Beginning of the end of due process?

[normiss 622]

Apparently it depends on who you ask.
A few in this tread where vehemently opposed to killing other nationals, but see no problem with this one.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

I've been mulling both sides of the issue since yesterday afternoon before commenting.

I understand the argument in favor of it, in very narrow circumstances. This is not solely "war-context rules of engagement", nor is it solely one of "probable cause and judicial due process"; nor is there a distinct line between the two; it's more of a "grey zone" that overlaps both.

But on balance, I'll weigh in against it, because the range of permissible facts needed to trigger such action can potentially be so vague. We have to look at this long-term: quite simply, I think there's too much potential for future abuse over the long run, giving the US the excuse to declare its dissident citizens "enemies of the state" and trump-up justifications to summarily execute them offshore. (Or is "offshore" even required?) There are other countries that do this already, and we Westerners recoil in revulsion at it. As well we should; we "Western" nations are supposed to be better than that.

This isn't what our World War II veterans suffered and died to preserve and protect. Let's not roll them in their graves.

I did about the same thing and came to the same conclusion. The slippery slope is just what the Founding Fathers meant to protect against. And the conclusion that the issue is non-justiciable? Wow.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Just because the guy is a real destructive asshole doesn't mean that he should be taken out without due process, and without anyone taking responsibility.

Open question to anybody who cares to venture an answer: what would constitute "due process"? Imagine, for example, a US citizen who is known (based on solid intelligence) to be 1) training agents to carry out a biological warfare attack on the US, 2) is operating a facility to provide would-be attackers with biological warfare agents, and 3) is doing so from a country that will not permit US troops on their territory under any circumstances.


What actions would be permissible, other than sparing no expense/number of troops killed to capture the guy alive, read him his Miranda rights, etc? What actual course of action would you guys order, if you were President, to replace the current policy?

Don

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because the guy is a real destructive asshole doesn't mean that he should be taken out without due process, and without anyone taking responsibility.

Open question to anybody who cares to venture an answer: what would constitute "due process"? Imagine, for example, a US citizen who is known (based on solid intelligence) to be 1) training agents to carry out a biological warfare attack on the US, 2) is operating a facility to provide would-be attackers with biological warfare agents, and 3) is doing so from a country that will not permit US troops on their territory under any circumstances.


What actions would be permissible, other than sparing no expense/number of troops killed to capture the guy alive, read him his Miranda rights, etc? What actual course of action would you guys order, if you were President, to replace the current policy?

Don

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges.

You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly.

[lawrocket 3]

When a person plots a murder and we learn about it, we don’t go in and execute, do we? No. We make arrests, charge them with attempt, and give them a fair trial.

There are countries throughout the world with which we have extradition treaties. There are others with which we do not. Those who are in countries that won’t cooperate with us? We gotta suck it up.

It is unfortunate that the true test subject of this are people who are pretty unpopular. In doing so, the focus gets placed on the person subject to the act rather than the act itself. It creates a line whereupon the “high level government official” makes the determination of who is worthy of due process. “This person is not worth trial.” “It would be too tough to gather admissible evidence against this person.” “It would be risky to go get this person.” “This person has a youtube channel and said ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.’ He has not backed off from those threats.”

Once “black or white” becomes grey, it becomes greyer and greyer.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

It is unfortunate that the true test subject of this are people who are pretty unpopular.

Of course, that's the whole point with Constitutional protections in the US, and analogous legal protections (of which there are many) in countries with similar legal systems: that protection of civil rights and liberties are weak and lukewarm when they only protect the popular in society; the true test is how well they protect the rights and liberties of those we find obnoxious, unpopular and repugnant.

