Leon Panetta’s explicitly authoritarian decree

[JackLuis]

Leon Panetta’s explicitly authoritarian decree

CBS News‘ Scott Pelley appears to be one of the very few American journalists bothered by, or even interested in, the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to target U.S. citizens for execution-by-CIA without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield.

As the Supreme Court put it in 1956, specifically discussing the requirement that a citizen be given a trial before punishment can be doled out (emphasis added):

At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. This is not a novel concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government.

Which is right? The President or the Supreme Court?

 

[ChinaBandit]

When it comes to any nation's perception of what constitutes self defense and "why" it's best not to engage in ANY behavior that appears to fuck with it.

Awlaki may have been a great guy but at the very least failed to follow the common sense of my previous statement.

 

[eyer]

Which is right? The President or the Supreme Court?

Calm down, Jack...

...that Supreme Court example is sooo 1956; as some of our "expert" legal commentators here would say: the Court back then had no way of knowing how our world today would work, so what they ruled then really isn't relevant today - besides, you do know there's a War on Terror going on and America is now its primary battlefield, right?

Alas, don't fret...

...Jimmy Olsen's uncle Corporal Hogan will be along shortly to "school" you in the fact that a President can indeed assassinate an American citizen without due process because the Office has been given that unconstitutional authority against "enemy combatants", but you don't have to worry about a President indefinitely detaining American citizens without due process because...well...because Corporal Hogan doesn't read the NDAA2012 that way and, besides, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled any different yet anyway.

And if it ever does get as bad as you seem to worry it may...

...don't panic then, either, because the Corporal asserts the government has every right to demand you not resist - in any way whatsoever - when they conduct an illegal search and/or seizure, because you always have due process to save your day.

Unless, of course, the government doesn't cede you due process, which happens if they choose to assassinate you, which...

...anyway, I'd call you some names like "imbecile" or "idiot" for even thinking the way you're doing above, but that would be imitating the Corporal and I don't really want to mock him too much because he's probably padding his new SS check with a stipend for being a govt rat and I just don't want to be "assigned" to a FEMA camp just yet.

Hope this helps...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hope this helps...

May not have helped him, but it saved me a lot of time. Thnx.

 

[JackLuis]

Calm down, Jack...

Hope this helps...

I suppose it is too much to expect our President to acknowledge the Constitution actually limits his actions. Just as it is to be expected that no one will question his actions, no matter how egregious, because we are "At War" with a bunch of ragheads who we can only assert are terrorists, because their mangeled bodies are littering the countryside?

I suppose we have to agree with the President that not all men are created equal, only those who vote Democratic?

and I don't take The Corpral seriously, anyone can see he's been brain damaged by his service.

 

[GracefullyYours]

Which is right? The President or the Supreme Court?

This is interesting.

I think, by definition, the Constitution is correct and absolute. Citizens abroad still enjoy the same rights as those within the country...thus the whole idea of "citizenship" instead of location or residence.

This begs the question, however, about how the US would bring a strongly suspected - yet not convicted - terrorist or other criminal to justice. In most cases, we rely on the governments of other countries for assistance with apprehending and extraditing criminals. The obvious problem is that someone like Anwar Awlaki who's hiding in Yemen is going to be a lot harder and more dangerous to find than some white-collar criminal chilling in a London flat.

In the specific case of Awlaki, he was tried in absentia for murder, and a judge did order that he be apprehended dead or alive. I think his assassination, therefore, was more of an execution and in keeping with the judgment of the courts in the country where he was hiding.

 

[JackLuis]

This is interesting.

I think, by definition, the Constitution is correct and absolute. Citizens abroad still enjoy the same rights as those within the country...thus the whole idea of "citizenship" instead of location or residence.

This begs the question, however, about how the US would bring a strongly suspected - yet not convicted - terrorist or other criminal to justice. In most cases, we rely on the governments of other countries for assistance with apprehending and extraditing criminals. The obvious problem is that someone like Anwar Awlaki who's hiding in Yemen is going to be a lot harder and more dangerous to find than some white-collar criminal chilling in a London flat.

