Posted on 02/05/2013 8:50:19 PM PST by grundle
And by the way, I read the memo, the Obama administration couldn’t directly pinpoint cite (you know, where it says it’s ok) to the Constitution the ability to use military force against US citizens, because it’s not there. If it was, it wouldn’t take 16 pages to do so.
In a word; yes.
Remember that the 4th Amendment guarantees your right to due process. The government must prove that a person has committed a capital before a jury before taking their life.
The War of 1812 is certainly a different case entirely. First the US Navy was not sent out to specifically target US citizens impressed in to the British Navy. Secondly in a navel battle there would be no practical way to single out US citizens from British subjects all dressed in the same uniform.
Cdertainly Abdulrahman was a traitor to his country but he was still entitled to his constitutional rights and Obama and his administration are guilty of failing to uphold the constitution and should be tried for murder.
I am not sure that citizens in a war zone outside our borders can expect due process.
We can hardly set up a judge and jury system over there. It would require, among other things, that the suspected traitor be rendered out somehow, risking the lives of our troops.
If they are within U.S. borders, it’s a different story. But a war zone outside the U.S.? I think you take the risk, you take your chances. Otherwise how can we possibly wage war?
As for the 16 year old, I think his blood is on his parents or guardians’ hands, unless he had run off, in which case it’s on his own.
Article. I. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on
the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof..... The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article. II. Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;....
Note: the offense of treason is apart from the laws of war and the laws of nations.
I’m sorry if my response is going to be regarded as offensive, but you comment is utter nonsense.
On a battlefield, when a soldier disobeys a command, a superior officer or superior non-commissioned officer may immediately execute the soldieer for disobedience of the order. Likewise under martial law (military) law there are many exigent circumstances in which an officer or non-commissioned officer may or else is obligated to shoot or otherwise execute an armed or even an unarmed civilian without benefit of a military tribunal or a civilian tribunal. There were and likely still are a multitude of exigent circumstances in which the Congress and the president and Commander-in-Chief have the Power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....”
Your argument repeats the same ludicrous argument used by the Liberals, which falsely conflates other offenses with the right of trial in cases of treason. Just becausee a government, any government, is inable to bring a person to trial and meet the burdens required to obtain a conviction for treason does nothing whatsoever to change the power to engage the person in combat and kill them in accordance with the laws of war, the law of nations, and the laws regarding piracy and brigandage. The Liberals use the laws regarding treason as a red herring arguement to distract attention away from the other applicable laws which permit a government to engage citizens engaging in an armed belligerency, whether lawfully or unlawfully.
Your accusations of murder in this instance are totally without merit and exceedingly offensive. If you want to talk about the Obama dea pool, on the other hand, you might find something legitimate for a change.
As you noticed, the Constitution was never intended to be a substitute for the U.S. Code of federal laws. The Constitution explicitly enumerated the Power of the legislature, Congress, to define the rules, laws, and punishments for a variety of offenses which involved thee uArticle. I. Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on
the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof..... The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article. II. Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;.... se of military force.
The above wording in the Constitution was based upon in part the laws of war and peace and the law of nations, most of which was more customary law than it was any form of legal code at the time the Constitution was adopted. This is why Article I, Section 8 enumerated the Power of Congress to elaborate on such rules, laws, and punishments. The authors of the Constitution in particular were well acquainted with the laws regarding piracy, brigandage, and engaging in war without authorization and commission by a sovereign. In the time of the Romans and earlier to the 18th Century adoption of the Constitution, a pirate or brigand was subject to enslavement or immediate execution by anyone, military or civilian, at any time, peace or war. This was the basis upon which pirates could be hanged from the highest yardarm of a warship or merchant ship with or without a court naval or military tribunal of any kind.
For a variety of reasons, the legal profession has been making it more and more difficult to actually implement such draconian punishments upon pirates and brigands; whether or not such punishments can be regarded as good, bad, or indifferent. In doing so without reegard for the practical military and civil consequences, the legal profession has creeated a bizarre contradiction in terms in its own laws and their historical precedents. In much the same way as Liberals havee trid to eviscerate the Constitution by successive in fringements and abrogations without amendments, so too have the laws of war and law of nations been severely warped out the bounds of reeason. The con game being played with the conflation of treason with the other offensees not requiring the protections afforded to treason is yeet another of these circumventing tactics, like a con man attempting to distract the audience with magic tricks to hide the true aims of the confidence game.