[sfzombie 3]

Quote

US routinely kills its own citizens without due process. The FBI killed a guy in Alabama just yesterday.

the fbi had the due process yesterday, he was the guy in the bunker that took the kid. end of story. no need for a court to say he wasn't in his right mind, he killed a bus driver and took a kid. had there been another guy there, maybe, just maybe, there would have been a need for a trial, but in this case, it was the right thing to do.
same thing should be done for drunk drivers who kill someone. when the cops pull him out of the car, determine he was driving, and determine he was drunk, they should take him to the road and execute him. after about 6 months of this, the problem would fix itself.
the media and hollywood is to blame for the violence that permeates society today. they never show the consequences, only actions. like a fight scene where they are kicked and hit with anything for minutes and never show a mark. kids are raised with no notion of consequences, and people wonder why it's ok in some kids head to shoot someone.

http://kitswv.com

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

US routinely kills its own citizens without due process. The FBI killed a guy in Alabama just yesterday.

the fbi had the due process yesterday, he was the guy in the bunker that took the kid. end of story. no need for a court to say he wasn't in his right mind, he killed a bus driver and took a kid. had there been another guy there, maybe, just maybe, there would have been a need for a trial, but in this case, it was the right thing to do.
same thing should be done for drunk drivers who kill someone. when the cops pull him out of the car, determine he was driving, and determine he was drunk, they should take him to the road and execute him. after about 6 months of this, the problem would fix itself.
the media and hollywood is to blame for the violence that permeates society today. they never show the consequences, only actions. like a fight scene where they are kicked and hit with anything for minutes and never show a mark. kids are raised with no notion of consequences, and people wonder why it's ok in some kids head to shoot someone.

There are a couple of reasonable counter-points to his proposition. Those aren't any of them.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Post 911 6,000 US pilots were handed tickets for violating airspace and they didn't have due process. They were deemed guilty. There were allowed an administrative gov't hearing to try and overturn the conviction, but few tried that route as it was useless. No jury trials allowed. A self serving gov't looking out for their own gov't jobs. Now 17 federal agencies oversee airspace security.

Yes, there are two political parties to keep the populace bantering back and forth, but only on party running the place, and they're slightly out of view.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Post 911 6,000 US pilots were handed tickets for violating airspace and they didn't have due process. They were deemed guilty. There were allowed an administrative gov't hearing to try and overturn the conviction, but few tried that route as it was useless. No jury trials allowed. A self serving gov't looking out for their own gov't jobs. Now 17 federal agencies oversee airspace security.

Yes, there are two political parties to keep the populace bantering back and forth, but only on party running the place, and they're slightly out of view.

Same today for cities in Iowa that have speeding and red light cameras

The owner is guilty

Even if not driving

No trial but you can "request" an administrative apeal

If you dont pay the city levy's an civil penalty

sounds a bit like the individual mandate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

We as a nation should come up with a document, say a 'Constitution' if you will, to keep things like this in check.


I think we should start apologizing to the future generations now.
We fumbled and we fucked up.

Even WITH the Second we will never be able to stop the government again. They will simply label us 'terrorists'.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Post 911 6,000 US pilots were handed tickets for violating airspace and they didn't have due process. They were deemed guilty. There were allowed an administrative gov't hearing to try and overturn the conviction, but few tried that route as it was useless. No jury trials allowed. A self serving gov't looking out for their own gov't jobs. Now 17 federal agencies oversee airspace security.

Yes, there are two political parties to keep the populace bantering back and forth, but only on party running the place, and they're slightly out of view.

Same today for cities in Iowa that have speeding and red light cameras

The owner is guilty LIABLE.

Fixed it for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Post 911 6,000 US pilots were handed tickets for violating airspace and they didn't have due process. They were deemed guilty. There were allowed an administrative gov't hearing to try and overturn the conviction, but few tried that route as it was useless. No jury trials allowed. A self serving gov't looking out for their own gov't jobs. Now 17 federal agencies oversee airspace security.

Yes, there are two political parties to keep the populace bantering back and forth, but only on party running the place, and they're slightly out of view.

Same today for cities in Iowa that have speeding and red light cameras

The owner is guilty LIABLE.

Fixed it for you.

MEH

BFD

costs them either way

Just another back door tax for liberal dumb ass spending programs we cant afford

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

He thinks civil, criminal, and misdemeanor traffic offenses are all the same.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

He thinks civil, criminal, and misdemeanor traffic offenses are all the same.

You are making the assumption the mind is used

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges.

You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly.

Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi rush,

Quote

Same today for cities in Iowa that have speeding and red light cameras

The owner is guilty

Even if not driving

No trial but you can "request" an administrative apeal

If you dont pay the city levy's an civil penalty

sounds a bit like the individual mandate

Consider moving to Beaverton, OR. We have both here.

