(no subject)

[thies.livejournal.com]

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

He has to be proven guilty of treason in court first.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'd wager that "testimony" is subject to due process rights (IE the right to confront accusers, cross-examine, counsel, etc.). Original intent is far from controlling in modern due process jurisprudence.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, Constitutionally, being guilty of treason in court is NOT first required if the treason involves levying war.

This does not follow logically from what you said. You're skipping this part of the clause: No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless

It's talking specifically about what is required to convict, which means you need a trial first.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I would note that the Sixth Amendment says you're pretty well wrong about the need for a trial.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Unless you want to argue that treason is a suit at law, equity, or admiralty (the other major categories of litigation at the time) it appears that all the trappings of criminal proceedings would apply. Unless it was treason against a member of the armed forces.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You also skipped the part of Article 3 immediately before that clause.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

So, it does require a court and jury, as treason is a crime.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

If a U.S. citizen soldier disobeys an order in the field of battle, is his commanding officer required to try him in a court of law before he can be executed for disobedience?

[thies.livejournal.com]

apparently given precedent, yes http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_6.htm

might I point out that Awlaki is neither part of the US nor any other military.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

My point wasn't about Al-Awlaki being a member of the military, so much as establishing that precendent that a requirement for a trial during wartime is not an absolute.

That said, I do dispute that Al-Awlaki is not a member of Al Qaeda, which makes him a military foe of the United States by definition. But that's a seperate issue.

Anyway, that's quite a wall of text you've got there there, are you able to you quote me the specific phrase or paragraph that says that a trial is required?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Hmmm..I couldn't find any specific document which said either way after a fair search, but I note that all the references to execution and crimes assume that there will be a court martial.

I have to say, assuming that it's true, I suspect the U.S. would then be probably the first country in history where it was not at least technically legal for commanding officers to execute soldiers in the field for certain crimes.

[thies.livejournal.com]

and there are pretty strict requirements as to when someone can be convicted of treason

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that (I knew we could count on you :D)

*hearty clap*

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

ftw!

thies got p0wn3d.

Re: *hearty clap*

[thies.livejournal.com]

i just love how all those who i recall being all flustered by bush's actions now try to defend obama for pulling the same tricks ;D

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't know whether the U.S. can revoke someone's citizenship or not, but I would say that they shouldn't be able to. Yes, if they can do so, then he is no longer a citizen and becomes a foreign national, and thus it's not treason, but honestly, that's still an immoral way to do it. It's an ad hoc justification to avoid the law. And I'm still not convinced it's really legitimate, and I would definitely say that should be taken up by the Supreme Court.