Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the gunman who killed four Marines and a Navy sailor last week in Chattanooga, Tenn., was heavily influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki.
Abdulazeez had collected CDs and downloaded audio recordings of al-Awlaki’s teachings, placing him in the same company as the Ft. Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Once again, Cicero ignores the often used SWAT team tactics which are LEGAL. NO warrant, No arrest, No legal representation.
If you were to follow Cicero's plan, they would have had a meeting in some desert in Yemen, then read him his rights, provided him with an attorney, made sure that Anwar was comfortable, possibly over a nice glass of iced tea...
Then the suicide vest would have gone off and all in the meeting would be dead. BUT CISSY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY! You know... just like the LEGAL tactics of US SWAT Teams.
I already told you you swat raid holds no water. Swat raids are done in the execution of a warrant issued by a judge. al-Awlaki was on the "kill list" for over 1 year. That's more than enough time for the White House to present evidence to a court and get a warrant. How can someone be an "imminent threat" for over 1 year?
I've never made the argument that he had to be apprehended and stand trial, just present evidence to a court that you are legally justified to try to apprehend him. If he is killed during the attempted to apprehend, or there is an imminent threat to public safety, then it is justified that he be killed in order to protect innocent lives.
You keep on skipping over the part of the legal system that requires presenting evidence of probable cause. I remind you again, he was on the secret kill list for over a year. Surely enough time to present evidence to a court and issue a warrant.
But...Just like joey, you are fine with skipping the presentation of evidence for probable cause required in the Due Process Clause. Because who has time for due process when you fear al-Awlaki might cut your head off.
Exigent Circumstances Exigent circumstances are exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant.
Courts look at the time when the officer makes the warrantless search or seizure to evaluate whether at that point in time a reasonable officer at the scene would believe it is urgent to act and impractical to secure a warrant. Courts may also consider whether the facts suggested that the suspect was armed and planning to escape, whether a reasonable police officer would believe his safety or others’ safety was threatened, and whether there was a serious crime involved.
Exigent circumstances may also occur when the police is in hot pursuit of a suspect who is possibly involved in criminal activities and in the process of fleeing.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The administration’s legal argument in the case of Mr. Awlaki appeared to have three elements. ~ First, he posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans, having participated in plots to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and to bomb two cargo planes last year. ~ Second, he was fighting alongside the enemy in the armed conflict with Al Qaeda. ~ And finally, in the chaos of Yemen, there was no feasible way to arrest him.
The second of these three criteria—fighting alongside the enemy—is considered sufficient grounds for targeting a foreigner. The first and third—imminence of attack and feasibility of arrest—come into play only for U.S. citizens. By deduction, they are the due process test. If a U.S. citizen fighting alongside al-Qaida poses an imminent threat and can’t feasibly be arrested, we can send a drone to kill him.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The administration’s legal argument in the case of Mr. Awlaki appeared to have three elements. ~ First, he posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans, having participated in plots to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and to bomb two cargo planes last year. ~ Second, he was fighting alongside the enemy in the armed conflict with Al Qaeda. ~ And finally, in the chaos of Yemen, there was no feasible way to arrest him.
The second of these three criteria—fighting alongside the enemy—is considered sufficient grounds for targeting a foreigner. The first and third—imminence of attack and feasibility of arrest—come into play only for U.S. citizens. By deduction, they are the due process test. If a U.S. citizen fighting alongside al-Qaida poses an imminent threat and can’t feasibly be arrested, we can send a drone to kill him.
This is what is called controlled disclosure. The New York Times isn't part of the judicial branch, their newsroom is not a court, their opinion is not a legal one. They have no evidence, they do not challenge the memo, they just regurgitate the White House memo's justification for suspending the due process clause.
Exigent Circumstances Exigent circumstances are exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Exigent circumstances occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant. Over a year to secure a warrant.
Courts look at the time when the officer makes the warrantless search or seizure to evaluate whether at that point in time a reasonable officer at the scene would believe it is urgent to act and impractical to secure a warrant. Courts may also consider whether the facts suggested that the suspect was armed and planning to escape, whether a reasonable police officer would believe his safety or others’ safety was threatened, and whether there was a serious crime involved. Over 1 year on the "kill list", that gives a whole new definition of "imminent"
Exigent circumstances may also occur when the police is in hot pursuit of a suspect who is possibly involved in criminal activities and in the process of fleeing. "Hot pursuit" for over 1 year. They knew he was in Yemen thousands of miles away. Who was he an imminent threat to?
Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the gunman who killed four Marines and a Navy sailor last week in Chattanooga, Tenn., was heavily influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki.
Abdulazeez had collected CDs and downloaded audio recordings of al-Awlaki’s teachings, placing him in the same company as the Ft. Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists.
Anybody downloading al-Awlaki's teachings are "imminent threats" and should be placed on a secret kill list with no probable cause presented to a court.
The administration’s legal argument in the case of Mr. Awlaki appeared to have three elements. ~ First, he posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans, having participated in plots to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and to bomb two cargo planes last year. ~ Second, he was fighting alongside the enemy in the armed conflict with Al Qaeda. ~ And finally, in the chaos of Yemen, there was no feasible way to arrest him.
The second of these three criteria—fighting alongside the enemy—is considered sufficient grounds for targeting a foreigner. The first and third—imminence of attack and feasibility of arrest—come into play only for U.S. citizens. By deduction, they are the due process test. If a U.S. citizen fighting alongside al-Qaida poses an imminent threat and can’t feasibly be arrested, we can send a drone to kill him.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
43% of Republicans could imagine supporting a military coup in the United States
Only REPUBLICANS find it acceptable to support the US Military taking over our government. Figures!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
