sorry, no

My answer to this simplistic question would have to be yes, "American citizens deserve due process...."

But like I said, that's not really the right question.

[MattBaggins]

62. Yes it is the right question

[Truth2Tell]

75. If your answer to your replacement question is "yes,"

then by definition, your answer to the question in the OP is "yes."

[Hosnon]

108. The OP didn't qualify "American" with "innocent". It's a post about process, regardless of guilt.

No one thinks innocent people should be punished and everyone thinks guilty people should be. Just as we all want Congress to legalize good stuff and outlaw bad stuff.

[katandmoon]

7. And the answer to that is yes, they do.

[Brickbat]

11. The answer's still yes, of course.

[Lyric]

18. And the answer to that would be YES.

Show me the part of the Constitution (specifically the parts of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th Amendments) where it says "...except for citizens that the government claims are terrorists plotting against the USA on foreign soil. Those people don't count."

[Renew Deal]

22. Article 3, 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.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[Lyric]

27. Fail. In order for it to be "treason", there has to be a TRIAL.

The government can't just point its Big Fucking Finger at anybody it wants to and say, "TRAITOR! NOW DIE!"

Jesus.

[Renew Deal]

39. And they don't.

If this guy was in US territory, they could pick him up.

Funny thing is that you don't seem to have a problem with Anwar al-Awlaki saying "TRAITOR! NOW DIE!" to his fellow citizens.

That said, it is believed that this is "probably legal."

Targeting Awlaki probably legal
The answer probably is yes, says Mike Newton, a law professor at Vanderbilt University. If the US could prove that Awlaki is a “direct participant” in a conflict – terrorist operations against the US, for example – then killing Awlaki would probably pass legal muster, he says.

“By making that declaration, the administration has at least admitted the possibility that the fundamental obligation of the executive to protect the American people trumps the basic right to life of that individual,” says Mr. Newton.

Since the incidents last year at Fort Hood and Detroit, Awlaki’s stature has risen within the counterterrorism community. He now represents a top leader of Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, which is emerging as a dangerous new franchise of Al Qaeda globally.

While the fact that Awlaki is an American citizen may raise legal questions about killing him, targeting him outside the US may make it more tenable, says Newton.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror

[MattBaggins]

54. "If the US could prove that Awlaki is a “direct participant” in a conflict"

Proven in a court of law?

Our country has a near absolute ban on trials in absentia; but we would allow extra-judicial slayings?

On Edit: You should retract that nonsense about the poster having no problem with what Awlaki said. That is a bogus attack and you know it. That is a freeper tactic.

[EFerrari]

60. Not "would", we are. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

160. You can have a trial for someone not present - if you have evidence

Secret Evidence not presented in public IS NOT EVIDENCE. It may be information, but it isn't evidence. The purpose of putting on a trial is not to satisfy the government that someone is guilty but THE PUBLIC. If the government has evidence against someone let them present it. If they choose not to because "of the sensitive nature of how that evidence is collected", then all anyone has is the say-so of the King, excuse me of the President, for why a citizen will be put to death.
And if that's now good enough, then your country is already about half way down the rabbit hole to a nightmare. This will be the first time someone is executed on nothing more than the pleasure of the chief executive, but it will not be the last.

[huskerlaw]

124. Epic fail.

Oddly, Article 3, Section 3 is missing "in case of treason, please ignore sections on due process, as it will be left up to the government to decide who has committed treason and who hasn't".

In fact, someone being charged with treason is the EXACT person that Due Process sought to protect. We have the right to peaceably protest the government, correct? Without due process, the President could yell "TREASON!!!" at anyone who showed up near the White House with an anti-government poster, if he so chose. And then when we said, "But Mr. President, it was a peaceful protest, that's legal. You can't execute him for that!" The President would say, "Oh, no, sorry. In cases of treason, I, the very person that the protest was against, gets to decide all by myself whether or not to execute a person."

That's been done. Kings used to execute people for treason on their own power frequently. Dictators still do it all the time. The United States government doesn't get to.

[Luminous Animal]

154. Article 3, Section 3 refers to the judiciary NOT the executive.

Obama has no standing to be judge, jury, and executioner.

[zorahopkins]

57. "Known Terrorists?"

What exactly are "known terrorists"?

Are they anything like "known weapons of mass destruction"?

The USA went to war because its leaders LIED and said they KNEW that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Could it be that a president could say that someone was a "known terrorist", and be lying?

(Please note: I am NOT suggesting that President Obama is lying -- what I am suggesting is that Presidents have lied in the past, and may do so in the future.)

[EFerrari]

64. Or, have been lied to. This isn't even about Obama.

This is about our government, as a government, deciding that executing American citizens without due process is okay.

And based on "intelligence" from the same people that have been spectacularly WRONG hundreds of times.

[Hosnon]

113. It's not a problem only when an official is corrupt (e.g., lies). It's a problem

when there is inaccurate or incomplete information.

I'm sure there are zillions of instances in human history of well-intentioned people just knowing that a certain set of facts is true.

[donco6]

79. Yes, they do. Easy. n/t

[underseasurveyor]

85. Then ask yourself this.

Is it now acceptable to apply the same standard to yourself?