- The owner is not guilty. The registered owner does get the notice of the ticket; I know, been there & done that ( my son driving ~ 16-17 yrs ago ).

- Here we can easily go to trial, just don't pay any fine/bail money & show up on the date scheduled.

Sounds like due process to me.

JerryBaumchen

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Hi rush,

Quote

Same today for cities in Iowa that have speeding and red light cameras

The owner is guilty

Even if not driving

No trial but you can "request" an administrative apeal

If you dont pay the city levy's an civil penalty

sounds a bit like the individual mandate

Consider moving to Beaverton, OR. We have both here.

- The owner is not guilty. The registered owner does get the notice of the ticket; I know, been there & done that ( my son driving ~ 16-17 yrs ago ).

- Here we can easily go to trial, just don't pay any fine/bail money & show up on the date scheduled.

Sounds like due process to me.

JerryBaumchen

No trial here
Adminstrative hearing by the city

you can dispute but you pay or you tell them who was driving

Even if you dont know
YOU then pay

Don't pay it, they slap a $200 civil fine on you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges.

You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly.

Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now.

I do, too, when it's bona fide. But when it's a facade to veil a breach of the rule of law, I react... as I have.

The only judicial analog I can think of under the American system of law are when search warrants and arrest warrants are issued by judges with only the police or prosecutors present. And usually, they're just pro-forma rubber stamps. But there, the worst that could happen would be a wrongful arrest or search. That's a FAR CRY from a DEATH WARRANT issued secretly, unilaterally and otherwise without further due process, even if by a judge. IMPO, any American judge that would do such a thing should be impeached from office and disbarred.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

When a person plots a murder and we learn about it, we don’t go in and execute, do we? No. We make arrests, charge them with attempt, and give them a fair trial.

We make a good faith effort to make an arrest, and if we are able to do, then we give them a fair trial. Sometimes the accused will resist arrest, and sometimes that resistance will involve them threatening or killing LEOs, hostages, innocent bystanders, etc. We don't permit such actions to continue unabated, allowing the casualties to mount as we wait for an opportunity to make an arrest. We don't ask LEOs to "take a bullet" rather than defend themselves, lest we deny the defendant due process. Although the potential for abuse exists, we allow LEOs to make judgements about what actions to take to protect their own lives and the lives of other potential victims, and somehow the sky hasn't fallen.

That former Seal who was murdered at a gun range the other day claimed over 150 kills as a sniper. I doubt that any of those 150 were offered a trial, or were represented by competent legal counsel. Did anyone even bother to check their citizenship papers? Also, I do not recall a formal declaration of war against the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan. Who will deny that the US military was acting as an agent of the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan? So was that Seal a murderer? Should we demand that the military implement ROIs that mandate that no enemy combatants be killed, but rather that no number of US casualties is too large a cost to ensure every enemy is taken alive to stand trial? How are drone attacks materially any different than a sniper?

I asked if any procedure were conceivable that would balance the need for due process with the country's need (I would argue right) to defend itself against attack. I got "We gotta suck it up." There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. Delusional Joker wannabes with the firepower of a small army? Gotta suck it up. Convicted felons buying guns on the street? Gotta suck it up.

Quote

It is unfortunate that the true test subject of this are people who are pretty unpopular. In doing so, the focus gets placed on the person subject to the act rather than the act itself.

I agree, and I'm sure we also agree that rights are only rights when they apply to the unpopular as well as the popular.

Quote

It creates a line whereupon the “high level government official” makes the determination of who is worthy of due process.

I also agree that this is a power that shouldn't just be delegated to an unaccountable government official. I'm envisioning a process akin to a real trial, in which the accused is represented by a real defense, not just a "grand jury" style process. I'm not a fan of government actions that have no judicial branch oversight, such as warrantless wiretaps. But, I'm also not a fan of the idea that we are barred from defending ourselves against attack.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 3]

Quote

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

You're assuming the President simply decides by himself that a person is worth killing and then he alone signs some order to do it. That's not the case. The CIA and the military are involved. They determine who is the threat, then after deliberation on options they make a recommendation. The President then weighs the options and sometimes decides the person is so great a threat to the US, it is best for everyone he be removed from the game.

