Posted on 03/21/2012 11:30:43 AM PDT by GregNH
Anwar al-Awlaki may be dead, but the controversy surrounding his demise is far from over. Many Americans and members of Congress are still alarmed that a U.S. citizen was ordered assassinated without due process of law. And an important point that the Obama administration could make in its defense is contained in a can of worms that the president would probably rather not open.
It is the same can that was noted to exist by the Bush administration and two Supreme Court justices back in 2004 in the case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld, although the court's final decision did not open it either.
The worms in the can: the assertion that al-Awlaki, just like Yaser Esam Hamdi, might not have been a U.S. citizen in the first place.
"Why is Hamdi being treated as a citizen at all?" asked constitutional law expert Dr. John Eastman in his 2004 editorial, "Wrong Question in Hamdi."
The same question was posed regarding al-Awlaki by former congressman Tom Tancredo, one of the signers of an amicus brief submitted in Hamdi: was al-Awlaki ever really an American citizen?
The Hamdi briefs prepared by the Center for American Unity (CAU) and the Eagle Forum argued that the "birthright citizenship" practice -- the grant of citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, even to non-citizen parents here temporarily or illegally -- is not supported by a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment or application of existing judicial precedent.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sen. Howard, sponsor and author of the Citizenship Clause, when questioned about the meaning of "jurisdiction," responded that the phrase was intended to be read as meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else"... Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee...noted that even "partial allegiance if you please, to some other government" is sufficient to disqualify a person under the jurisdiction requirement.
The article closes with this.
No matter how famous the birth certificate or how many newspaper birth announcements.Was al-Awlaki really a citizen? Was he a "natural born" citizen? Who's driving that "natural born" bus, anyway?
This is likely a discussion that Obama would rather not have, as he steers clear of that can of worms.
The avowed terrorist had renounce his U.S. citenship and taken up arms against America.
The avowed terrorist had renounced his U.S. citenship and taken up arms against America.
In this case you could have easily declared the organization Al-Awlaki was hanging out with as Al Queda, and a valid military target. That would have been a much easier thing to legally justify. Attack the military target and if Al-Awlaki got killed, those are the fortunes of war.
If we can get legal opinions from various sources contending Al-Awlaki wasn't a citizen, then we are that much closer to demonstrate that Obama may not even be a citizen either.
Using Al-Awlaki as a stalking horse for the issue, so to speak.
Great work by Cindy Simpson.
Must not comment.
Must not comment.
Must not comment.
Must not comment.
Must not comment.
Must not comment.
His citizenship doesn’t matter. Any American that takes up arms against America is subject to extermination.
Where’s the issue here?
His citizenship doesn’t matter. Any American that takes up arms against America is subject to extermination.
Where’s the issue here?
Well I would respectively disagree. The 2nd amendment was put into place to keep the federal government from getting too big. If your point is that he took up arms against the US of A then you are correct but still if he is a citizen then he is entitled to due process. If not then none of are.
Correction to above....If not then none of US are.
There is no due process requirement outside the United States or its territories.
If you cause war against the US while on foreign soil, our military may exterminate you at anytime. Due process will be writing our enemies name on the Hellfire missile.
We are under no obligation to non-violently detain any enemy. If due process detention offers any lethal threat to US forces, we are obligated to terminate with all prejudice rather than expose any US forces to harm.
Citizenship is no shield on foreign soil.
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.