[Hosnon]

102. That's not the right question at all. Determining who is and who is not a "known terrorist" is

precisely what due process facilitates.

[grahamhgreen]

112. So they are guilty with no chance to prove innocence?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. Amazingly for you, the answer is still yes.

Any special ops should have as a main mission bringing him alive for trial. Of course, if they then shoot back, it's another matter.

[MadBadger]

131. I dont think executed is the right word when the orders are capture or kill

[Bonobo]

153. "Known"?

How the fuck would it be "known"???

THAT is the question. Judge/Jury/Executioner anyone?

[sabrina 1]

163. So, we only respect the law and due process, the Bill of Rights

the Constitution, when we are nice and safe. It's all so quaint. Isn't that what Bush said? The minute we feel threatened, no matter how remote the threat might be, we throw it all away?

'Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security'

[Uben]

3. Wanted: Dead or Alive

Jurisprudence of the west!

[tekisui]

41. Smoke 'em out!

[cliffordu]

4. Unless they are enemy combatants who are actively fighting against the US.

Then they get whatever justice the battlefield prescribes.

[TheWraith]

5. This rather misses all the important distinctions.

Such as the difference between having someone in custody and taking them out to shoot them in the head, versus having a sniper draw a bead on somebody from 1000 yards. There are situations where capture of a target is impossible, and a kill is preferable to letting them go on the hope that you'll someday be able to capture them.

[katandmoon]

10. Especially since Obama gets the credit.

[EFerrari]

13. You realize that it has yet to be proven that this individual

has done anything at all, right?

And you're talking about "kills"?

:wtf:

[TheWraith]

37. By what standards?

It's not "proven" that anyone in a combat zone has ever done anything. But if they're part of a hostile force, they're still subject to summary judgment in the form of unrestricted warfare. I'm sure that there are plenty of people killed by US forces who did a lot less to deserve death than this guy, but we still ended up bombing their cities.

No, this guy hasn't gotten a trial by jury. That doesn't equate to "he's never done anything." And since he's not within the power of the US to arrest and try, then an executive decision is made on what to do about him.

[EFerrari]

45. It has not been shown that he has been involved in any act of war.

And just because he is physically difficult to arrest doesn't make his execution right or legal.

Do you really want the government deciding it's okay to kill you because they can't arrest you?

[jberryhill]

89. If the government had determined that...

Then I would immediately present myself for arrest and trial, since I have not been involved in making war against the United States.

I would then seek civil remedies.

[EFerrari]

95. Really? Like Maher Arar wasn't involved in making war against the United States?

Or like Sami al Haj wasn't involved in making war against the United States?

We've had so many instances of people not making war against the United States and winding up kidnapped, jailed for years, lied about, tortured and killed.

Are you sure you want to turn yourself into an institution with that track record? Really?

[jberryhill]

101. Arar was detained for two weeks

...and his civil case is still active.

So, you are offering me a choice of two weeks detention or death?

The deportation aspect, of course, doesn't apply here, since you are talking apples and oranges relative to US citizens.

Sami al Haj also walks among the living, and in case you haven't noticed, we are no longer using Guantanamo to hold suspects captured abroad.

The more relevant case is Jose Padilla. That's a track record of one instance on more relevant facts, in definite contrast to, say, Richard Reid.

There have been hundreds of convictions in relation to terrorist activities which establish the "track record" here. There are cases which were inappropriately handled, and for which civil remedies continue to be sought, but your use of the term "track record" is misleading because the number of cases in which things were, yes, fucked up, is not the majority of cases by a longshot.

[EFerrari]

107. I'm very sorry, j, but that's wrong. Arar was not "detained for two weeks".

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers%20story.php

[jberryhill]

109. By the US, yes he was

His issue was not getting to choose his deportation destination.

He was detained by the US for two weeks.

[EFerrari]

111. That's pretty disgusting. You have a good day. n/t

[jberryhill]

116. Thank you

When you want to know how I FEEL about his situation, be sure to ask.

But my feelings are not the legal issue in his case.

[jberryhill]

88. It has yet to be "proven" in any instance of use of deadly force in police situations

If by "proven" you mean made the subject of a verdict.

And yet, still, deadly force is used in law enforcement all of the time.

How does this happen?

[Echo In Light]

8. There are those who fully endorse option #2 but won't say so for obvious reasons

They're always the ones who try to dance around the obvious w/bullshit legal/military jargon since in their He-Man ego-world that trumps basic moral truth/concern

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. An absolute YES. To say otherwise is to put every American citizen in the position of being

targeted for death for any or all actions The State deems undesirable.

It's a slippery slope, but there it is.

[Renew Deal]

17. Do you believe that cops should carry guns?

What should the police do if someone is shooting at other people? Ask them to stop?

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Who was he shooting at?

[Renew Deal]

48. It's the same concept.

There are no "trials" during a shootout.

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. He was involved in a shootout? I didn't know that. n/t

[frylock]

117. Who was he shooting at?

[sharesunited]

12. Gunman firing indiscriminately at the public?

[emulatorloo]

29. Yes, tell him to stop, and then begin jury selection immediately from any victims still standing

[WillyT]

100. Sorry... Our System Does Not Allow For Victims Of A Crime To Be Jurors In That Same Crime...

They might not let them sit as jurors in ANY crime.

