"Doo" Process

I have a lot of thoughts on the Al Awlaki killing, but I don't think they can be summed up as eloquently or as succinctly as this:



"Does the administration not see at all how a president asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process and that he's not even going to explain why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people?"

I'm not making any comment about the guilt or innocence of the deceased in question; like you, I have seen no evidence.  Regardless, as an American citizen, the Constitution does guarantee him due process of the law whether we like it or not.  This killing represents our government believing that without presenting a case to the public (let alone a jury), it can kill US citizens.

I have to say that as it is right now, I agree with Ron Paul on this one.  The Presidential Oath of Office very clearly states that one of the two jobs of the presidency is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," to the best of his or her ability.  Couple that with the Fifth Amendment...

Amendment V

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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...and you get a big problem.  When confronted, the White House Spokesman basically just said that he wouldn't get into the crux of the issue.  If you are going to violate the Constitution, you better damn well have an explanation (not that I will accept it other than on rare occasion).


-FSG