Confused by the whole ACLU/Obama/US citizen debate going on here.

[vaberella]

Meaning is it legal or not, and so on. Edited to add: I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just asking the questions here. But that's because I'm really confused and I don't know if I'm missing something or misinterpreting something. Thanks in advance guys.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I need some clarity and I'm not running on anything here. I've made comments but overall I'm ambivalent about how I feel about this because we don't have that much information on this topic.

I will not address the drone attacks considering I remember Turley was saying that it's iffy overall to determine whether this is unconstitutional since international law doesn't really address drone attacks so it's iffy but by his estimation at least unethical if not illegal. However, there is no denying he's against the drone strikes.
The article from NYT says drone attacks are legal: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/drone-strikes-are-legal-u-s-official-says/

But some people don't agree with NYT articles, so that's up in the air.

Turley comment...however I was commenting on Turley's comments on this on KO's show, but this is similar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMWtvAp2-aM

But again this is not the bulk of my problem, actually not a problem at all, just something I decided to address since it's been clumped in with this issue in a few posts.
---------------------------------------------------

Anyway, my main concern is this American citizen thing. I'm going by the talk of his actions being treasonous. Let's say his actions were determined to be treasonous, wouldn't that make this constitutional. A lot of people have said this is not constitutional and you may be right. However I looked up this part of the Constitution on treason (Article 3, Section 3), and I'm no Constitutional lawyer so I'm going by interpretations, but if this thing falls into treasonous, from what I read it's not unconstitutional as so many has claimed. But please, please correct me if I'm wrong.

To digress a bit from the article, Jack Rice was on KO's show last night and he said he didn't agree with this unless there was enough evidence to justify the actions and if there was is, then Obama's actions (if this is confirmed) are in the right. Now a few people on there said otherwise...but I will put up the quote by KO and the ex-CIA guy Jack Rice:

KO: And there's the Devil's Advocate question, assuming Awalaki is guilty and is actively trying to kill Americans not just advocating that, not just advocating that which is what he started at, but actually involved is this not exactly what the Obama administration should be doing?

ex-CIA JR: Absolutely. Again, assume is really the effective word here. We have to be able to make that call. We're not talking about wrapping him in a warm blanket and rocking him like a young child. We're talking about knowing what we're doing and ensuring that when we make a decision it's the right one. And that's what you and I are discussing right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x452857

Let me be clear, JR is by and large against this action. However, he did make his final statement to elude that if there is enough evidence then it's justified. Here in lies one of my problems. Why was it unconstitutional before hand, and until apparently we're running on the gambit Obama doesn't have enough evidence. But it completely changes if he does have enough supporting evidence...wouldn't it remain unconstitutional because the guy is a US citizen?


This leads me to the whole treason thing again. Please keep in mind I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I can be wrong on this and I'm using wiki if that tells you where I am on this. I found this on treason:

To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason <---Scroll down to the US section.


Again I'm not trying to make any claims here or justifying any actions. Unlike what some people would like to believe. However, I will say that this gives me the impression that Congress can give permission to take someone out without a court trial as long as they have two witnesses who can give Testimony (assuming to Congress) to the same overt Act. On KO they make mention that this kid---that plane bomber was probably taking his orders from this guy. And I'm not sure if the US has anyone else in custody. But from what I see, if they have two people who can say without a shadow of a doubt this guy was planning on killing Americans and they have other evidence, a court case (as we normally see them) is not necessary. Again, I'm not justifying anything since I support criminal cases brought to these people in the US. However, I just want some clarity on this. Am I interpreting this wrong, is this unconstitutional or constitutional if this guy is considered treasonous----is his actions treasonous?

Let me know...because as I said...overall I'm just confused on all this. I know there are many here who just think this is unjustifiable. But I'm saying, what if there is enough information, or let's say this guy falls in line with acts of treason (again because I've seen that thrown out there on this board).

[JonLP24]

1. I'm no lawyer either

but I think the key word is convicted. How do you convict someone of treason without a trial? Also Article 3 establishes the Judicial Branch which I don't think is the President's call to declare him guilty of treason without a trial.

[vaberella]

2. Ooh, just read what you read....rereading again. Okay reread---

It seems that the "trial" is not normal murder trial. What kind of trial do we normally give in these cases...?! I'm about to give up on this. What it is I don't know. Because only the British law has acts of treason to follow a proper court case. Is there something different or another format for the US? Have we had a case of treason in recent history----20th Century I mean.

[treestar]

21. Do we have to go through the whole process for someone actively on

the other side? Say there was a US citizen who joined the Nazi army. We could still fight that unit. We don't have to roll over and wait until the US citizen surfaces to give him his trial.

It's not a matter of treason but of being out there fighting for the enemy. He can be treated like anyone else so doing.

This question arises only because people think greater rights belong to US citizens, and that nonUS citizens are some sort of inferior beings.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. re: Treason and Constitutionality

The question is not whether treason can be punishable by death. The question is whether treason can be punishable by death without due process of law.

Congress cannot substitute its judgment for a trial. Neither can the President.

Your arguments or thoughts about treason miss the point that treason is a crime.

Everything follows from that fact. It is a crime with penalties and standards of evidence... the testimony of two witnesses clause establishes beyond any doubt that we are talking about a trial.

Any only the judicial branch holds trials that result in criminal penalties.

Note that even in the rare case when Congress holds something like a trial, an impeachment, that congress could hold a trial and hear evidence as to whether the president murdered his wife and determine that the president DID murder his wife yet that determination by congress could carry no criminal weight.

The president would continue to walk free. (Just not as president.) To apply the penalty for murder would require a normal murder trial in court.

In fact, the constitution that defines treason is plain on congress' inability to act against an individual without due process. A bill saying "John Doe is a terrorist and ought to be blown up" would be a constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.

[vaberella]

4. Now that's a good explanation. Thank you.

See, I understood the trial aspect but it was lost on me the power of Congress as described in the Constitution to to hold a "trial"and for this to stick---since I thought that was only part of the judiciary directive. And considering Congress is not the Judicial branch they shouldn't be able to exercise that sort of power. But it seemed it was given that allowance in the case of treason.

So you wouldn't call Congress' trial, a trial then? Also did you see the video with Rice. Why does he say if Obama's evidence justifies the action, then Obama is fine...but wouldn't the action still be unconstitutional nonetheless--or is when we are in a time of 'war' which I use loosely, it's okay?

[Clio the Leo]

5. Eleven US states rose up in armed treason against the Fed. gvmtn.

.... and we didn't hold a trial ... we just started shooting (because they were shooting at us.)

And then, 140 years later, Gov. McDonald decided to honor them! Whoohoo! :sarcasm:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Insurrection is not treason.

Treason is a narrow, specific crime.

[Clio the Leo]

7. True. Our accusations of al-Alawi are misplaced. NT

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Any American citizen knowingly assisting al Queada is probably committing treason

If I were on the jury I might nullify the charge because we are not in a declared war and I think treason requires a declared war to exist as a crime.

(Even the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason! Executed for espionage.)

But if we are at war with al Queada than any citizen assisting them is a traitor.

AND (this is important) the liability for assisting al Queda is GREATER for an American citizen. A foreigner cannot be guilty of treason.

So there is a trade-off... if someone's citizenship is a basis for being a traitor then they ought to be treated like a citizen.

[DevonRex]

11. He has not been charged with treason. nt

[DevonRex]

9. And this guy hasn't been charged with treason anyway. It's not the issue. nt

[vaberella]

13. I realized this..but it was discussed and brought up in other threads which added to my confusion.

Which I had mentioned in my post.

[DevonRex]

15. Yep, I was confused by it, too. And if you hadn't posted I would have

remained confused. :)

[DevonRex]

8. AFAIK he has not been charged with treason, so delving into the

process of law required to prove treason and punish him for it if convicted is not relevant here. It's a distraction from the real issue.

The ACLU says we need more information on how a person is put on this list and I agree with that. From a Common Dreams article posted here earlier, which doesn't give a link to this ACLU statement:

"The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's report raises serious questions about the legal standards that govern targeted killings. The American public deserves to know what standard the government uses and how much evidence is required when it decides, in the name of self-defense or otherwise, to place U.S. citizens on a kill list. In order to assess the moral, legal and strategic implications of the program, the public also needs information about how the program is overseen and what its consequences are in terms of civilian casualties." "


From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

From WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121_pf.html

"He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." The official stressed that there are "careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens."

Aulaqi corresponded by e-mail with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., last year. Aulaqi is not believed to have helped plan the attack, although he praised Hasan in an online posting for carrying it out.

Concern grew about the cleric's role after he was linked to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by detonating an explosive device he had smuggled in his underwear. Aulaqi acknowledged teaching and corresponding with the Nigerian but denied ordering the attack.

From the LAT: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/31/world/la-fg-cia-awlaki31-2010jan31

"Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.

Awlaki's status as a U.S. citizen requires special consideration, according to former officials familiar with the criteria for the CIA's targeted killing program. But while Awlaki has not yet been placed on the CIA list, the officials said it is all but certain that he will be added because of the threat he poses.

"If an American is stupid enough to make cause with terrorists abroad, to frequent their camps and take part in their plans, he or she can't expect their citizenship to work as a magic shield," said another U.S. official. "If you join the enemy, you join your fate to his."

[vaberella]

12. Well I also put it as a side issue in my post.

If you notice I put a link to an interview between KO and an ex-CIA agent who stated if there is not enough evidence, or evidence that we know of that this is unheard of being done to an American citizen. I agree with that, but at the end of his statement when KO plays devil's advocate he actually says Obama's actions would be justified if there is enough evidence at hand that this guy is working to take us out.

I want to know why it's justified then, and we're not looking at any court proceedings taking place.

However, upon reading your post carefully a few times...I guess the ex-CIA would agree with the statements made in the article. Obama would be in the right to authorize the taking out of this guy if he poses an imminent threat. The debate, correct me if I'm wrong, is just on what needs to be done or links that need to be had to be put on this list? So it has little to do with Obama's authority---in the specific sense, but more to do with this list and there for his power in the general sense?

[DevonRex]

14. You got it exactly right. The issue is how a person gets put on this list.

I think it's obvious that we will never be privy to all the specific details about any one individual that is on the list. That would endanger any operatives involved and jeopardize ongoing intelligence gathering. We've known this from the beginning. The new issue here is that it's the first American citizen that's on the list because he has is actively planning attacks on the US and has actually been in close contact with people who HAVE attacked the US, i.e., the Ft. Hood shooter and the Christmas Day thwarted airplane attack.

It was your part about KO and the ex-CIA agent that made me remember the statements made in those articles that I linked to. I just hadn't really thought much about what they said until I read your post, so I'm grateful to you for helping me understand it better.

At the very least I think we need to know more, just as the ACLU says. And as usual, the ACLU identified the issue quite clearly.

[vaberella]

17. You and Kurt_and_Hunter cleared up a lot of things for me.

I was seriously lost as to what was going on. Because I was trying to figure out what was constitutional and what wasn't...alongside treason because that's what everyone on the board was talking about. While it now seems when I look at the ACLU argument and your statements, that this is about the list criteria and not so much about the actions taken in order to eliminate the threat these "alleged" criminals have done.

Now I see the direction of the other threads was a bit more...misleading the actual article itself. I've come to see the constitutionality and legality of some of the issues seem to be questionable not only in our own Constitution which doesn't address a lot of the present threats we're dealing with and the forefathers rarely dealt with or to the extreme we're currently dealing with and also the other aspects of international law which play a role in our we also do overseas dealings.

In any case, when it comes to the list and how people get on it---American or otherwise, I definitely would like to know too. Plus I'd love to see the evidence, but I do agree with you much of it we will not be privy too especially if there are active investigations and missions currently in affect that may be jeopardized by releasing said information.


Not to mention this action makes me highly suspicious that there was an imminent or direct threat in the coming days or weeks that put this guy on the list though since he was teetering there for a while. And there seems to be a direct link between him and several people who have attacked or attempted attacks on our citizens. Interesting.

Thanks so much for your responses.

[DevonRex]

16. Forgot to say I recommended your post. K&R nt

[vaberella]

Thanks. Hopefully it will be as helpful to the other lost souls on this issue. n/t

[DevonRex]

22. I'm betting that anyone who is willing to look at this objectively

will come to the conclusion that the ACLU's questions are the ones that need to be answered.

[cliffordu]

18. Handling treason like the Benedict Arnold kind might not cover this.....

IF he in fact is actively working to kill Americans through and with al quaeda - if he is in fact acting as an enemy combatant, how and where can due process come in to play?

He can turn himself in (call CNN, they'd be glad to handle the surrender) and go to trial and have all the due process available.

Or he can keep working with wannabe suicide bombers and turn into a red mist one of these days.

[vaberella]

19. Yes, we've established that.

Or we can capture him alive. But the drone attacks---although no talk of droning Yemen, might deter that. Another thing though that DevonRex cleared up for me is the real argument by the ACLU. It's not so much his actions or even Obama's authority to put his name on the list as a threat that needs to be killed. That's unfortunately the misleading arguments provided by the posters of said article. This is why I didn't get this whole Treason thing thrown into the discussion and yet, other people on shows stating quite clearly that if this guy is doing what he's doing and he's guilty and we have the evidence then Obama should be exercising this sort of action.


Unfortunately people were arguing the constitutionality which doesn't really seem to play a role in the entire play of what the ACLU is asking for. The ACLU is asking for the criteria---what evidence or list of transgressions puts you on the list...because if an American can be put on the list and that goes for any American who are born with certain unalienable rights and of course rights granted by the Constitution itself---what would we have to do or what would other Americans have to meet in order be put in the same place as him. And I think this where the real argument comes in and I think this is a good question and I support this inquiry.

I was more ambivalent on the actions taken because if this guy is set on taking out his fellow Americans, I have little to no sympathy---due process my ass. However, again he is granted rights that need to be adhered to by our own laws. But if he's actively engaged to the point where his threat is clear and present (which we may not have access to such evidence) then I find that Obama would be in the right to pursue this guy to the full extent of his capability. I think the ACLU recognizes this and this was also one of the things that led to another bit of my confusion when I saw the interview between KO and the ex CIA guy JR. JR is against this, until KO asked...What if Obama did have the information and the criminal evidence backing his actions---Could he do what he just did...and JR said ABSOLUTELY. <----This really threw me off. I thought the problem was constitution so why would JR say Obama could do what he did without a problem. I get the feeling the ACLU agrees with this and they just want to know how to get on said list.


Of course this is an interpretation DevonRex and I came up with and I must Kurt_and_Hunter helped a great deal.

[treestar]

20. Anyone can claim to be a US citizen

Like any legal point, it can't be settled in courts because the nature of war does not allow courts to be held.

A good thing there is birthright citizenship, or this guy might not be a citizen.

But there was another Al Qaeda member whom, I recall, was born in Louisiana, but taken back to the Middle East at the age of two or three, never returned, and came to hate the country of his birth on much the same terms as other Al Qaeda members, who may never have been there, did.

There should be no magic to being born on US soil, and no extra chance this guy should get to create a terrorist attack due to where he was born. Treat him like other Al Qaeda members and that's fine.