They wouldn't be objective.

:shrug:

[Statistical]

14. Push poll for the win. Put this on your resume when you apply for polling companies.

[Lyric]

21. This isn't a fucking Gallup poll.

It's an opinion website. EVERY poll is a push poll here.

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

25. That's not true

Every poll is not a push poll.

:shrug:

[Lyric]

33. Yes it is. Is the "other side" allowed a voice in our polls?

The Freepers and the Teabagging morons? No? Then EVERY poll here is invalid, in regard to the standards of Gallup/Zogby/Rasmussen/other professional polling company (which is what *I* was judged by). When only one side of the debate is permitted a voice (and I have no beef with that--it's a private site, after all) then the poll doesn't mean a thing. It's a rhetorical device that we use to communicate with each other--there's nothing neutral or scientific about it.

Of course, you're welcome to point out the exact place in which I claimed that my poll was neutral, or ANYTHING other than the obvious rhetorical device that it is. I'll let you get right on that.

:hi:

[Statistical]

46. That isn't the definition of push poll.

A PUSH poll is a poll where the questions are worded in an attempt to PUSH the results one way or the other or to influence the person taking the vote rather than trying to determine level of opinion/support.

Do you want to vote for
a) Mr. Smith
b) Mrs. Jane

Not a push poll


Would you be for or against asking Obama to resign if it was confirmed that he is a a Communist are advocates a single party rule?
Is a push poll

Your "poll" is clearly a push poll.

You could have done the same poll presenting all choices in a neutral voice that provide options for all opinions.

[tekisui]

56. How would you word it to meet your standards?

[MattBaggins]

67. He has already stated it

He wants to take a perfectly worded "do Americans have a right to due process"; which for some strange reason is a push poll question to him, and change it to something that mentions terrorism and scary Muslims. He says this with a straight face and yet accuses the OP of bad wording.

[Statistical]

70. Please point out where I even used the word Muslim in this thread.

I'll wait ....

[MattBaggins]

125. My bad... I was responding to the wrong perp.

[Statistical]

69. Do you really want to know?

First of all it isn't my standard it is the standard. A good poll should be designed to collect the opinions of the polled not push an opinion to them.

Do American citizens deserve due process and a trial before being executed?
Yes
No
Other

Would be fine.
Or it could be expanded slightly while still being neutral

Do American citizens deserve due process and a trial before being executed?
Yes
No
Only in extreme circumstances (please explain)

Those aren't the definitive choices but in general the answers in the set
a) should be inclusive (all possible choices fit into the set)
b) should be worded as neutral as possible


The answers in the poll are intentionally leading and don't cover all possible answers. It is possible to answer yes and not agree with the commentary and the same applies to no and other. The OP puts bias into the poll by choosing 3 choices which don't represent all possible choices and then wording them to have a positive bias on the first and negative bias on the second two.

The poll is clearly a push poll. Now I am not the poll Police. The OP isn't going to be arrested for crimes against polling. :) However to pretend the poll is not a push poll or to get upset or annoyed when someone suggests that is silly.

[tekisui]

81. I hear ya.

Yes/no/other would be more accurate.

[WyLoochka]

16. Due process for everyone

Citizen or not.

Also, life incarceration without parole for convictions of crimes that warrant such.

Opposed to "executions" in all cases.

Didn't vote - poll doesn't have an option for my views.

[Caliman73]

76. That is my view as well.

I thought that this had been settled already. Every person, citizen or not has a right to due process. I am against executions as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Only if it's convenient to the executors and those ordering the executions.

Which is how many of our "sacred" laws are carried out nowadays.

[Lyric]

24. When the day comes that we allow our government to execute citizens without due process

then the last shred of hope for restoring "American liberty" is dead. Period.

I've seen some pretty outrageous things defended here. This one is so far beyond outrageous that I can't even think of a vile enough word to describe it.

[WillyT]

63. Exactly Lyric... Exactly !!!

And... the terrorists win.

"You see??? I told you that the American infidel was full of shit with all this due process of law, constitutional city on a hill crap!

And you know what's GREAT??? It was because of their FEAR OF US that they proved to the world that there whole system was a lie!!!"

Apparently George W. was correct... the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper".

What's amazing is the number of... um... Amerikans that agree with that.

Great... just fucking great...

:puke:

:banghead:

[neverforget]

158. That and they fail to see how this can be abused under this or the next president.

[NJmaverick]

23. Remember Gettysburg? The Union soldiers would hold trials

before firing at any on shooting at them. After all the confederates were still American Citizens

[tekisui]

43. THere is no war on our soil.

THere is a big difference between an active war, and this bullshit waronterra.

[Orsino]

28. Not all of us deserve it, but it is imperative that we get it.

Anyone within the power of the US government should, citizen or no.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. none of the above. No one should ever be executed imo.

can't use your "other" catagory, because I'm not conflicted about this.

There is never reason to pre-meditatedly murder someone that is really "ok".

One of my few absolutes. That would have applied to Hitler, did apply to McVeigh, and continues to apply to G.W.Bush.

[Rex]

31. Depends, are they calling for my countries downfall through violent means?

Or are they just that irritating person in the grocery isle that has to stop and tell me their life story (though I've heard it 1000 times over).