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
In the time honored tradition of classic despots, Hussein is unconstitutionally attainting American citizens.
They are taking advantage of the widespread ignorance about the Law of War and the Law of Nations. The legal profession has long been both an unreasonable interference in the military arts and at the same time an unrerasonable abuser of individual rights in the military role of judge advocate. Matters are not helped at all when you take lawyers already predisposed to irrational Leftis ideologies, and then you have to deal with their gross ignorance of this subject matter and its historical underpinnings.
Like the Seeond Amendment debates, however, the laws regarding combat by person not commissioned or enlisted in service to a sovereign are subject to misrepresentation and re-writing by organizations such as the ACLU.
The Bill of Attainder prohibition is not applicable to laws that have been around long before this incident occurred and even before the Constitution was written and adopted. Simply put, a person who wages war and/or associates with an organization waging war without the commission of a sovereign power is de facto guilty of a capitol offense under the Law of Nations and the Laws of War, and they are deniedd the protections of law.
Simply put, you don't know what you are talking about.
We had just fought a war for our survival and bills of attainder had been used. Attainder laws were thus well known and discussed at length at the Constitutional Convention and the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Our Framers feared such power in the hands of evil men and denied it to our federal and state governments.
For Hussein to decide what constitutes a capital offense (make law), decide who shall be killed (serve as judge and jury), and then execute his one man law, is a gross violation of separation of powers denied him by our Constitution in the attainder prohibition.
This is no different than a U.S. GI switching sides and deciding to fight for the Nazis in Europe. Once he’s made that allegiance he’s an enemy and fair game........
Of course they did so, but that still does not apply to the age old laws of war with respect to civilians engaging in combat and combat intelligence activities without a commission from a sovereign to do so. The British tended to treat captured Americans during the Revolutionary War as rebels, insurrectionists, and traitors to a great degree; but the surrenders of so many British troops and American Tories induced the British authorities to moderate these policies to some extent andd treat the American captives moer as cpatureed prisoners of war and enemy detainees under the Laws of War. This british change of policy in certain occcasions was based upon the theory that the captives weree in the commissioned service of the rebellious legislatures exercising their limited sovereignty as colonial legislatures.
A roman commander waged war upon a Celtic tribe in Northern Italy, with whom the Republic of Rome had an ongoing truce or peace treaty, i don’t remeber which. The Celts seent an emissary to the Roman Senate to sue for the breach of the peace, and they demanded the surrender of the Roman commander for his violations of Roman law by engaging in war without consent of the Roman Senate. The Roman justice found the Roman commander guilty and surrendered him to the Ceelts for punishment.
In another case, a young julius Ceasar was captured and held for ransom by Illyrian pirates. He eventually negotiated for his releease by the payment of the ransom. The terms of the agreement with the pirates requireed Ceasar to agree to not retaliate against the pirates for his ransom. After the pirates released Ceasar, he returned with the Roman army and slauhtered them and devastated their pirate communities. The surviving pirates sued Ceasar in Rome with the legal complaint that Ceasar unalwfully abrogated his treaty with the Pirates, promising no armed retaliations after being released. Ceasar defeended his actions by noting pirates had no legal rights among any civilized nations, and no contract made with a an outlaw pirate was enforceable in law. The Roman Seenate found in favor of Ceasar while noting pirates and brigands were subject to death at the hand of any military or civilian person in any land.
That is why the Bill of Attainer is not applicable to this situation. The Constitution explicitly adopted the Law of nations with respect to thsoe persons engagedd in piracy on the high seas and violations of the Law of Nations respecting waging war and brigandage.
Blowing smoke with amorphous Laws of Nations,Laws of War, Celts and Romans does not help your argument.
The Bill of Attainder prohibition is in our Constitution to prevent exactly what Hussein is doing.
Are we to understand you are implicitly arguing President Franklin Delano Rooseevelt was also a criminal for ordering the U.S. armed forces to bomb a building and French military target in Casablance in 1942 which killed one or more U.S. citizens within the neutral French building?
