General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House: We Reserve The Right to Kill You.
Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the secret execution of U.S. citizens without a trial, charges, transparency, judicial oversight, or even the citizens knowledge that theyve been accused and sentenced to death.
Holders arguments, made during a speech at Northwestern University School of Law, were the first public glimpse at the White Houses legal rationale for an act that it has already engaged in with the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki last September and President Obamas White House serving as judge, jury, and executioner.
Critics are calling the presidents newly-assumed power unconstitutional, saying that it violates the Fifth Amendment right of all U.S. citizens to due process of law before they are deprived of life, liberty, or property for committing a crime. The attorney generals response?
Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
So in other words, Eric Holder is saying that Anwar al-Awlaki got his due process. It just all happened secretly in the executive branch, only on the advice of an unelected panel of national security advisers whose existence and proper operating rules are not established by any legislature or overseen by any court. Thats the fascist-style due process that the nations attorney general is guaranteeing that you have as a U.S. citizen in Obamas America. Even Bushs demolition job of civil liberties never went so far.
Read more: http://ivn.us/2012/03/14/white-house-we-reserve-the-right-to-kill-you/
Response to The Northerner (Original post)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)Not even Bush claimed such tyrannical powers. Due process now means that a bunch of executive branch members form a star chamber and decide to kill you.
Bear in mind that Awlaki's teenage son was also killed. Not only does Obama claim the power to assassinate adult American citizens, he kills their children along with them as "collateral damage."
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Made during the same speech:
But surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate. Once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the American people and the security of this nation....
Our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process; it is respected for its results. We are not the first Administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. Although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous Administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. John Walker Lindh, attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses without political controversy during the last administration.
Over the past three years, weve built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions. For example, in October, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. He was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole. While in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the FBI....
In addition to Abdulmutallab, Faizal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, Ahmed Ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences....
I could go on. Which is why the calls that Ive heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous. These calls ignore reality. And if heeded, they would significantly weaken in fact, they would cripple our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.
Simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in Article III courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody. No judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. These are facts, not opinions. There are not two sides to this story. Those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion -- they are simply wrong.
In other words, a good deal of AG Holder's speech was defending the use of civilian courts to try terrorism suspects.
"Justifying continuation & expansion of Bush admin "war on terror" policies"? Erm...not so much.