POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

I was correcting YOU, not the article.

 

You were confirming that the lib media withheld thst fact in the report

 

I stand corrected, my apologies. However, I would have liked to see the court documents (the specifics of the case) rather than quotes from the attorney. It was the NDAA provision, enacted under the Obama administration and Obama himself (via ratification) that is likely being used as justification by the Trump administration attorneys. Having speculated, the NDAA provision is never mentioned in the article so we don't really know what the government attorneys used in their argument. The direct culprits here are those who are responsible for detaining this person without any access to due process. Did they do this as a result of the NDAA provision? We don't know, we just know they are in violation of the Constitution.

 

Don't imply your mentality into what I post, those are YOUR words, not mine.

 

Considering its DoD and the NDAA is in force you can draw your own conclusions.

 

You really need to read between the lines. This person if

Did you not read your own link? Did you not read it and think about it? "Counter terrorism"

 

It isn't that black and white chief.

 

I'd rather see the court documents, they tell the story, not my conclusions.

 

That's what the US government would like you to believe chief and apparently you do. And that's also why SCOTUS was able to seize the power to "interpret" the Constitution (in Marbury v Madison) with impunity, despite the 10th Amendment, because the majority believe such power is implied (i.e. not black and white). If the Constitution is left to the government's interpretations (i.e. whims), then anything within it is modifiable at the government's discretion and we are at disposal of the government's whims.

 

No, the constition isn't black and white becouse the court system says so. That is why Article III exists this guy was part of ISIS/ Terrorism.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...-lose-citizenship-living-another-country.html

He picked up arms against the US.... he is done.

 

That's exactly what I said, the court has no such power but claimed they do.

So please cite the exact provision in Article III that grants the courts the power to interpret the Constitution.

Is that also in Article III? He hasn't been convicted of anything, much less charged and tried. Due process protection exists in the Constitution for a reason. To prevent government servants from conducting witch hunts and guilt by accusation (banana republic "justice").

 

Meh. We tried to nail both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with bombs when they weren't directly involved in a firefight. No one objected then.

 

Yea due process protest Americans. Did you read the link or are you going to go off your so called calmed 50 years of experience

 

So no citation then? I figured.

 

Unfortunately, it's more than 7 decades of experience ... with life. With "civics classes" not so much. That's all I have to go on, everything I learned and know. You?

 

Which ones were American Citizens protected by the Constitution? Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son were.

 

So no you didn't look at the link

 

The burden of proof always rests with the claimant. You still haven't cited anything in the Constitution that supports your claim(s).

 

Al-Awlaki was a traitor fomenting attacks against American citizens. I'm surprised you are supporting him. His son wasn't targeted, just collateral damage like hundreds of other innocent people.

 

So then you think any American prisoners fighting for the enemy taken in a war-zone should be afforded a lawyer. What in your mind constitutes treason and removal of their rights?

 

Anyone in the custody of American government servants is protected by the US Constitution and those American government servants are bound by their Oath to defend, protect and preserve the Constitution. All treaties the US government is a signatory to is part of the Constitution via the Supremacy Clause. I don't "think" so, I know so.

Accusation of treason, official charges of treason, a valid constitutional court of law that affords ALL accused ALL due process rights (including the 6th Amendment protected right to counsel) and a guilty verdict.

Everyone within the jurisdiction of the US has constitutionally protected rights, including but not limited to those who are incarcerated. That ALWAYS includes the protected right to counsel.

www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/spg/SPG_aohandbook.pdf

 

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (sometimes called Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the ACLU and CCR charge that the U.S. government’s killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen in 2011 violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

...

the killings violated the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and, with respect to Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the ban on extrajudicial death warrants imposed by the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause. The killings also violated international law, which is incorporated through the Constitution.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens

Al-Awlaki was never charged with treason, never mind convicted.

 

See link all you have to do is click it.

 

And the court dismissed it

 

I did, there's not one citation from the Constitution in the contents. Perhaps I missed it, please quote the citation.