Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Be Afraid - Be Very, Very Afraid

Let me state right up front that I have no use for home-grown terrorists. Any U.S. citizen who turns against his or her country deserves to die. But...

One of the many things that makes this country great is the rule of law. It may have been perverted in a few times and places, but generally speaking the government must follow due process when depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property.

Which is what makes this so frightening.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Constitution does not protect U.S. suspects plotting to kill other Americans
Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an "imminent threat" of attack against the USA and whose capture is "not feasible".

The attorney general's remarks come as civil rights advocates have condemned such killings, including the fatal military drone strike in September against Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to obtain Justice Department memos authorizing the action and detailing how the government places Americans on "kill lists."
I don't find myself siding with the ACLU very often, but in this case we're on the same page.
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said that although Holder's speech represented "a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government's chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens."

"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," Shamsi said.
What are the criteria for determining if someone poses an imminent threat to the U.S? Who makes that decision? Are you comfortable with allowing some nameless, faceless government functionary to make life-or-death decisions with no transparency or accountability?

I damn sure aren't. Remember, this is the same government that lost money when it had a monopoly on delivering mail.
Holder said opponents of the government's position cling to legal interpretations that are "simply not accurate."
It seems to me that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is pretty straightforward. It doesn't require a whole lot of interpretation.
Amendment V

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 offence 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.
Where's the indictment? Where's the Grand Jury? Where's the due process of law?

Again, I'm not defending U.S. citizens who are plotting to kill other U.S. citizens. Loathsome though they may be, however, they are protected by the same framework of rights and laws as the rest of us. To allow the government to arbitrarily designate certain individuals for death is too terrifying to contemplate.
 
After all, according to many liberals and government officials -- including Vice President Joe Biden -- Tea Party members are terrorists.

8 comments:

Pascvaks said...

"We should'a followed the Constitution, and we would'a if we could'a." (I don't think this is the problem. In fact, I don't really see a problem. Remember, I am REAL SLOW.)
When push gets to shove there's some folks out there that are enemies, some are foreign, and some are domestic. If someone is a military target, they need to grab their socks and cut'a'chogie real fast (though I'd prefer they not), G.I. Joe and Jane are going to blow them away in a heartbeat if someone tells them to, and they ain't going to ask for some piece of paper signed by twelve good and true citizens who found the target guilty and a judge that said it was all legal and hunky'dorry to pull the trigger.
The distinction in my book is the definition of a lawful order. If it passes the stink test it's wheels up and bombs away.

Old NFO said...

Enemy on the battlefield is one thing, taking people out here at home is something else...

SRG said...

I don't know which side of the fence I am on this issue. I get the constitutional argument but if they are planning to harm American soldiers or acts of violence on US soil I say drop 'em.

Anonymous said...

Yea,

This is truly an enigma.

The 5th amendment was conceived long before hundreds of thousand of militant, evil-ideologue Muslims lurked on American soil and even held citizenship.

In my growing-up years (the 1950's) the worse thing around were the "Commies". But they were only a McCarthy wet-dream as far as a genuine threat. The idea of some dreaded, shadowy group whose "religious" dictates were to DESTROY all the non-believers.....AND MEAN IT...was not in the cards.

Now in the 21st century it's a whole new ball game. Maybe the rules have to be changed????


Toejam

Pascvaks said...

I should have added, above, that the weakest link in the Constitution are the people called "We", the very ones who authorize it each and ever day, the very ones who "elect" the "bozos" who are supposed to implement it each day. When 'We the People' get sloppy and real stupid and elect some awful idiots we deserve exactly what we get and shouldn't be surprised at who they're targeting. Do I trust OBYuan? Not a bit. Am I worried about the idiots he's appointed to "run" the Federal System? Yes! Am I praying that things don't turn to sh*t before he leaves office? Every Minute. Do I blame him for all the stupid, idiotic things he and his Mob have done to the country? Not a bit! Not a bit! He only voted for himself. There were millions and millions and millions of others who voted for him. They are the guilty ones.

CenTexTim said...

SRG and Toejam - I understand your position. I struggled with this one too. But IMO it all comes down to how much faith we have in our government to get things right. Based on their track record to date, I'm very uncomfortable with 'them' making the decision -- behind closed doors and with no checks and balances -- that someone is a threat. (BTW - welcome SRG. Thanks for commenting.)

Couple that with the slippery slope argument. First it's 'terrorists' outside the US borders. Then it's 'terrorists' inside the country ("They were planning to fly a plane into a building"). Then it's "He was planning to shoot the president." Then it's "He was opposing the president." (If you haven't already seen it, watch an old movie named Star Chamber.

I'm not a black helicopters conspiracy type of person, but I just flat out do not trust the government - ANY government - with the power to arbitrarily target people for assassination.

Toejam - yes, it's a new ballgame, in many ways. Look at radio, TV, and the Internet. The Founding Fathers never dreamed of technological advances such as those, but the First Amendment principle of free speech is still applicable. If the necessity exists to kill certain people because they represent threats, then let's figure out a way to do so within the bounds of the Constitution.

Like Pascvaks and Old NFO, I prefer to follow the Constitution. It's an imperfect document, implemented imperfectly by imperfect people, but IMO it's still the best instruction manual for government anywhere around.

Now if we could just get the current administration to read it...

Pascvaks said...

The weakest link in the chain is the bozo we elect as our personal Representative in Congress and the two meatheads we send to the Senate to represent our State. And y'all know what they say about the strength of the chain and the weakest links. It doesn't matter to me who we elect to replace the Damn'ocrat in the WH, but I'm scared to death who y'all are gonna' send to the House and Senate. I don't think we stand a chance in hell of getting out of this decade alive based on the record to date. OBYuan would have been just an idiot, smug, no-account mouthpiece for the Commie-Left-Coast if the #@$%$#%^# Great Opposition Party had done their job by half. Nope! We're Toast! Mitt, Nutt, Rick, and Ron are the Cherry on the Whipped Cream, the quality of the bananas is what makes a good or bad 'split'; and the bananas I see are kind'a the same old and soggy and rank and pathetic excuses for who and what a real banana is supposed to be. We don't need anymore limp Presidents, but they don't really matter, it's the limp members of Congress you'll kill you every time a vote comes up.

SRG said...

After reading Enemies Foriegn and Domestic by Matthew Bracken I understand the need to keep a leash on government. I don't know what protocol the government would use to determine who would be a target, but I do agree with you a Star Chamber type of commitee would not suffice. I kinda think Washington has been doing this for quite some time. Without the paperwork.
(CenTex - Enjoy your blog.Have you on my blog roll)