Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

"two admittedly regrettable but nevertheless distinguishable scenarios..."

http://www.retrohound.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/vlcsnap-2011-01-19-14h13m32s118.png

The question now to be decided has been argued in a manner worthy of its importance, and with an earnestness evincing the strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with them. A degree of eloquence seldom displayed on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument and a depth of research by which the court has been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. The testimony adduced on the part of the United States to prove the overt act laid in the indictment having shown, and the attorney for the United States having admitted, that the prisoner was not present when that act, whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance, and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States to connect him with those who committed the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrelevant, and must, therefore, be rejected. The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings.
On the first division of the subject two points are made:

1st. That, conformably to the constitution of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied.

2d. That if this construction be erroneous, no testimony can be received to charge one man with the overt acts of others until those overt acts as laid in the indictment be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

dude what?

freedom from trial in absentia is like one of the most basic and important procedural protections there are! let me dig up the relevant lit

guys, remember: Shakes is still lobbying to be the secretary of defense in a Soto administration.

i'm never sure what people get out of these "at least he's not..." arguments. i suppose i'm glad obama's not doing even worse shit than he already is, but an illegal assassination program isn't exactly the only alternative to carpet-bombing pakistan.

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

xpp

shakey: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-6194.ZS.html

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

yeah that's a whole other problem...

That's the trouble. The national security state hasn't reconciled Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel decisions, and Oval Office urgency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_v._Terrazas#Subsequent_developments

also relevant

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, January 23, 2012 1:28 PM (3 minutes ago)

it RAISES the question, and yeah i guess their only other option would be to kill him, which is what they did! doesn't mean it's grounded in law

That's the trouble. The national security state hasn't reconciled Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel decisions, and Oval Office urgency.

yep, a huge mess with no end in sight.

color me naive but it's still amazing & creeped out to me that "secret opinions" are possible

no doubt there's a long ass history of these things throughout the cold war. or maybe not! i rly don't know.

doesn't mean it's grounded in law

shoot first, write law later lol

ha otm

thx for the legal links btw, thought there might be something unique aspect of treason charges/circumstances that would allow the in absentia thing but I guess not

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

There's no trial by absentia in the US, also:

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

Only if we are currently belligerents with that foreign military, or you happen to be an officer or Non-Comm - you have to give that position up but you don't actually have to be discharged.

The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of the Justice Department legal opinion in the Awlaki case. (The department has declined to provide the documents requested.)

color me naive but it's still amazing & creeped out to me that "secret opinions" are possible

no doubt there's a long ass history of these things throughout the cold war. or maybe not! i rly don't know.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, January 23, 2012 1:34 PM (54 seconds ago)

hey on the bright side people have the opportunity for definite acquittal, ostensible acquittal, and indefinite postponement

Oh and an XP to myself and clarification for shakes -- declaring yourself an enemy combatant through joining up with Al Qaeda or their All-Yemeni B-Team is enough (in my mind) to count as willfully giving up your citizenship. A judge might need a bit more convincing but probably not by much.

TBQH I also thought for a long time that for some of the high crimes like double murders and treason and stuff you could be tried in absentia, dunno why. I blame British television.

declaring yourself an enemy combatant through joining up with Al Qaeda or their All-Yemeni B-Team is enough (in my mind) to count as willfully giving up your citizenship

mm yeah no

damn Alfred you are right - renunciation of citizenship takes some official hoops I didn't realize one had to jump through: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Think I'll take a break from this thread for a few more years...

Too late, we've ordered a drone strike on your location.

You might miss and take out one of the rest of us instead

and no army will defend our dead

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/arkansas_democrat_childs_cat_killed_liberal_written_on_dead_body

jfc

what the FUCK

fuuuck

tho in mind of b-face self-scratcher girl and the suicide census worker with "fed" on him, i think i'd like to see more info discovered about this

I am pretty certain that was done by someone's idiot children

a banner day for weird shit:

An aide to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) resigned Monday after he was arrested for battery following a bizarre incident in which his wife alleged he rolled her up in a carpet, beat and kicked her.

that's the guy on the shortlist for vp nom right?

the aide would be a pretty good pick imo

That cat story is bad enough, then you get to the Republican pointing to his military service in his condemnation. I think you can chill with the talking points, bro.

Pelsoi: I'm going to be Speaker again.

where did you guys talk about the state of the union?

GOP primary thread, tho not much talk, really.

fitting

i had better use for the evening ... watching old Colin Baker-era doctor who episodes.

yeah i was getting drinks with friends, mercifully

I kinda watched it while writing something about music for my local alt-weekly. Just read the annoying Washington Post (likely Fred Hyatt written)take on the speech. They grumble that Obama's proposed tax changes would unfairly benefit manufacturers over other businesses; and that he won't propose a higher gas tax and other user fees in order to deficit. They liked Mitch Daniels rebuttal speech because he focussed on the debt, but then the W. Post acknowledged that the Republicans have not offered "responsible proposals to pay for the nation's needs." Oh brother.

I liked the Buffet Rule thing Obama said: those earning 1 million or more have to pay at least 30% in taxes, but that's mostly just reelection talk.

in order to cut the deficit

Washington Monthly blogger (and Obama cheerleader) Steve Benen is leaving that site to become a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and an MSNBC contributor.

just what MSNBC needs to blunt their skeptical edge

I liked the SOTU, and thought there was a lot of good substance in it, beyond the Buffett rule thing that the media focused on. For instance, reform of Senate rules to allow certain types of business to be conducted by majority vote, a shift in emphasis from deficit cutting to infrastructure investment, education reform ideas, immigration reform, and lots of other things.

Those ideas were nice and the speech was carefully crafted though to start off with the gung-ho America's military is the greatest stuff. Everything seemed carefully selected to respond to Republican candidates attacks.