[EFerrari]

40. Wouldn't that standard put most RW radio hosts on the list?

Hmmm.

[Rex]

49. Yes, when we first started talking about this here on DU

I recommended Gox Snews be put on that list ASAP. No due process for people that endorse the violent downfall of my government. They've obviously decided I DON'T NEED due process! Why should I return the favor?

[EFerrari]

59. We do it for us, not for them.

We have due process because that's what makes us Americans and not al Qaida.

[Truth2Tell]

47. Well, one couldn't really answer your question

without a trial, could they?

[Rex]

58. I think I can tell the difference between Osama Bin Laden and

the dude at the grocery store. One wants me dead, the other wants to know if I eat peanut butter.

[Truth2Tell]

78. But in real life the distinctions

aren't between Bin Laden and some guy in the grocery store. They are much grayer. And are you comfortable with a secret unaccountable entity making those calls? That's what this is really about.

[KittyWampus]

34. I like how you use "bad guy", thereby downplaying facts.

[protocol rv]

35. Comment from a non-US citizen who doesn't live in the US

I'm not a US citizen, but I would like to point out some flaws in the question.

First, I would like to point out the US Constitution doesn't really differentiate between US citizens and non citizens in areas such as human rights enshrined in the "Bill of Rights". For example, a Norwegian tourist visiting New York would be entitled to full protection of his rights, including Miranda protection, the right to counsel, etc.

A person who is in the US as an illegal immigrant (meaning they entered the US by illegal means)also has certain rights. They do have the right to counsel, etc, when they are accused of a crime or other violation. They do not have these rights when the issue is their illegal presence in the country - in other words, the state does have the right to exclude them from the national territory without a full trial, etc.

When the US government carries out a killing abroad, it really doesn't matter if the person is a US citizen or not. Either the person is considered at war with the US, or not. For example, a US citizen who fought for the Germans in WW II didn't need a trial to be shot by a US soldier landing in Normandy, even if he was singing yankee doodle and waving a US passport while fighting for the Germans.

These killings carried out by drones are definitely a grey area. Killings in nations such as Pakistan, would be legal if the Pakistani government has signed a treaty allowing the USA to kill people on Pakistani soil, pursuant to a war the US is fighting in Afghanistan. But the US presence in Afghanistan is somewhat controversial. Under the US Constitution, the Congress should declare war, which in turn allows the US military to carry out war. This hasn't been done. Which means these wars are conveniently skirting the US Constitution. Evidently the US is a country where legal tradition counts a lot, so if you violate the Constitution for a long time, then the courts deem this to be OK.

In general, I would say what you guys need is a set of Constitutional Amendments to clarify when and how you will allow your military to attack other nations, and set broad guidelines for the rules of engagement. The savagery and inhumanity of US attacks and invasions has been increasing over time, as your leaders learn they can get away with pretty much anything. Either you put an end to this by chaining up your dogs of war, or the world will have to take care of you. And when we are finished with you, there is a high likelyhood the US as you know it will not exist. You will be dismembered like Nazi Germany was dismembered after WW II.

[boppers]

149. Some reading for you:

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

Of all the wars the US has been involved in, we've only declared war four or five times... and since 1973 (when the above was passed), 118 war notifications were issued by the president to congress.

No, that's not a typo.

118.

[Swamp Rat]

38. All humans deserve some sort of 'due process and a trial'

[Rex]

52. Even Karl Rove?

Or did we say he is no longer on the 'humanity' list?

[Swamp Rat]

72. He was incubated in an egg chamber on a distant planet in another solar system

:D

[jberryhill]

91. Yes, he should avail himself of one /nt

[Lyric]

42. To the people answering "OTHER"--I admire your courage.

Seriously. It takes a lot of guts to own up to that, even if only to yourself and the Admins. Good for you.

[anigbrowl]

61. Other: the situation is more complex than presented in the poll

I'm not even in favor of the death penalty and would like to see it repealed, but the legal issues are not as cut-and-dried as they might appear from the way the question is posed.

[Solly Mack]

65. Of course

[Mari333]

68. jesus if this was Bush, this would have a hundred rec's....

:eyes:

[WillyT]

74. Yep...

Funny that... well... not exactly funny...

:shrug:

:hi:

[Dr Morbius]

73. The poll doesn't have an answer that works for me.

Well, the answer is "yes" but it's not necessary immoral for government to do otherwise. Please read on.

Let us ask ourselves this: what is the primary function of government? In my view, the primary function of government is defined by the primary right of its citizenry: there is no greater freedom than the right to live, to draw breath (one hopes supporters of waterboarding are reading this). It took top billing when Tom Jefferson cited, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. And since there is no greater right than the right to life, government has no greater purpose than protecting the people. All government, not just ours.

Do not speak to me of the Constitution; I am quite familiar with it. Let us look deeper. The Constitution is an amazing document, the most brilliant work of its kind in human history, but it is not infallible, and was intended only as a framework for actual governance. Let us think of governance. Let us focus on what government's role ought to be.

Is it wrong for government to kind of "skip over" our treasured concepts of law and justice? Of course it is. Is it wrong for government to allow someone to kill innocent Americans? Also, of course it is. So we find ourselves in a moral quandary: what's more important? The rule of law or the lives of people?

