It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, cried foul Friday over the killing of a radical U.S.-born cleric in Yemen without a trial, joining a chorus of civil liberties groups raising "due process" concerns over the drone attack.
"No one likes these kind of people, but I also like the rule of law and I like our Constitution, that you don't just target people, assassinate them, someone who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything," Paul told Fox News. "So if we want to protect American citizens from that type of justice, we have to be more cautious."
U.S. counterterrorism forces not only killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda leader, early Friday but also three other operatives, including American-born Samir Kahn, who edited a Jihadi Internet magazine. Al-Awlaki's reputation as an instigator of terrorist plots had grown in recent years, especially in the power void created in Al Qaeda with the killing of Usama bin Laden earlier this year.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to answer questions Friday about the legality of the government targeting and killing an American citizen without a trial.
"I'm not going to address the circumstances of Awlaki's death," he said.
Read more: www.foxnews.com...#_tab#ixzz1ZViZ8MD9
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase "due process" both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
~ Wiki
Originally posted by OldCorp
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered by one man: President Obama. There was no judicial review, no Congressional oversight, no counsel for the defense; just Obama
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by OldCorp
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered by one man: President Obama. There was no judicial review, no Congressional oversight, no counsel for the defense; just Obama
While I agree, all american citizens deserve judicial review, its stupid to expect that one can offer militants like Anwar al-Awlaki that option. What exactly was suppose to happen?
U.S. CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B >§ 2339B.
Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
(a) Prohibited Activities.—
(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
SOURCE: Cornell University
Originally posted by OldCorp
there is a little thing called a "Trial in Absentia." Just to satisfy our own civilized sensibilities, al-Awalki could have been charged before a grand jury (defendants are never there anyway,) and assigned a government lawyer who would conduct his defense.
Obviously testifying on his own behalf would not be feasible, but his government-supplied defense lawyer could call witnesses and dispute any evidence the prosecution wished to present on his client's behalf. This evidence could be presented in front of either a normal civilian jury, a jury composed of Congressmen with security clearances; even a military tribunal would be preferable to one man - who hated going to his Ethics class - signing a death warrant in secret as the sole judge and jury.
The government (Obama)
In November 2009, the Yemeni authorities put al-Awlaki on trial in absentia, charged with inciting violence against foreigners in connection with the murder the previous month of a French security guard at an oil company's compound. He went into hiding.
Awlaqi, who holds both Yemeni and US citizenship, and his relative, Othman al-Awlaqi, were both charged in absentia in a Yemeni court with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This is a good point you made there Oldcorp, thanks for the references. This is the first I've heard of this, but then again, we are assuming that Al-Awalki's location had been known for sometime now, what if it wasn't and this was the only window? Either counter him now, or lose him for another couple of months to continue his militant operations? And I'd assume the trial of absentia would be shown to the public before they proceed to kill Alwalki? Or after? There are factors. You certainly motivated me to look into this more.
No, Obama does not solely make up the government.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by OldCorp
Further regarding "Trial in absentia"
In November 2009, the Yemeni authorities put al-Awlaki on trial in absentia, charged with inciting violence against foreigners in connection with the murder the previous month of a French security guard at an oil company's compound. He went into hiding.
www.independent.co.uk... 1-2364023.html
Take into mind though, these were Yemeni Authorities carrying out the trial, but then Al-Awlaki was a Yemeni citizen as well.
Awlaqi, who holds both Yemeni and US citizenship, and his relative, Othman al-Awlaqi, were both charged in absentia in a Yemeni court with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Would have been different if Yemeni authorities carried out the killings? I'm looking into this more.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This POTUS loves to set a precedent doesn't he? If he does this to one guy, he'd do it to anyone. He's been known to throw people under the bus before. What irony....while the ppl at Wall Street are protesting Capital punishment for a guy who did get a trial, POTUS is out murdering someone who didn't get one.
Originally posted by OldCorp
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This POTUS loves to set a precedent doesn't he? If he does this to one guy, he'd do it to anyone. He's been known to throw people under the bus before. What irony....while the ppl at Wall Street are protesting Capital punishment for a guy who did get a trial, POTUS is out murdering someone who didn't get one.
Wanna hear something funny? I was in the Livestream chat room watching that very protest and mentioned that Obama has murdered al-Awalki - just once - and the moderators erased my comment and threatened to ban me if I didn't discuss only the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest.
I guess I know who THEIR messiah is.
OldCorp! Y U No Like Obama!?!
The frightening thing is, the precedent was purposely set using a despicable human being like al-Awalki so that the fuss over the extrajudicial killing would be kept to a dull roar - who's gonna miss that scumbag, right? - the next time, it could be ANYONE that the POTUS labels a "terrorist;" people like pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment supporters, environmentalists, Medical MJ advocates, survivalists, Evangelical Christians, anti-establishment bloggers, and even returning veterans.
Without proper transparency, and judicial or Congressional oversight, this is a slippery slope we do NOT want to come near.edit on 10/1/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Southern Guardian
The problem here is not that he was killed. Americans are killed every day in the U.S. by LEOs without a trial. The problem is that his death was an ordered assassination by our president, who has sworn to protect every part of the Constitution. Not just the ones that are convenient.
Good post as usual Old Corp.
/TOAedit on 1-10-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)