Anwar Al-Awlaki and The Constitution

reply to post by bacci0909


I have had this discussion once before with a law professor during a constitutional law course I was enrolled in. According to his reasoning under constitutional law, It is not illegal for the government to assassinate anyone, citizen or not, as long as they are not on US soil. Its been a while since we debated the validity of the subject and I would have to do research to provide the support of his arguments: however, at the time he had a very strong case for his reasoning.

That being said, this guy essentially denounced his citizenship when he joined Al Quieda. There is no conspiracy there. If there was it would never have been publicized the way it was. No sense trying to find ghosts in the shadows that don't exist.

Originally posted by theshepherd2
The question this thread is trying to make you ask yourself, basically, is:

Whats stopping the government from assassinating you or me? Not the lack of a trial or charges being laid.
Whats stopping the government from labelling me or you as a terrorist? Not the lack of a trial or charges being laid.

edit on 6-10-2011 by theshepherd2 because: (no reason given)

1: There are several reasons, first and foremost is the negative backlash that would result and the pressure it would put on the judicial system from the assassination of an average civilian. Secondly, you cannot be legally assassinated by the government while you're on American soil, however, once off of it the argument can be made you are fair game. Third you haven't come out and pledged yourself to the terrorist group that has come out targeted and attacked the US and US interests.

Phew.. glad to see some people with a bit of Constitutional perspective caught wind of this thread.

Again, to the people praising this killing, I understand, and I'm not even necessarily saying that he didn't deserve to be killed, nor am I defending him. The point is he had no charges against him and there was no due process, which is supposedly guaranteed to any citizen of this country, criminal or not.

I was here to discuss the SLIPPERY SLOPE that is the undermining of our rights. If we allow one exception, then two, then another couple, all in the name of "national security", then where does it end? And it's important to keep track of WHAT DEFINES A TERRORIST, because it seems to be evolving a little bit every day..

Maybe this (from 2009) will resonate with some of you, given the people taking to the streets all around the country right now...

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
— Attacking the Pentagon
— IEDs
— Hate crimes against racial groups
— Protests
The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."

Fox News: Pentagon Exam Calls Protests 'Low-Level Terrorism'

reply to post by jbench27


Let's get one thing clear :

There is a common misconception that everyone needs to know that needs to be debunked and that is the Congress or whoever can literately sign and pass a million laws restricting and amending our rights and freedoms but ultimately it is up to you, The American People to maintain and retain said rights leaving final law totally up to The People of The United States Of America to never relent, never refrain, never forfeit these sacred vows and rights bestowed upon us in The Constitution Of The United States Of America!

They are ours and not theirs, remember this. Non-negotiable, non relinquinsable, non grata whose points are anchored, padlocked and cemented!

USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, NOW AND FOREVER!

Having followed this story since it was announced, the following can be stated:

While this cleric, was working for a terrorist organization, and inspired many acts, the question must be asked, does breaking the law make a person any less of a citizen of the US, if they are a US citizen?

After all, every day people commit acts in this country that could be construed as being terrorist like, be it from the senseless murders of innocent victims on the part of criminals, to those who would bully and harass others. This cleric, did not formally renounce his citizenship, like Lindh, and to all knowledge was still a citizen of the US. His fiery rhetoric, inspired others to commit acts of violence in the name of an idea. Yet, he was marked for death, with out trial, without accusation, with out any due process of the law. Yet others, who would do the exact same thing right here in the US, get the full benefits of the law, the right of due process, and eventually are in court, when captured. They appear before a jury, are allowed to face those that accuse them and then have lawyers to defend them, all the while presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There is way too much secrecy that the government holds, and ultimately another question comes to mind, do you really trust the federal government of the USA, with your life and safety? Most people do not, and ultimately that is what is the most disturbing about the entire cases of terrorism and those charged with, is that the US government holds the evidence as classified information, and something about that just does not sit well. They hold the evidence that could either prove a persons innocence or guilt, yet allows for no one to view it, and to me, that seems like a very unfair system, where they are guilty until they can prove their innocence.

