Can the President Order Your Death Wtihout Due Process?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grayma

Grayma

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
956
Reaction score
0
Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical? Can the president be judge, jury and executioner of an American in a foreign country because he believes that would keep America safe? Can Congress authorize the president to do this?

Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process -- a public jury trial -- with the president's own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing. Without mentioning the name of the American the president recently ordered killed, Holder suggested that the president's careful consideration of the case of New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki constituted a substituted form of due process.

Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki's alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substituted form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process. Due process has numerous components, too numerous to address here, but the essence of it is "substantive fairness" and a "settled fair procedure." Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty or property, the government must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone -- American or foreign -- it hated or feared.
Click to expand...

More at the link. Not even Bush did this.
 
I'm torn on this one. :hmm:

There are many questions involved.

Do American rights cover Americans in foreign countries, or does the Constitution stop at our borders? (American embassies and military bases and ships excepted.) I know that Americans come under the laws of the nations in which they travel or live, same as foreigners come under our laws when they come to America. (Excepting those with diplomatic immunity.)

Does the President have the authority to kill anyone in countries where we haven't declared war?

Are there precedents to the recent actions?

Suppose the target hadn't been American born; would that make a difference?

What about Americans who have sworn allegiance to a foreign power or who have renounced their citizenship?

Can America take preemptive defensive action overseas in order to protect American lives?

It's a heavy topic.
 
" Holder argued in his speech that arresting al-Awlaki -- who has never been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime but who is believed to have encouraged terrorist attacks in the U.S. -- would have been impractical, that killing him was the only option available to prevent him from committing more harm, and that Congress must have contemplated that when it enacted the AUMF."

They do have to come up with something better than it would be "impractical" to arrest him.
 
??? I don't know! ???? It depends on a lot of things and Reba has touched on them. :hmm:

What is AUMF?
 
Last edited:
I suspect that this is where my Libertarianism is at odds with Republicanism.:wave:
 
this is not heavy topic at all. no one can be a judge, jury and executioner. Our Constitution prohibits it and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers made it that way. The very foundation of it is to prevent us from becoming like King.

so once we allow our President to do this, there is no more America.
 
Jiro said:
this is not heavy topic at all. no one can be a judge, jury and executioner. Our Constitution prohibits it and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers made it that way. The very foundation of it is to prevent us from becoming like King.

so once we allow our President to do this, there is no more America.
Click to expand...

Jiro,

I would have to say that you are correct but, I do think that there are some very special circumstances that an exception could be used? What I mean is that I personally believe that the constitution was put there in this fashion for a reason although I also think personally that the president after consulting with the joint chiefs of staff (military staff & defense secretary) there could possibly be a time for an exception? Look at the case for Osama Bin Laden and others like him? What do you think? Approval of congress as well? Dunno as it is a very difficult question under certain special circumstances. Let's look at something like "Act of Valor" where an imminent threat of grave harm to mass amounts of American citizens in the U.S.. I would support it. Even if the suspected terrorist was in another country in order to stop the threat. Any thoughts?
 
airportcop said:
Jiro,

I would have to say that you are correct but, I do think that there are some very special circumstances that an exception could be used? What I mean is that I personally believe that the constitution was put there in this fashion for a reason although I also think personally that the president after consulting with the joint chiefs of staff (military staff & defense secretary) there could possibly be a time for an exception? Look at the case for Osama Bin Laden and others like him? What do you think? Approval of congress as well? Dunno as it is a very difficult question under certain special circumstances. Let's look at something like "Act of Valor" where an imminent threat of grave harm to mass amounts of American citizens in the U.S.. I would support it. Even if the suspected terrorist was in another country in order to stop the threat. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

sorry nope. no exception. once you do it, there's always another one and another one. where does it stop? do you know why nobody does this? because it's illegal and unconstitutional. no sane President would ever touch this issue with a 100-miles pole because it's completely wrong on MANY levels. this is against Founding Fathers' ideal for America.

btw - Osama bin Laden and others like him were not American citizens. this article is talking about the President giving an order to kill an American citizen.

but seriously? why are you still afraid of Arabs? are you really that terrified enough to let President and Congress pass any laws that would trample over Constitution? it must be wonderful to be a white person in America.
 
Questions:

1. Do American citizens have US Constitutional rights when they are in foreign countries?

2. If the answer is yes, who enforces those rights when they are overseas?
 
Reba said:
Questions:

1. Do American citizens have US Constitutional rights when they are in foreign countries?

2. If the answer is yes, who enforces those rights when they are overseas?
Click to expand...

this should not even be up for discussion at all. the President of United States should never ever be in business of killing or assassinating an American citizen anywhere, anytime without due process.

Refer to President Ford about this issue.
 
Jiro said:
this should not even be up for discussion at all. the President of United States should never ever be in business of killing or assassinating an American citizen anywhere, anytime without due process.

Refer to President Ford about this issue.
Click to expand...

f**kin' :werd:
 
Jiro said:
this should not even be up for discussion at all. the President of United States should never ever be in business of killing or assassinating an American citizen anywhere, anytime without due process.

Refer to President Ford about this issue.
Click to expand...
That's a separate issue from my questions.
 
Reba said:
That's a separate issue from my questions.
Click to expand...

no it's not. the very act of issuing such order is still illegal and wrong regardless of American's whereabout. what does it matter if the American is out of country? no matter how much you slice it... the answer is no. NO.

look at what happened when Israeli Prime Minister sanctioned Mossad's assassination of an enemy in Dubai.
 
I'm really have no opinion on this issue but Fort Hood shooting is really breaking my heart. :(
 
I believe the president should be able to order assassinations of individuals or groups of individuals that mean harm to U.S. citizens. My opinion has nothing to do with my race and everything to do with using common sense. It also does not have anything to do with any "fear" of Arabs. Rather, those Arab Islamic radicals that want to destroy America should be blown to bits. I have no problem with any U.S. President ordering it. I have no problem with the U.S. President ordering a U.S. Soldier who is a Muslim to do the assassination. Many would do so willingly.

Must be wonderfully blissful to blame everything on white people.
 
Steinhauer said:
I believe the president should be able to order assassinations of individuals or groups of individuals that mean harm to U.S. citizens. My opinion has nothing to do with my race and everything to do with using common sense. It also does not have anything to do with any "fear" of Arabs. Rather, those Arab Islamic radicals that want to destroy America should be blown to bits. I have no problem with any U.S. President ordering it. I have no problem with the U.S. President ordering a U.S. Soldier who is a Muslim to do the assassination. Many would do so willingly.

Must be wonderfully blissful to blame everything on white people.
Click to expand...

you are confused. did you even read this article? it's not that hard.

the article is talking about the President authorizing a kill on American citizen... not enemy combatant or anybody else. AMERICAN CITIZEN without due process.

So you have no problem with the President being judge, jury and executioner of American citizen?
 
Jiro said:
no it's not. the very act of issuing such order is still illegal and wrong regardless of American's whereabout. what does it matter if the American is out of country? no matter how much you slice it... the answer is no. NO.

look at what happened when Israeli Prime Minister sanctioned Mossad's assassination of an enemy in Dubai.
Click to expand...
The Constitution covers the duties and limitations of the US President, yes. We expect the President to follow the laws of the Constitution, yes.

US Constitutional protections don't cover Americans overseas. They are under the laws of whatever country they are in.

We can say that the President is required to obey the Constitution.

We can't say that the Constitution protects Americans overseas. Just because a person is an American, his Constitutional rights don't follow him overseas.

That doesn't mean the President is allowed to ignore the laws that limit his powers.

I don't see the relevance of the Israeli example upon our laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top