Apparently, answering this question incorrectly means you hate America and all it stands for.

Government should indeed establish justice, and government should certainly obey the law. But the way I see it, government MUST protect the lives of the people, for if it does not, it is not a functional government. It is abdicating its most important responsibility. I figure, damage done to the rule of law, while regrettable, can be undone. Dead people cannot be brought back to life. Life is precious, beyond all reckoning, beyond calculation.

Then there is the matter of justice. Justice is a word with several meanings. Some will say "justice" when they think of appropriate punishment. Appropriate punishment is an aspect of justice. Some will say "justice" when they mean the legal system, which we have charged with determining guilt and applying appropriate punishment. But the original definition of justice is what I mean: justice means everyone getting what they deserve. If you commit a crime, and thereby do harm, it is entirely fair and appropriate - it is just - that you should spend some time incarcerated both so you can learn a lesson and also as an example to society that such harm will not be tolerated. If you're not doing any harm, then justice dictates you should be left alone, not interfered with. Interference is the antithesis of justice. The only thing which is just in this case is freedom; as long as you aren't hurting anyone, you go and have done, do your thing.

Now, acts of violence against society are deemed crimes because obviously, harm is being done. Part of the reason governments exist is to establish justice, which means set up a society where people have a reasonable expectation of not being harmed. Establishing justice means passing and enforcing laws, but it also means preventing harm where possible.

The only time it is ever permissible, in my philosophy, to do harm is to prevent a greater harm, or harm to the innocent. That's my litmus test, my tool to determine whether a harmful act is acceptable or not, whether one calls it "war" or not. If killing this jerk over in Yemen saves American lives, government is not being ridiculous when it decides to take him out. Because that prevents more harm, and preventing harm is what government is for. Among other things.

Were I commander in chief, and I have a guy who's renounced his American citizenship and is actively trying to kill my countrymen from a base in another nation, you bet your sweet ass I'd take him out (assuming capture is impractical)! Just as harm is justifiable in self-defense or defense of family (an extension of self, really), so also harmful acts are justifiable in defense of a people. Whether war is declared or not, this jerk appears to be at war with America.

I suppose a bunch of you would call me all kinds of nasty names for defending this "slippery slope," and I bet some of those nasty names are ones I've heard before. It's all right; I don't much care. But if someone could read what I've written above, and dispassionately explain to me why I'm out of my mind, I'd like to see it. Because as I wrote at the beginning, I've given this some thought and this is the conclusion I've reached.

[protocol rv]

80. As a non American, I am bothered by your attitude

" If killing this jerk over in Yemen saves American lives, government is not being ridiculous when it decides to take him out. "

There seems to be a tendency to value American life to such an extent, you guys are willing to murder a lot of people to keep yourselves safe. But how do you know this "jerk" is indeed a jerk? And do you realize drone attacks kill scores of innocent people when your CIA and military are trying to kill a "jerk"? Quite a few people consider what you are doing high tech terrorism.

[Dr Morbius]

90. So you believe him to be innocent?

Is the problem here a lack of evidence? Is there any doubt he'd be arrested if possible?

Is it not a near certainty that allowing him to continue doing what he's doing will result in more dead Americans?

Is it murder to kill to prevent the killing of the innocent?

As to the drone attacks, that is a separate issue. Let's not cloud this one, please.

[protocol rv]

105. I didn't see the "jerk" on trial

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your news in detail, and I'm not from Yemen.

Could you describe what was the evidence your government said they had? I am familiar with cases where US bombs were dropped on civilians in a food market, and there was no evident reason to do so. It seems to me it was a case of terrorism. And of course we should recall the US murder of the Habr Gidr clan leaders in Mogadishu, and similar events.

If you can show with reasonable evidence the man was about to carry out the killing of an innocent person, then I will tell you what I think.

[EFerrari]

83. You're wrong because you oppose the rule of law with the lives of people

when in fact, the rule of law preserves innocent lives, not the other way around.

[Dr Morbius]

97. Ah. A pretty good answer.

I submit, though, that the rule of law SHOULD preserve innocent lives. But what happens when one must choose, as appears to be the case here? Allow the jerk to continue, and Americans die; kill him, and you've violated the rule of law.

What is the purpose of law? Redressing or preventing harm. All law written for any other purpose is bad law. As governments are made up of people, the law can't necessarily keep up. Do we allow harm for the sake of existing law, or do we change law to suit the goal of law, preventing harm?

[EFerrari]

99. The thing is, we don't know if the jerk continues, more Americans die.

We don't know that.

We have the word of a historically inept intelligence community that he is involved in terrorism. If I was their team manager, I'd fire the whole bench myself.

But let's say we knew to a certainty that he is involved in planning terrorist acts. Let's say, we do know that. I submit the greater harm would be to have this man assassinated and so set the precedent of our government deciding which of its citizens need to be put on such a list.

The rule of law must protect everyone or it doesn't protect anyone, and there is really no getting around that.

[jberryhill]

134. "Historically inept"

You see, this is much like your use of the phrase "track record" in connection with US terror prosecutions.