We can never really know, as the federal government has not seemed to release that information, the extent of this clerics guilt, or his innocence, and thus it is a problem unto itself. This was not an action that we should cheer too loudly for, not cause he was a terrorist or associated with a terrorist organization, but the actions on the part of the US that lead to his death, that is what we should be questioning and asking is this a door we really want to be opened.

At what point does the actions of the federal government go too far? What actions against its citizens cross the constraints put on it by the Constitution of the United States?

For myself, I personally would have prefered this cleric to be captured and a trial held, where all of the evidence would have to be presented and that a jury decide his guilt or innocence, along with a judge and someone else being the exocutioner, not just one person sitting in an office on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I posted this story on fb, other blogs, and have brought it to the attention of friends, family, etc. No one cares. Just jaw dropping. How can people tolerate such a blatant violation of our Constitution? I mean, no one even flinched when I shared this story. I'm totally and utterly perplexed.

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I posted this story on fb, other blogs, and have brought it to the attention of friends, family, etc. No one cares. Just jaw dropping. How can people tolerate such a blatant violation of our Constitution? I mean, no one even flinched when I shared this story. I'm totally and utterly perplexed.

I know man.. it's insane. It all comes down to their genuine trust for government. It's the same reason they won't even question 9/11, no matter how much evidence or flaws in the story they're shown.. "But they wouldn't do that.." that's all they think. They see some terrorist die, and it doesn't matter to them if it signifies a huge leap in the erosion of our rights. Always aware of power's natural push towards tyranny, my first thought is 'what could that mean for me?' But not them, simply because "oh they wouldn't do that". I hate to be the kind of person that says this, but sometimes I wish some insane police state, fema camp-filled, hyper new world order would hit super hard, just to remind people that THEY WOULD DO THAT

Originally posted by followtheevidence
I posted this story on fb, other blogs, and have brought it to the attention of friends, family, etc. No one cares. Just jaw dropping. How can people tolerate such a blatant violation of our Constitution? I mean, no one even flinched when I shared this story. I'm totally and utterly perplexed.

furthermore.. I echo your frustrations of trying actually use social networking for something good and inform people about things they wouldn't otherwise be informed of.. I regularly post stuff about Ron Paul to no avail. Nobody comments or 'likes' or any of that stupid bull$hnit.. but today I posted a little clip of Dennis Kucinich and boom! All the sudden all of these people come out of the woodwork to like it. I was confused, and then it dawned on me.. it's because Kucinich is a DEMOCRAT.. whatever the fudge that means. All my friends are still so hung up on the left/right childishness they'd never give a spit about some republican Ron Paul clip. It sucks.. people are idiots

reply to post by followtheevidence


Do you want to know the truth why you failed to get the response you wanted? Can you handle the truth? I will tell you anyway.

TRUE freedom fighters know what they up against. FIGHTERS - the catchphrase. They may win in the cause they are fighting or ...lose, even their lives.

AND they never bothered with whatever laws that existed, for we know that those in power can simply change the laws to protect themselves within seconds, democracy or no. So why bother with them? Better to make a stand there and then, come what may, with peaceful protest first and hope that those in power listen instead of using bullets to silence us.

We fear not the laws from those in power, nor death, for we believe in our cause - freedom of humanity. We are only insignificant nobodies, kill me today and another will take our place tomorrow. The masses are always in a majority when compared against the rulers whom will only be a minority, even with their minions. Thus we never worry about 'constitutional laws' to protect our longetivity, for we know they are only illusions in the hands of those in power.

What I had written is nothing original. I am only a product of civilised mankind and courageous humans throughout centuries that had given us our freedom, progress and evolution - Rome, Byzantine Empire, Queen Elizabeth1 England, US founding fathers, Normandy beach storming american soliders, vietnam soldiers, 'Nam american soldiers whom believe what they were fighting for even if they had been lied to, same as in Afghan, Iraq, etc, etc.

More recently, the arab spring had proven that such human spirit is alive and well today. All value the sanctity of life, but a point comes when one realizes the cause is bigger than oneself, and willingly sacrifice ourselves. We will rather ensure everyone else flee while we shield them from the bullets.

