Extract from here:
The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
Recent escalation...
--------------------------------------
Here is an interview with Ron Paul right after Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated:
Ron Paul is pointing to the Fifth Amendment as the reason for the killing being illegal:
Amendment 5 to the Constitution (Part of the Bill of Rights)
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
[Added Oct 10, '11]
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, 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 defence. ]
Those who say that Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor to the United States as a Citizen of the US are correct:
Article 3 - Section 3 of the Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
Anwar al-Awlaki did encourage war against his country so it did count as treason yet he is not exempt from the law (even in Article 3 Section 3, its obvious the founding fathers thought traitors would be tried in open court).
This is the best write up in mainstream media(CNN) on this topic (in my opinion):
Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous
Extrajudicial killing of terrorists suspects, however, is no more efficacious, lawful or moral than torture. President Obama campaigned against the use of torture, the “global war on terror” and the senseless war in Iraq. He promised to restore America’s standing in the world. He spoke of the importance of adhering to the rule of law and our values in facing the challenge of terrorism and other problems.
In 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, stated on Israeli television the U.S. position regarding Israeli targeted killing of suspected terrorists: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”
How could we? Killing in war is justifiable morally and legally because of the extraordinary situation of real hostilities. In the limited zones on the planet where two or more contending armed groups fight for territorial control, people are on notice of the danger. In such zones, the necessity to kill without warning is understood. Still, even in combat, there are rules. Civilians may not be directly targeted; principles of necessity and humanity restrain.
Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.
Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and several persons with him on Friday in Yemen did not occur in a battle zone. The killings occurred in a country in the midst of upheaval with various armed and unarmed factions struggling for control. The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
A debate between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich:
From Wolf Blitzer's Blog;
When it comes to President Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul couldn’t disagree more. Gingrich says the president did the right thing; Paul says he’s open to trying to impeach the president.
“The fact is, Congressman Paul is wrong about the law,” the former House speaker told me. “He’s wrong about the Constitution.”
Insisting that al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant,” Gingrich added: “The president was exactly right legally and he was exactly right morally in killing somebody who was a threat to everybody.”
Paul strongly disagrees. He says the president violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
“It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,” Paul told me. “We’ve never had a policy that said we can put somebody on an assassination list by a secret tribunal.”
Note: Ron Paul has called for an impeachment but, "He added, however, that he believed every U.S. president had committed impeachable offenses, and said the success of a push for impeachment would depend on the political conditions in Washington." - Personally, if there is an impeachment process, I think it needs to include allot more people in the trial than just Obama, for example, a member of the last administration who set up secret assassination squads, at least this killing was announced publicly though it leaves the door open for secret assassination squads in the future returning to the scene. in a sense, it was the secret squads that came before the official ones. In other words, transparency in the government's 'war on terror' is another problem.
From 'The Colbert Report': Cheney's Secret Assassination Squad
It's hard to believe Dick Cheney had the time to command a secret lawless assassination squad with all the secret lawless torture. (02:10)
No comments:
Post a Comment