Intelligence failures are spectacular, because they are not the norm - and, of course, the intelligence process during the Bush administration was intentionally screwed with.

This style of rhetoric becomes very much like "oh, the 'experts' said that Orville and Wilbur Wright couldn't fly" and "the 'experts' said that an atomic bomb was not possible" as some generalized indictment of expertise as a concept, as if anything 'the experts' said is automatically wrong based upon a selected sample of purported 'expert' pronouncements.

Take the Pentagon Papers, for example. What made them shocking was not that the intelligence was wrong - but that it was balls-on correct, and politicians were lying about it.

Likewise, the best intelligence about Iraq, pre-massage room, was that there were no WMD's, no connection to Al Qaeda, and no-fly was containing any regional threat.

In criminal situations generally, we focus strongly on those situations were something went wrong - where someone's rights were violated - as in the cases you noted elsewhere in the thread. But portraying this as the norm is not intellectually honest. The fact is we do have procedures for ensuring the protection of our Constitutional principles, and these are followed more often than they are violated - which is why violations get so much attention. Most people arrested of a crime are in fact guilty of one. That should NOT affect my ability to serve as a potential juror, for example, because that general observation does not provide an answer in any individual case.

However, your reliance on outliers to posit a "track record" or historical ineptitude is not rationally supported.

[mochajava666]

77. Absolutely.

What country is this? Chile during Pinochet? What kind of American doesn't believe in basic human rights like due process under the law?

911 shouldn't have changed us or our constitution, but it did.

We are much more fascist to the point that some posts and comments on DU could be confused with stuff on Free Republic.

[Beacho]

82. When he surrenders peacably, he'll get his due process

When a cop shoots and kills a bank robber that refuses to surrender and is shooting at him, is that 'extra judicial' execution?

And once again, all persons, not just Americans, are entitled to due process if arrested and charged with a crime.

Just because this mutt is an American doesn't give him any 'special' status.

[EFerrari]

86. There is no reason for this individual to surrender, he's not been CHARGED

with anything.

[jberryhill]

94. Neither was the Washington state cop killer

In order to be charged, you need to be arraigned.

Or weren't you aware of when that happens in the order of things?

If I shoot someone on a street and go running away on the sidewalk, there's a good chance a cop is going to shoot me long before I'm CHARGED with anything.

If I turn around and surrender, I'm going to be taken into custody long before I'm CHARGED with anything.

I might even be held for a few days pending charges, in fact. I can get an arraignment before I'm even CHARGED at an initial appearance, depending on whether someone is going to need to run an indictment through a grand jury.

Please, if you are going to say this guy isn't getting due process, familiarize yourself with ordinary crim pro first, so you'll have a basis for comparison.

[EFerrari]

103. Yes, *formally* people are charged at their arraignment.

That's beside the point. Our government has said he can be offed at any time because, well, they say he can.

[jberryhill]

104. Then he would be best advised to get himself arraigned.

But you haven't answered my point about the cop killer in Washington, have you.

[EFerrari]

110. I missed the part in your comparison where you point to a crime in progress.

Are you saying probably cause has been established for this man because he is a Muslim speaking out against US policy? Is that it?

[jberryhill]

118. No, I'm not syaing that

In fact you will note the absence of such words as "muslim" or "US policy" in anything I wrote.

Have you considered an optometrist?

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. If he can be apprehended he'll be brought to trial.

Failing that...

[jberryhill]

87. Can Cops Shoot Bank Robbers?

Nobody has issued a "death sentence" here.

It's odd, because we normally accept the use of deadly force by police in situations where a dangerous criminal cannot be apprehended or does not turn herself or himself in.

If I am holding hostages in a bank, the police sharpshooters will attempt to get a clear shot to kill me. Where is your poll on that ordinary tactic?

[ncteechur]

93. the cleric is no longer a citizen

[EFerrari]

98. Oh, well. Then it's all right to just kill the guy.

:wtf:

[MattBaggins]

127. Under what legal basis?

[Better Today]

96. At first blush, my gut response is "of course they do." Then I get to thinking about real life...

in real life, many suspects (note I am not assuming guilt here, so as not to incur the wrath of those suggesting our gov't might not have it's facts right) end up being shot and killed before they have a chance at a fair trial. Some are shot while caught in a criminal act, some are shot during a chase after a criminal act (at this point it begins to be unclear if the chasee is really the perp), and some are shot days or months later when warrants are attempted to be served. It's not like our regular alleged criminals all get a chance at a trial.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that being brought in alive is not being excluded here, he can come in and have his trial, they might be able to capture to him and bring him in. It's just that if none of that occurs, the door has been opened to fire upon him.

Yesterday some posted a question akin to "is this the same as 'WANTED: DEAD or ALIVE'" and I think it probably is, and though that may or may not be acceptable anymore when referring to the most wanted lists, I'm guessing that being on the most wanted list is sort of an open door for law enforcement to do whatever is necessary to capture or kill that person if capture isn't viable.

Just my two cents.

[Hosnon]

115. The critical issue is the reason for the death. If a cop shoots a suspect only because she

thinks he is guilty, that is unacceptable. But since many crimes, by their nature, take place in dangerous situations, the death of a suspect often can be justified.