This is no fantasy or illusion. Many of such spirited brave unarmed humans were found on the bloodsoaked streets of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, TianAnMen China, Burma, Tibet, etc.

We freedom fighters never depended on laws from those in power to tell us what had to be done or not do. Our conscience is our guide - to never hurt or harm innocents and leave none behind.

Only those who claim to be freedom fighers BUT yet depend on laws, to protect themselves and try to cover every corner before they will dare to even move an inch, are not true freedom fighters. They are only talkers, but no meaningful action will ever come from them, for they have deep fears. No harm to us whom may be dead soon, but as long as they, whom are alive by their fears, ensures that freedom is continued and changes are made, or the sacrifices by us would had been in vain.

Some say that the terrorists too can be considered as 'freedom fighters'. In a way, they are, but unfortunately, their cause - to exterminate mankind - is not. They may attract fools or the disenchanted, but they are only a minority, and will soon run out of foolish humans, for not many are that foolish.

No human is born out of a rock, and no human will gladly subscribe to the terrorists' jihadhist creed. No human will bear watching their loved ones being bombed to bits sooner or later. Thus Jihad will ultimately fail. Destruction of mankind is never in the hands or authority of man. It can only come from a power higher than man and certainly needs no puny flawed mortal to do His work

Thus the poor response to your email. They know who are the TRUE freedom fighters whom are fighting on their behalf.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Did you not read my post or did you just ignore it because you couldn't be bothered? What I had said is truth! Nothing else matters! The first post of mine in this thread.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


today it's terrorists
tomorrow it's protesters
day after will be conspiracy theorists
two days later it will be gang bangers

it doesn't matter who it is, all americans have the legal right to a trial by jury. to face their accuser. it doesn't matter if you wear a turbin, hold a protest sign, or beat your wife, all americans have the right to trial by jury. no elected official can order the killing of any american.

heck, even lee harvey oswald was going to get his chance to trial before he met his end.

-subfab

reply to post by bacci0909

The slow but steady erosion of our Constitutional rights in the name of terrorism is a slippery slope and scares me half to death.. I hate to imagine what more instances like this could end up meaning for the rest of us

That slippery slope ride began long before 9/11 and possibly even long before people began referring to their natural and unalienable rights as Constitutional rights.

This story has to easily been framed as a question of whether or not it is Constitutionally allowable to kill American "citizens", but the so called "Constitutional rights" everyone likes to call their rights is not limited to American citizens. At least not the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment is a different matter, but the Bill of Rights is not any grant of rights by government, they are unalienable rights acknowledged by government who is expressly forbidden from trampling all over those rights.

No distinction or qualification to citizenship is made by the express prohibitions on government we call the Bill of Rights.

The fact of the matter is that The Bill of Rights is a doctrine of acknowledge rights that belong to all people everywhere, and if there be Klingons and Wookies travelling the universe, they have these rights too. Not because some "white landed slave holders" said so, but because it is so.

We (Americans) used to understand this. We no longer do, and it was fairly easy to predict an event such as 9/11 would happen and be used to expand government and usher in more control.

Reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Would you be so kind as to give me the preamble to the Constitution?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Would you be so kind as to give me the preamble to the Constitution?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution for the United States of America, being one of the most profound indictments on government ever written, uses the Preamble to make clear to government officials who holds the inherent political power of the U.S., and that is the People. Not "citizens", and this Preamble certainly does not, at any time, limit the rights of People to only those with citizenship.

But, to someone who swore upon the destruction of the fortress and her people and wears the uniform of the enemy needs to be taken out.

A strike by ground would've been problematic hence why it was a strike by air.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Would you be so kind as to give me the preamble to the Constitution?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution for the United States of America, being one of the most profound indictments on government ever written, uses the Preamble to make clear to government officials who holds the inherent political power of the U.S., and that is the People. Not "citizens", and this Preamble certainly does not, at any time, limit the rights of People to only those with citizenship.

I beg to differ.

The opening line . . .

We the People of the United States. This means citizens of the United States.

The Bill of Rights is codified for the reasons given in the preamble.