In the specific case of Awlaki, he was tried in absentia for murder, and a judge did order that he be apprehended dead or alive. I think his assassination, therefore, was more of an execution and in keeping with the judgment of the courts in the country where he was hiding.

I hadn't heard that Awlaki was convicted by any court. Was this an Austrailain court, because it appears that Kangaroos were on the jury.

 

[GracefullyYours]

I hadn't heard that Awlaki was convicted by any court. Was this an Austrailain court, because it appears that Kangaroos were on the jury.

Uh...yeah.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-17/...-yemeni-government-official-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011117133558339969.html

He was sentenced to 10 years, but they ordered him captured or killed....

 

[JohnnySavage]

Hogan really gave Eyer some butthurt that's still stinging.

 

[mustang200]

How many Divisions does the SCOTUS have?

Might makes right, it says so right here.

 

[JackLuis]

Uh...yeah.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-17/...-yemeni-government-official-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011117133558339969.html

He was sentenced to 10 years, but they ordered him captured or killed....

Thanks for the link, now I can feel so much better knowing that our Government enforces the dictates of foriegn courts. Maybe we'll even side with the Italian Courts on the CIA kidnappers?

 

[phrodeau]

Referring to Colonel Hogan as "Corporal Hogan" is apparently supposed to be derogatory, but it really isn't.

 

[GracefullyYours]

Thanks for the link, now I can feel so much better knowing that our Government enforces the dictates of foriegn courts.

I have always assumed that if I kill someone in Spain....I'll have my ass handed to me in Spain.

I've operated under the belief that if I killed women in Aruba and Peru....I'd get caught and put on trial in Peru.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JackLuis]

You can also be sure that if you make war against the United States from foreign soil the Commander in Chief can and will hunt you down and kill your ass if the need arises, the SCOTUS notwithstanding.

Of that I have no doubt. The self defence argument is valid, but it hardly applies to giving the Military police powers without judicial review. There is such a thing as exteamisim in any cause.

Leon is paying the price for his toeing the line with the fearful. I'll bet he is loosing sleep for betraying his oath to the Constitution.

Preemptive vilolence is always subject to critisim, and is often the choice of those of limited imagination and paitence. But it is a grey area, that is who's carrer is advanced in the petty beauracy by killing a mouthpiece, and his kid brother?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Anwar Awlaki was waging war against the United States, there is no question of this.

It may be instructive to read the following:

U.S. Supreme Court
EX PARTE QUIRIN
317 U.S. 1 (1942)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html


Though this case is not analogous to the Awlaki case it is instructive as to the breadth of the war powers of the President. In this case an American citizen was captured, charged, tried, by military tribunal, and executed, under the powers of the Commander in Chief which are upheld by the SCOTUS in this case. The government even suggested that a citizen by his actions renounces his citizenship:

"The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html

If you want to amuse yourself, look up how many times over the years that Vetteman resorts to Ex Parte Quirin when he is getting his ass handed to him.

This is Vetty's 38th Quirin-related whine. First in 2012.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If you want to amuse yourself, look up how many times over the years that Vetteman resorts to Ex Parte Quirin when he is getting his ass handed to him.

This is Vetty's 38th Quirin-related whine. First in 2012.

I just don't understand why a 'conservative' who advocates for a smaller government, with less burden on the taxpayers, that stays within the bounds of the Constitution, would be so gung-ho on giving the President unrestricted power.

It's a head scratcher.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I just don't understand why a 'conservative' who advocates for a smaller government, with less burden on the taxpayers, that stays within the bounds of the Constitution, would be so gung-ho on giving the President unrestricted power.

It's a head scratcher.

Deep down, Vetty is a crypto-Fascist. He values order above all. Making decisions is difficult for him.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Deep down, Vetty is a crypto-Fascist. He values order above all. Making decisions is difficult for him.

1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

To be fair, take out the "severe economic... regimentation" clause, and tell me who the rest of it describes - exactly.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Okay, I thought this thread would die a quick natural death, but I forgot how much stupid people like to wallow in their own stupidity. My bad.

The 1956 Supreme Court case JackLuis referenced is Reid v. Covert. Not that Jack would know that since he actually only referenced a Salon article that did not identify the specific case.

