Re:Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files
by brymaster on Saturday August 17, 2013 @08:03PM
(#6230901)
> So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sincerely appreciated.
I think you'll be waiting a long time for rayiner to give you one.
Re:Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files
by euroclydon on Saturday August 17, 2013 @09:29PM
(#6231190)
Clearly it is the "time of war."
Re:Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files
by greenyoda on Saturday August 17, 2013 @10:01PM
(#6231282)
The "time of war" clause applies to soldiers serving in the U.S. armed forces, who are subject to military law. It doesn't apply to random U.S. citizens.
Re:Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files
by brymaster on Saturday August 17, 2013 @10:14PM
(#6231331)
That won't dissuade him. We live in strange times where people practicing cognitive dissonance want to deny others their basic rights because "terr'rists wanna blow you up!"
Re:Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files
by brymaster on Saturday August 17, 2013 @09:45PM
(#6231236)
Nope. Even in a time of war, you are entitled to your due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Re:Wikileaks Releases New 'Insurance' Files
by euroclydon on Sunday August 18, 2013 @08:41AM
(#6232514)
Judicial process is a subset of due process. You'll notice the comment I was responding to mentioned judicial process. If a US citizen takes up arms with an enemy whom the US is at war with, then the process which he is due does not extend past accurate sighting before the trigger is pulled.
Of course it's a tragedy if a citizen is killed in time of war if it turns out they were not actually engaged in combat alongside the enemy, but war is tragic in general.
And herein lies the beauty of the war on terror, drugs, internet piracy, etc. You (the gov'nt) don't have to define who the enemy are, what actually constitutes an act of combat, or how we know the war has come to an end.
Read the Patriot Act. Read the rules of engagement for taking out U.S. citizens. It would not take a stretch of Eric Holder's imagination to think that downloading the Wikileaks file constitutes an act of aggression against the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas...
"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..."
The exclusion for "cases arising in the land or naval forces" apparently applies to members of the U.S. military, who can be tried under military law (like Bradley Manning was). [1]
Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment says:
"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."
So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sincerely appreciated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...