[Better Today]

120. How is this different? Seems that the concept of taking him alive isn't off the table, but

instead simply an allowance of killing him has been opened if he resists.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

[MattBaggins]

129. That's why FBI wanted posters say just wanted not dead or alive

He should just be listed as wanted and if he resists arrest appropriate force is to be used.

[Better Today]

132. Isn't that essentially what the directive is? I haven't seen anything that

calls for his outright assassination, though many are attempting to turn it into that.

Again, perhaps there's something about the actual wording of this that I'm missing or misinterpreting, but it seems to me it was an opening of the door to allowing the killing.

Surely by now, this guy knows the admin is hunting for him, he could just go to an embassy he's comfortable with (perhaps not the US Embassy) and negotiate his safe return for trial.

[Hosnon]

130. Oh I was responding to your specific post, not the topic in general.

But there's nothing necessarily wrong with killing an American citizen, as long as the circumstances justify it (e.g., armed resistance to arrest).

[onenote]

114. not sure what you mean by "deserve"?

Does an American citizen who enters the Holocaust museum and starts shooting up the place "deserve" due process and a trial before being taken out by law enforcement using deadly force?

Whether or not they "deserve" it, they're not entitled to it under the Constitution. It has been held not to be a violation of a person's Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution for deadly force to be used against them in certain circumstances.

So, to the extent that the question as posed assumes an absolute -- either American citizens deserve (or are entitled) to due process in every instance or they never deserve or are entitled to due process and a trial is a false dichotomy.

[huskerlaw]

121. Absolutely, yes.

It makes no different to me (nor should it to anyone else) what the American citizen was doing or where he/she was doing it. If you are an American citizen then you have the right of due process. Period. There's no *unless the government... in the Constitution. In fact, the very purpose of the due process clause is to ward against the government (or people employed by the government) convicting people without a trial.

If the government has proof of terrorist activities, let the government present the proof in court. There are ways to seal the trial, etc. to ensure that the safety of the US isn't compromised.

How is this even a debatable question? Anyone who answered no needs a serious Constitutional law/American history refresher course.

[onenote]

135. do you believe that the Constitution "absolutely" bars the use of deadly force against someone

who hasn't been arrested and convicted of the criminal activity triggering the use of deadly force?

For example, do you think that the Holocaust Museum shooter's constitutional rights were violated when he was shot by security guards without first being arrested and tried.

Or does your "absolutely" carry with it an asterisk for certain circumstances?

[huskerlaw]

138. Of course not.

Our statutes that define murder have exceptions. In this case, you'd be talking about self-defense. If someone is in the act of doing something that is likely to immediately lead to the death or serious injury of someone else (like the Holocaust Museum shooter, who was in the process of killing people), then people have the right to defend themselves.

That actually doesn't mean that the shooter didn't retain his due process rights. The security guards did break the law and commit murder. However, there's a defense to murder in that case. But I guarantee you there was an investigation into the situation to ascertain whether or not the shooter was actually shooting and whether or not self-defense was warranted. Nobody got to just declare it to be a legitimate use of force, unquestioned and uninvestigated.

Regardless, that isn't the situation that the OP was referring to.

[onenote]

140. the poster I was addressing used the word "absolutely" not me

And also tied due process to the right to have a trial. You at least are willing to acknowledge that the Fifth AMendment right to due process and, in particular, the right to a trial, is not "absolute." THere are circumstances where the government can deprive a person of his or her life and liberty without an arrest or a trial. SCOTUS decisions recognize it. The Model Penal Code recognizes it. And the rules of engagement/rules for use of deadly force by those charged with maintaining public safety recognize it. People can disagree on whether authorizing the use of deadly force against al-Alwaki falls or should fall within an exception. But those who argue that there is an absolute right to a trial before the state can deprive one of life or liberty have not engaged in that analysis.

[huskerlaw]

141. The big difference being...

in all of the examples you used, there is always some sort of investigation into the use of force (with the exception of wartime, which is a different situation altogether). If a police officer shoots someone in the line of duty, there's an investigation. If someone shoots someone else in self defense, there's an investigation. What the Obama administration is proposing lacks that last little piece. There's no mechanism for ensuring that the denial of due process was done as an absolute last resort (as is required by the MPC, SCOTUS, etc). It's proof by "because we said so," which isn't the standard anywhere else in the law for denying due process to an American citizen.

It comes down to this: the only legitimate way to deny due process is because you had no choice but to kill the person, due to the fact that they were in the process of (or about to start) killing or seriously injuring others. If there's any question about the necessity of the action, you end up on trial for murder where you can then attempt to prove that your action fell into one of the defenses for homicide. Period.

[onenote]

142. why couldn't the estate of al-Alwaki bring an action claiming his due process rights were denied

to him?

Seems to me that there is the possibility of the post-h0c review that you claim is essential.

[huskerlaw]

144. Who would his family sue?

Obama? The Justice Department? The military?

Also, that would be a civil case, not a criminal one. That's like saying that Ron Goldman's family got justice for his murder because they won a civil judgment against OJ. I think they'd beg to differ.

Or do you think it's a good idea for the government to be able to assassinate American citizens without having to prove anything, so long as they were willing to pay off the family?