I don’t give a red rodents rectum where zippy does his killing of Allah’s warriors against America, the more the merrier! Oh wait,if we capture them we get to spend millions on detention, lawyers, health care and provide a rallying point for future acts of violence against America—I give you the so called blind sheik fiasco.
I get what you are saying, but I still disagree. Even the Hamdi decision only speaks to detentions, not the legality of targeted killings of USCs. When even liberals are upset about these actions by Obama, then that should tell you something....it’s not just the “right wingers” who are questioning the legality of policy.
The problem is that sso few people are aware of the subject matt4er, much less being conversant in the core issues involved. I am concerned about the potentials of future abuses and the actual past abuses few people ae aware about. IThis makes it next to impossible to have a rational discussion of thee problems, eespecially when you have the representatives of the leal profession trying to ride roughshod over the top of the military arts and sciences they disdain so greatly. These concerns caught my attention in the 1960s, and I’ve tried to warn people ever since that their negglect and ddisregard for these matters would likely result in a future where you would have the worst of both alternatives: a military crippled when combatting true enemies of a freee constitutional republic and a military targeeting anyone obstructing a Marxist overthrow of the constitutional republic. Now, we’ree there just as I had been so concerned about.
The Jamdi case was appalingly bad and wrong in so many ways, it was just awful. They were twisting everything about the law into badly misshapen pretzels. I’e been warnign for some time about the bad consequences which are likely to result from these ill advised attempts to oppose indefinite detention., and demand trials for detaained prisoners of war and deetained combatants not entitled to prisoner of war status. During the Second World War, japan held some of our military and naval prisoners of war in secret prison camps on the falsee claim they were war criminals who were not entitled to a status as prisoners of war. Major “Papa” Boyington was one of these prisoners of war. The Communists have also used this ploy to hold back and to execute our prisoners of war. It is absolutely worng and a violation of the Laws of War to incarcerate a prisoner of war in a civilian penitentiary with felons, until and unless they are tried and seentenced for the commission of war crimes. Any other legitimate prisoner of war is entitled by law to certain treatments as such, whether under the Geneva Convention or the precedent laws and customs of War. Pirate and brigands, those persons engaging in private war without the commission of a sovereign are supposed to be denied status and protections as prisoners of war as required by the Laws of War and the Laws of Nations. It may be advantageous to do so until such time as captives in the hands of the such unlawful combatants can be repatriated. Until then, however, the detention should be indeas indefinite as the unlawful combatants contiue their belligerancy, unless a negotiated prisoner exchange takes place or there is sufficient cause for a war crimes trial despite the risk to our priosners of war held captive by the belligerants. After the belligerancy has ended in surrender or negotiated settlement, war crimes and other criminal trials can then commence with the trasfer of the prisoners from military detention to detention as criminal suspects undergoing prosecution.
Such a procedure was used in the Second World War with respect to the NAZI officers. They wer held under military deetention until such time as they were to be indicted as suspected war criminals, at which time they were transferred to the custody of the military tribunal for prosecution.
Many people are concerned about the risk of indefinite detention fo U.S. citizens opposing a tyrannical dictatorship that had overthrown the U.S. Goveernment. I advised them that the establishment of a new standard contrary to the Geneva and Hague Conventions with respect to indefinite detention of captured combatants would have a very undesirable consequence for the captives. Sometimes the only thing standing in the way of a kangaroo court are the remnants of the prior legal traditions. If you demand a new standard requiring the immediate trial of a detainee, you may get far more than you bargained for. Under the old standardd requiring indefinite detention before trial, the war could end and liberate the captive before they could be tried and executed for their opposition to the tyrannical egime. Under the hew standard so many people are clamoring for today, the tyrannical regime could point to the new standard requiring immediate trial and punishment, resulting in the captivee beeing subjected to a kangaroo court and punishment by execution or lethal penal labor before the conflict could could result in the liberation of the captives.
As the old saying goes, people should be very careful about what they wish for, because they might havee their wishes fulfilled in ways they had not intended and curse to their last breath.
If the President can order the death of an American teenager born in Colorado without due process, because he thinks it’s in the national interest, he has the authority to order the death of an American 62-year-old born in Missouri whom he blames for all that is wrong with America today...Rush Limbaugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.