After the United States killed Anwar al Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, in a drone strike last year, people had a lot of uncomfortable questions about why that was OK under U.S. law. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder tried to answer them without mentioning the specifics of Awlaki's case. He said extrajudicial killings are legal if they are carried out after due process, clarifying that that doesn't necessarily mean a courtroom. Holder didn't mention Awlaki's name except as an influence on underwear bomber Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, for whom the DOJ recently secured a life sentence. In his prepared remarks (available in full on the U.S. Department of Justice's website), Holder told a crowd at Chicago's Northwestern University Law School that international law and the U.S. Constitution justified lethal force in the face of an imminent threat, and that while citizens had the right to due process, that didn't necessarily mean a trial by jury:


Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.


Outside of "due process," Holder outlined four requirements the United States has to follow in order to legally kill a citizen:


The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value. The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally. Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.


Holder's remarks didn't address how Awlaki's case met those requirements. Essentially, he said, we'll have to trust that the government knows what it's doing. That didn't satisfy the ACLU, which criticized the speech in an emailed statement: "Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact. Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power," Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the statement.


http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/holder-due-process-doesnt-necessarily-mean-courtroom/49509/

================


If its been posted before I apologize...


This kind of stuff scares me, I wonder what else has been twisted that didnt get caught.

Due process for a U.S. citizen is a courtroom and a jury of their peers. Nothing else.

If you are accused of breaking the law you have a right to make your case against such an accusation before punishment is dispensed.

And yet your sig says...


"A hero is someone that sees what needs to be done, and does his duty no matter the personal cost."


The asshole took up arms against his own country, and was actively encouraging and enabling others to do the same. He was the very definition of a traitor - which as a reminder is a capital crime.


Awlaki had ample opportunity to return to the US and face the charges against him. Several years and a few close calls in fact. He chose not to, so we shoved a missile up his ass. /props to Obama for having the nads to follow through on it.

 

-----signature-----

So if someone grabbed Holder by the scruff of his neck and kicked his ass for being a stupid fuck who lies constantly that would be justice, right?

 

-----signature-----

Well actually due process can be different things depending on the situation. For example when it's welfare benefits involved you don't 100% need to get a judicial determination before cutting them off IIRC. Although in the criminal context I agree a jury and courtroom is pretty much required.


Also when the us citizen is in another country not reachable by us judicial process that raises different issues potentially. If some US citizen is in another country actively engaged in attacking the US I think the military is justified in treating that person like it would any other person making war against the US. Where things get murky is when they're probably doing illegal stuff in another country but not actually attacking us.

So to sum up your post: Due process only applies when the government says it does.

 

-----signature-----

The guy was actively trying to kill American's. It's like telling police not to fire at a house when they're being shot at.

 

-----signature-----

I have no sympathy whatsoever for that dirtbag. Sucks to be a terrorist, doesn't it?

I am uncomfortable with the process though. It turns the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" idea on its head.

 

-----signature-----

When you're hiding in a foreign country attacking the US and refusing to turn yourself in I'm not sure you can cry about due process.


If they start going around doing this without charging the guy first and putting out a warrant for his arrest and waiting X amount of time I agree it's bad news. And I don't like it either way. But if they have proof to charge the guy with a crime and they do charge the guy and the guy keeps on attacking americans instead of turning himsefl in for trial I don't know that he really gets to complain about not getting a trial.

Was there proof given that he was doing that?