Clarice Covert killed her husband, an Air Force Sergeant, while he was stationed in England where they both lived at the time of the homicide. She was subsequently tried and convicted by an AIR FORCE COURT-MARTIAL UNDER ARTICLE 118 OF THE UCMJ despite her not being a member of the armed forces. She was sentenced to life in prison. The court-martial asserted jurisdiction over Covert by virtue of UCMJ Article 2(11) which encompassed "all persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States. . . ." Emphasis added.

Covert essentially appealed a verdict that the Supreme Court found invalid due to the UCMJ's unconstitutional jurisdictional reach. Her act was simply a common homicide committed by a civilian which should have been prosecuted in a normal United States criminal court via extradition treaties between the U. S. and England.

NONE of these facts are applicable to the law of war under which Anwar Alwaki was targeted as an enemy combatant against the United States and subject to the use of military force as authorized by the 2001 AUMF and the latest funding authorization by the NDAA 2012.

As Kenneth Roth wrote in a 2004 article for Foreign Affairs:

"In times of war, law-enforcement rules are supplemented by a more permissive set of rules: namely, international humanitarian law, which governs conduct during armed conflict. Under such "war rules," unlike during peacetime, an enemy combatant can be shot without warning (unless he or she is incapacitated, in custody, or trying to surrender), regardless of any imminent threat. If a combatant is captured, he or she can be held in custody until the end of the conflict, without any trial."

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59524/kenneth-roth/the-law-of-war-in-the-war-on-terror

A cursory glance at any war the United States has ever fought shows that to be true. No specific legislation has ever been passed, nor have the rules within the UCMJ been amended, to require soldiers to determine the citizenship status of combatants prior to firing their weapons in combat. POWs of both sides are routinely held without trial until the termination of hostilities whereupon they are repatriated to their home countries -- again without trial (assuming they've committed no war crimes).

Enemy combatants captured and taken as prisoners who turn out to be citizens of the very country which has captured them admittedly present a novel legal issue. That is even more true of someone like Awlaki who openly embraced the characterization of himself as a leader in the organization with which we are at war. It's not the sort of treason one sees every day.

But until the Supreme Court resolves these issues, if ever, it is hardly surprising that the United States would continue to conduct its war making powers as it has in the past and as described by author Roth.

And if the Supreme Court ever dictates special procedural rules for traitorous enemy combatants, it will do so in the context of the applicable laws of war and the status of the individual as a voluntary combatant in service to the enemy.

It's not likely to have a damned thing to do with the decision handed down in Reid v. Covert. If you're going to quote the law as precedent, it would help if you knew something about it.

*******************

Vetteman is correct that Ex Parte Quirin provides a relevant historical context regarding the treatment of Americans fighting against the United States in war time. Although it is probably NOT the strongest legal precedent at this time due to a number of factors involved in how the Court arrived at and published its opinion, it is also true that SCOTUS today would not likely repudiate the entire Quirin rationale which moved it toward its conclusion.

It is beyond reason to believe that treason itself has evolved to a legal status where it is constitutionally protected.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Thanks for quoting the idiot insisting I'm getting my ass handed to me on this subject. Rob is envious he had to learn of the existence of Ex Parte Quirin from me. I only brought t it up to bring some historical perspective to a discussion that always marvels at the the excesses of Presidential power, as if it has never happened in history before, or that there is no historical precedent for certain actions by the POTUS. It's neither an argument for or against such authority, only that it isn't unique to our history. It is also instructive as to the limits the SCOTUS will go when it comes to the powers of the CinC in war time.

I'm not interested in re-fighting this battle with you. Bottom line: Ex Parte Quirin was decided in the 1940s and limited by subsequent court decisions since then. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge these amendments, and cling doggedly to your own interpretation of the original decision, unable or unwilling to acknowledge subsequent rulings.

 

[Sean]

I'm not interested in re-fighting this battle with you. Bottom line: Ex Parte Quirin was decided in the 1940s and limited by subsequent court decisions since then. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge these amendments, and cling doggedly to your own interpretation of the original decision, unable or unwilling to acknowledge subsequent rulings.

CJ has slapped him around for that before. He never learns.