All a "judicial review" would do is add 1 or 3 more people into the mix. If the CIA and military have done their jobs properly, I can't see how that would change things one iota because certainly if their evidence is strong enough to convince the President (who has to deal with the potential repercussions of the drone strike), it's going to be strong enough to convince a judge (who does not).

EVERY strike on foreign soil has to be carefully weighed as a potential war starter. Do you really think the President just does it whilly-nilly?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges.

You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly.

Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now.

I do, too, when it's bona fide. But when it's a facade to veil a breach of the rule of law, I react... as I have.

The only judicial analog I can think of under the American system of law are when search warrants and arrest warrants are issued by judges with only the police or prosecutors present. And usually, they're just pro-forma rubber stamps. But there, the worst that could happen would be a wrongful arrest or search. That's a FAR CRY from a DEATH WARRANT issued secretly, unilaterally and otherwise without further due process, even if by a judge. IMPO, any American judge that would do such a thing should be impeached from office and disbarred.

Andy, I agree with you on this. I do wonder if there is any "in absentia" process you could imagine, such as an actual trial with real representation for the defense, that would satisfy the need for due process? Or do we really just have a choice between "suck it up" or declaring war on yet another country when a terrorist (or allegedly terrorist) organization sets up shop in a place where the local government is unwilling or unable to apprehend them?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Hi rush,

Quote

Same today for cities in Iowa that have speeding and red light cameras

The owner is guilty

Even if not driving

No trial but you can "request" an administrative apeal

If you dont pay the city levy's an civil penalty

sounds a bit like the individual mandate

Consider moving to Beaverton, OR. We have both here.

- The owner is not guilty. The registered owner does get the notice of the ticket; I know, been there & done that ( my son driving ~ 16-17 yrs ago ).

- Here we can easily go to trial, just don't pay any fine/bail money & show up on the date scheduled.

Sounds like due process to me.

JerryBaumchen

Then if you go to court and lose, which you will do as you're not beating radar or pacing or speed camera, you pay the fine PLUS COURT COSTS. YEA YOU HAD YOUR DUE FRIGGIN PROCESS that cost more than if you turned it down. HA HA...
Same with the costs for criminal but measured in time behind bars: go to trial, get guilty, get life or take a plea, guilty and serve no time and end up playing NFL football.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How about some sort of judicial review of these "known facts" instead of them just being decided by executive fiat with no need for that branch to prove it to anybody. That would be a start.

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges.

You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly.

Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now.

I do, too, when it's bona fide. But when it's a facade to veil a breach of the rule of law, I react... as I have.

The only judicial analog I can think of under the American system of law are when search warrants and arrest warrants are issued by judges with only the police or prosecutors present. And usually, they're just pro-forma rubber stamps. But there, the worst that could happen would be a wrongful arrest or search. That's a FAR CRY from a DEATH WARRANT issued secretly, unilaterally and otherwise without further due process, even if by a judge. IMPO, any American judge that would do such a thing should be impeached from office and disbarred.

Andy, I agree with you on this. I do wonder if there is any "in absentia" process you could imagine, such as an actual trial with real representation for the defense, that would satisfy the need for due process? Or do we really just have a choice between "suck it up" or declaring war on yet another country when a terrorist (or allegedly terrorist) organization sets up shop in a place where the local government is unwilling or unable to apprehend them? Don

I am always, always, always opposed to criminal trials in absentia, for any reason; and I've heard all the argumenst in favor of them, in limited circumstances, before. To my mind, that is utterly contrary to my view of legitimate due process under a valid system governed by the rule of law. Absolutist, admittedly, but there it is.

[quade 3]

So, faced with overwhelming evidence (and his own video admission) the person is a terrorist operating in a non-friendly country you think it's better to risk the lives of a team of special forces to attempt to capture the guy and put him on trial (one in which he will almost assuredly be found guilty) rather than simply take him out and be done with it?

I dunno about that.

Again, technically an American citizen or not, once a guy throws in with terrorists and actively is working for them, I think the guy is fair game. The guy was an admitted traitor by definition; not simply by hyperbole.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver