US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

In a related note, Governor Jerry Brown authorized the California Highway Patrol to equip their aircraft with Electromagnetic Pulse Cannons to help arrest speeders on portions of Interstate 5 and other remote California highways patrolled by aircraft. In addition, the EMP weapons could be used to assist other law enforcement agencies in the state. When the Governor learned that such devices do not yet exist, he was overheard to say, "You mean Arnie got me again?"

That is as good as the congressman that proposed the law requiring all handguns to be "smart guns" that can read a chip in a ring worn by the owner. Small problem...it does not exist. (actually there is some experimentation in this area but nothing available yet)

[Pooky 3,828]

What safe arrest [theory] of mine? I have twice posted my response to Gary for you, stating that I believe that foreign-based American citizens found guilty of treason in a court, and sentenced to death by that court, are subject to execution by available means by the executive branch. No arrest necessary.

Does the court need to be American? Because he was indeed tried, and found guilty, in a court in Yemen, of which he is also a citizen?

[sandinista! 1,816]

Prior to this, I doubt anyone citing yemen's ruling would have found a yemeni court competent to make a legal decision that affected donkeys, much less life or death for am American citizen.

Suddenly, they're standins for an American one. Just as good!

Edited October 3, 2011 by sandinista!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This is a precedent setting situation, but, yes, I don't tend toward the belief that the hit was unconstitutional under Article 3, Section 3. However, because of all the secrecy surrounding how the determination was made that such a hit wouldn't be a constitutional violation, I am not entirely comfortable with the implications involved in setting such a precedent in such a manner. Once precedent is set, it is quite possible that such operations against American citizens will not remain so rare.

If I am not mistaken you did indeed agree this particular killing was not a Constitutional violation.

I can see where it is uncomfortable, killing an American without a trial, but this was a rare case, with very specific justification.

[xebec 195]

This is a precedent setting situation, but, yes, I don't tend toward the belief that the hit was unconstitutional under Article 3, Section 3. However, because of all the secrecy surrounding how the determination was made that such a hit wouldn't be a constitutional violation, I am not entirely comfortable with the implications involved in setting such a precedent in such a manner. Once precedent is set, it is quite possible that such operations against American citizens will not remain so rare.

The constitutional basis for this is clear (and answers the question raised by Pooky):

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

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. 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

{A portion of Article 3, sections 2 and 3)

And:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..."

(Portion of the 6th Amendment)

No mystery here.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If that was the only possible interpretation, there would be no debate about it. There is debate.

The constitutional basis for this is clear (and answers the question raised by Pooky):

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

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. 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

{A portion of Article 3, sections 2 and 3)

And:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..."

(Portion of the 6th Amendment)

No mystery here.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If that was the only possible interpretation, there would be no debate about it. There is debate.

Well, ####### Cheney thinks it was the right thing to do, so obviously, there will be debate.

[xebec 195]

Notice that this is contained in the textual body of the third article of the constitution? This is an enumerated power of the judicial branch, with references to the specific role of congress in these matters. There is no part of this process that involves the executive, up until the point that a constitutional public jury trial has been concluded, and a sentence has been submitted by a judge. Once all of this has been satisfactorily concluded, then the executive can execute the sentence, using available means, and defend its actions if necessary.

I don't see what is the least bit elusive about this...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Notice that this is contained in the textual body of the third article of the constitution? This is an enumerated power of the judicial branch, with references to the specific role of congress in these matters. There is no part of this process that involves the executive, up until the point that a constitutional public jury trial has been concluded, and a sentence has been submitted by a judge. Once all of this has been satisfactorily concluded, then the executive can execute the sentence, using available means, and defend its actions if necessary.

I don't see what is the least bit elusive about this...

I believe there was an attempt by the family to have the target removed from the hit list. It was adjudicated by a court, and the family was unsuccessful.

[xebec 195]

If that was the only possible interpretation, there would be no debate about it. There is debate.

Virtually every aspect of the constitution is under constant by people who have decided that this document interferes with their agenda. Nothing new here.

There are concrete criteria that must have been met, contained in the quotes i cited above, in order for this to have been constitutional:

-A public jury trial in a court designated by congressional law

-Testimony of two witnesses to his overt act of treason

-Sentencing by Congress

None of the these criteria have been met. Where is the constitutional debate? What I see is debate about whether the constitution must be observed at all.....a completely different (and unsettling) matter.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I work with international human rights organizations and a bunch of international law attorneys. I assure you, there is lots of debate going on about this.

Virtually every aspect of the constitution is under constant by people who have decided that this document interferes with their agenda. Nothing new here.

There are concrete criteria that must have been met, contained in the quotes i cited above, in order for this to have been constitutional:

-A public jury trial in a court designated by congressional law

-Testimony of two witnesses to his overt act of treason

-Sentencing by Congress

None of the these criteria have been met. Where is the constitutional debate? What I see is debate about whether the constitution must be observed at all.....a completely different (and unsettling) matter.

[Captain Oates 911]

I look forward to the massed Moslem contingent on VJ getting all steamed next time a Catholic Mexican-American is killed by a cop in LA

...and pigs might fly

The fact is that me, and the US government and the entire military and the CIA and the overwhelming mass of the American public and the Courts and Legislature and the press and the media in general are on my side of the argument - whereas the Moslem group on VJ are confined to a few transient pixels and a small chunk of freezing Minnesota plus a few other bits

Long may it stay that way

..and they have only succeeded in sending my politics rightward ..and a few spectators too I would think

Go USA !

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Notice that this is contained in the textual body of the third article of the constitution? This is an enumerated power of the judicial branch, with references to the specific role of congress in these matters. There is no part of this process that involves the executive, up until the point that a constitutional public jury trial has been concluded, and a sentence has been submitted by a judge. Once all of this has been satisfactorily concluded, then the executive can execute the sentence, using available means, and defend its actions if necessary.

I don't see what is the least bit elusive about this...

The elusive bit about this is failing to distinguish this now deceased 'enemy combatant' from a run of the mill criminal, even one who committed any number of major crimes. His status as a traitor to the US is also an irrelevant matter of distinction.

[Captain Oates 911]

I work with international human rights organizations and a bunch of international law attorneys. I assure you, there is lots of debate going on about this.

yeah AND I bet the eskimos figure a lot in your work...(NOT)

I know your focus and so does everyone else

[Captain Oates 911]

The elusive bit about this is failing to distinguish this now deceased 'enemy combatant' from a run of the mill criminal, even one who committed any number of major crimes. His status as a traitor to the US is also an irrelevant matter of distinction.

If these people kill my daughter next time she flies over from the UK, they will wish they just had the US to contend with.

I don't know which is worse - the terrorist killers of US civilians and military, or their oh so smooth apologists on VJ