[onenote]

151. the use of sec 1983 suits is a common way of addressing the issue of whether

an individual's due process rights were violated. The leading supreme court case on when the use of deadly force is constitutional was a sec 1983 case brought by the estate of the suspect who the police shot against the state.

[huskerlaw]

155. So his family would sue the person who shot him?

That doesn't make any sense in this case, nor does it address the real issue. If the POTUS is the one making the order to kill, then POTUS is the one who should bear the legal responsibility. There's no legal precedence for that, because we've never allowed this to happen before. Because, well, because it's unconstitutional. Which is the point of this entire thread.

[huskerlaw]

139. Dupe. nt

[unblock]

126. WRONG FRAME: it's not about what citizens deserve; it's about what the GOVERNMENT deserves

no GOVERNMENT deserves the power to incarcerate or execute its subjects without due process, including a fair, speedy trial by a jury of peers.

shifting the focus onto the accused, especially if the accused can be painted as vile, makes it far too easy to think it right to hand over this power to the government.

our founders understood this concept because the british abused that power against them.


IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO EXECUTE, WITHOUT TRIAL, THE GUILTY
THEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO EXECUTE, WITHOUT TRIAL, THE INNOCENT.

[EFerrari]

133. Geezus, thank you.

[Luminous Animal]

156. Yep. That's it!

You are one smart cookie!

[unblock]

162. nothing i wasn't taught in high school

apparently, at some point, someone decided that american history classes should stop teaching what the constitution was all about.

damn shame, that.

[cbdo2007]

128. The hilarious thing here are all the people on DU who assume guilt all the time

on all sorts of people without them being found guilty in a court of law.

Get off your high horse people...sometimes you believe in due process, sometimes you don't.

[unblock]

137. the distinction is usually obvious and stark, and with good reason

the GOVERNMENT needs to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt before it can imprison or execute (if we even accept execution at all).

the PUBLIC is free to form its opinion however it pleases, however. prudent skeptics prefer to wait for at least a bit of credible information to go on, but the standards for having an opinion are very different from the standards of imposing a government punishment.

nothing inconsistent about that.

[jberryhill]

143. Were Bonnie & Clyde's Rights Violated

Here they are:



No trial.

Was this a violation of their Constitutional rights?

[unblock]

146. not familiar enough with the details

in general, i believe the police should do what it can to make arrests as peaceful as reasonably possible.

if the suspect starts shooting, their preferred response should NOT be to shoot back, but rather to protect themselves, contain the threat, and wait it out. if peaceful means are impossible, and the suspect is demonstrably a clear and present danger, then yes, it's permissible to take action without a trial, NOT in an attempt to punish or to execute, but in an attempt to end the clear and present danger. if this can be done without death, that is to be preferred (e.g., try tear gas or other non-lethal weapons before bullets).

[jberryhill]

147. I agree with you

But you are also permitting the police to determine the scope and immediacy of the danger, the reasonableness of alternatives, etc. on their own, and then killing someone without a trial, charge, indictment, etc.

The issue in this instance is whether you trust the determination of those factors by this administration. The principles are all the same.

This would seem to amount to a warrant of some kind, and perhaps there could be a similar procedure.

[unblock]

150. in the moment, yes, i'd permit the police to make that determination

but i think there need to be reasonable standards and accountability, and in practice i don't think we have them.

there needs to be a realistic, effective method to discipline the police when they use force inappropriately. in practice, we pretty much only have that the officer can be temporarily suspended or even fired in the exceptional cases that are made into public scandals and in even more extreme cases, the officer might be prosecuted. but the perception, at least, is that this sort of discipline is extremely rare, and consequently, the actions that the police take may not be checked as they should be.

it is of great concern to give this power to the government and therefore we need effective checks against abuse.

[onenote]

152. there also is civil liability for denying someone their constitutional rights

Even the families of the folks killed or wounded at Ruby Ridge, for whom I have no fondness, ended up receiving substantial settlements from the government after they sued alleging that the shootings were unconstitutional.

[jberryhill]

168. Good points

And, it looks as if there is going to be a murder prosecution coming out of the Katrina bridge shooting.

[Luminous Animal]

165. The killing of Bonnie & Clyde was a horrific act of vigilantism.

And, truth be told, at the time, the U.S. public would have cheered if it had gone the other way. That is, if Bonnie & Clyde had gotten the jump on law enforcement and shot the crap out of them, the U.S. public would have quivered with anticipation until the next show down.

[Luminous Animal]

157. People will express an opinion but they are barred from exacting "justice"...

based on that opinion.

[Iggo]

136. That's what "due" means.

[Toasterlad]

145. We Have These Laws Precisely BECAUSE We Might Be the Next "Bad Guy"

The only way a democracy works is if the law applies equally to ALL. But of course, we haven't lived in a true democracy in a very long time, if ever.

[aikoaiko]

148. They should get a reasonable chance to turn themselves in first

After that if they are still a clear and present danger -- drop a hellfire missile on their heads

[deaniac21]

159. This is dumb. You don't give enough information to even know

what you are talking about.

[Luminous Animal]

166. What other kind of information are you looking for?

That is, what kind of scenarios could you present where an American would not have Constitutional rights?

[treestar]

161. Yes and so do other people