Notice:

* . . . to form a more perfect Union - a Union of the states, not of the world.

*insure domestic tranquility - not tranquility of the world. tranquility of the United States.

*provide for the common defense - again, not the defense of the world, but of the United States.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

And to secure the Blessings of Liberty to whom again? The world? Or ourselves (citizens) and our posterity (also citizens)?

And here's the clincher . . .

*do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - It plainly states that the Constitution is for whom again? The United States, not everyone in the world.



It baffles me how plain English can be misread . . . especially by someone of your Constitutional knowledge.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
But, to someone who swore upon the destruction of the fortress and her people and wears the uniform of the enemy needs to be taken out.

A strike by ground would've been problematic hence why it was a strike by air.

I am sorry. I did not see that qualification in the Constitution.

Can you please show me where it says that we have a right to due process, unless we swear upon the destruction of the fortress and her people and wears the uniform of the enemy?

By the way, the enemy does not have a uniform. o_O

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

I beg to differ. The opening line . . . We the People of the United States. This means citizens of the United States.

If the Founders meant by People "citizens", they would have said so. The Framers of the Constitution knew what the word "citizen" was at that time, and these were very wise and educated men, most of them prone to say what they mean and mean what they say. The certainly understood the rules of statutory construction, and that each and every word be given significance. This means so should you.

The Preamble does not make any mention of "citizens". It only speaks of People. Because the Constitution is a political document establishing a federal government for the United States of America, and since it is made clear that it is the People Ordaining this Constitution, it follows that the We the People of the United States is not limiting any rights to only People of the United States, merely that the People of the United States have Ordained the Constitution that still stand to this day.

Notice: * . . . to form a more perfect Union - a Union of the states, not of the world.

I can only assume what this means, but if you are implying that I am arguing that the Bill of Rights is an express prohibition on "the world", you are mistaken. The Bill of Rights is an express prohibition on the government officials of the United States of America, and they are prohibited by the Bill of Rights from abrogating and/or derogating the rights of People everywhere. Not just citizens of the United States, but all people. This is not an imposition on other world governments, except that when U.S. government officials abide by the constraints placed upon them by Constitution, it can make petty tyrants across the world look pretty bad, and I suppose that can be somewhat imposing.

That last point is moot, however, since few federal employees have regard for the Bill of Rights, and at best tend to take the attitude you have, at worst could care less. Best or worst, neither is good, nor lawful.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

And what a bleak picture that is. Either you are purposely pretending I made an argument I did not make, or you are merely deflecting. All people everywhere have certain unalienable rights. This is not an imposition on People anywhere, it is simply a fact. The Framers of the Bill of Rights (primarily James Madison) did not invent the rights enumerated in that Bill of Rights, they did not grant these rights to anyone, and they certainly did not impose these rights upon anyone. The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the federal government from denying and disparaging these rights...for all people, everywhere.

It baffles me how plain English can be misread . . . especially by someone of your Constitutional knowledge.

This coming from the person who read the Preamble and somehow found the word "citizen" written within it.

Sigh.

Americans that enjoyed the right to due process:

Timothy McVeigh
Nidal Hassan
Ted Kaczynski
Ted Bundy
Charles Manson
Henry Lee Lucas

Every one of them singly killed more people with their own hands than al-Awlaki did.

The left calls for the abolition of the death penalty, merely because there are people on death row that might be innocent. They want free health care because people should be able to live healthy lives. They mandate overwhelmingly preposterous rules and regulations because someone could get hurt. Abortion should be legal under any circumstance because "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body".

All of the above are held as shining examples of the "rights" of Americans. Yet an American is targeted for assassination without the absolute right of due process and it's "YAY! The terrorist was killed! Good job!"

It actually makes me physically ill to see you cheering that. I truly hope it's not you targeted next. That door was just opened by our government, and you unlocked it for them.

/TOA

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Madison was quite a shrewd author. When he wrote "We the People...", capitalizing the word "People", he made it clear that the federal government had two masters: the citizenry, and the states. "We the People..." can translate as "We the people under the umbrella of the individual states...".

/TOA