Posted on 10/02/2011 10:30:33 AM PDT by Bokababe
That is not what the 5th amendment states.
I suspect that you are referring to this part of the amendement, “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”
Our muslim friend was not in the armed forces, or in the milita, and so this language doesn’t apply to him. Apart from his not belonging to U.S. armed forces, this exception does not apply to the rest of the amendment.
Now to answer any argument that he was in a land force, this language does not generically refer to any armed forces, as first, the land and naval forces should be interpreted consistently with the rest of the Constitution, and Article I, Section 8 refers to “the land and naval forces” as being under the control of the U.S. Congress. Thus, “the land and naval forces” has to refer to U.S. forces.
He is an Arab who is an American national.
No, he is not an American.
In what foreign nation’s armed services did he serve? Terrorism isn’t a nation.
If Great Britain used MI5 to accomplish the task, there would be no national sovereignty issues, but we need to have some way to be SURE of what we’re doing.
Do we really want to give a Manchurian Candidate a license to kill in the name of our republic? National enemies now; political enemies later.
Our current President already has said that he will reward his friends and punish his enemies. Think about that tonight. Democracy is frustrating, but those safeguards were built in for a purpose.
Was he not born here?
This is a slippery slope. And until I see legal justification otherwise...0bama jumped the shark. And keep in mind there were two citizens killed. Not just Alwaki. Who was Samir Kahn...just another anchor baby?
Muslim Extremist's Web Site Stirs Mixed Emotions in Charlotte, N.C.
Note the date on this article. This guy didn't leave the US for Yemen until 2009? You know he had to be on the do not fly list, right?
As far as I know, treason itself is still punishable by death, and I'm fine with that, but it still requires a conviction. If the intel and evidence were compelling enough, he should have been tried, in absentia if necessary, and sentenced to death. If the evidence could not be made public without compromising sources, then a military tribunal would be fine. The procedures and remedies are all in place, and simply ignored for political expedience. This is governance by internal memo, and it's frightening how many here are just fine with it because they hate the bad guy.
This time.
The son-of-a-bitch in question was in a CONVOY of terrorists.
What until one of these suicidal, subhuman barbarians blows up your innocent loved ones in a mall.
You gonna read his splattered brains, severed limbs and smeared guts their Miranda rights after you scrape them into a big Zip-Lok bag?
Nineteen of these barbarians killed thousands on 9/11/01. We should have killed every one of them before they boarded our airliners.
We need a "No-Breathe List," not a "No-Fly List."
This is a battle for civilization.
Kill the terrorists without warning wherever we can find them.
Save civilization.
It makes sense to me.
In my opinion, Obama hasn't yet BEGUN to kill enough of these terrorists, American citizens or otherwise.
Libertarians are seriously mentally retarded.
They are no better than the Liberals who think the Constitution is a Suicide Compact.
...and nowhere does the Consitution say we can’t kill enemy combatants, which this guy was by both his deeds and his admittance.
Not all who disagree with you are retarded or suicidal. Some of us are just old enough to remember that a clever ruler will flout the law to achieve a popular result. The people celebrate, forgetting that the law, now impotent, is useless to protect them when the tyrant decides that it their turn. And he will. Remember Germany.
I see your point.
Agreed. It causes me to wonder if this is how many people got sucked in by Germany, Russia, China before their nightmares unfolded. The selective removing of the rule of law for the government.
I keep in mind what 0bama said about the Bill of Rights.
WHICH foreign military power? When was that specified in the declaration of war passed by Congress? As far as I recall we are at war with the tactic of terrorism, which cannot possibly be right. There is NO NAMED ENEMY for us to be at war with, hence no LEGAL war that I can see.
You are demanding of a declaration something that isn’t required. There’s no need to name a country ~ never has been. Besides, AlQaida is the organization that attacked us. They made war on us. A state of war exists until they are totally destroyed or they surrender.
Read the thread. The detailed information is already there for you to take a look at.
Hmm, the CIC, according to the 5th Amendment, can kill the enemy without first getting an indictment.
You can lose your citizenship for treason. In all U.S. history fewer than 40 people have been charged with treason.
You can lose US citizenship for serving in a foreign army, but only if they’re “engaged in hostilities” against the USA. This is unusual, too.
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=6282
But Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University’s Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens, who take up arms with an enemy force, have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.
“Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities,” Anderson said. “The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable.”
Robert Chesney, an expert on international law at the University of Texas School of law, concluded in a recently written law review article that al-Awlaki could be legally killed “if he is in fact an operational leader within AQAP, as this role would render him a functional combatant in an organized armed group.”
That reasoning makes sense: If al-Awlaki had simply been an angry imam, he would not have been subject to attack. Instead, he was a primary leader of a functioning and lethal Al Qaeda organization that targeted Americans and America, thereby making him subject to military force under the law passed after Sept. 11, 2001. At the time of his death, he was a highly relevant target, just as Osama bin Laden was before 9/11.
Al-Awlaki was no mere soldier. His sermons were simply background noise to his planning and execution of major plots to kill Americans. His role as an operative made his capture by law enforcement nearly impossible. Some military action was required to get al-Awlaki, and whether it was a drone attack or a Navy Seal raid, his fate was sealed by his own actions.
There would be better reason to question the killing of a US citizen if there was any evidence that the government was doing so in a repeated or consistent fashion. Instead, the US killed a surpassingly dangerous terrorist who happened to be an American by birth. A barrier has been broken, but this is an act that must - and will - remain exceptionally rare.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-10-01/bostonglobe/30233426_1_al-awlaki-al-qaeda-navy-seal
Then show me where we "declared war on al Qaeda" -- only and specifically. We didn't. We declared a "War on Terror", which is a war on a tactic, not a war on a specific people or persons. It could include anyone -- or everyone.
My husband's reaction to Obama's unilateral action was, "Whose next? The Jews?"
It's all pretty clear.
Remember, to "repel invasion" the CIC has to have Constitutional Authority, so the 5th simply makes sure that pre-existing Constitutional power inherent in the job continues to be respected.
It's not like the Founders didn't know what they were writing about ~ bet you thought they were protecting the innocent ~
My only objection is that he wasted expensive military hardware on the guy. I would have preferred that they had captured him alive and delivered him to the White House so Obama could bludgeon him to death with his Nobel Prize medallion.
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.