The various categories of natural citizens are listed in 8 USC § 1401:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Fundamentally different things. The military agrees to additional restrictions on their rights, and does so voluntarily, but that doesn't mean they lack due process.
Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.
I don't know about the rest of the veterans around here, but I didn't serve so that Americans can have their rights revoked by legal brief.
Really? Has that highlighted part been taken as precedent? Could you site the case in which that occurred. It should make for interesting reading.
What a ridiculous statement. Due process is clearly defined under the Constitution and related laws. You don't get less due process because of another law.
No. We ALL get standard process.
Of course not. You probably served so some politician's kid didn't have to risk being shot in the head or have his legs blown off in some third world mud hole.
I'll address more stuff later, but:
Tell that to people subject to the UCMJ, and you'll get laughed at. Due process under the UCMJ looks VERY different from what you'd see in a civilian criminal court. Your rights to free speech are more restricted under the UCMJ. Your rights to freedom of movement are more restricted under the UCMJ.
Long story short, what rights you have can be and are modified by subsequent legislation or judicial decisions. Happens all the time.
Besides, most of your Constitutional rights apply only within the USA and its territories. If you commit a crime and are extradited to the USA, those rights will probably- but not necessarily- attach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby#Immigration_status
The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.
In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.
This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Illegal immigrants are by definition, not lawful residents - therefore domicile does not apply - therefore the 14th Amendment does not cover them.
So you decided to serve because you had this overwhelming sense of patriotism, and you decided you wanted to protect the rights afforded by the Constitution for your fellow Americans? Was that the only reason you decided to join the military?I served, quite simply, to defend the Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. That may sound trite, but it's the truth. And one of those freedoms I defended was Freedom of Speech - regardless of the insulting use it's put to.
No. We ALL get standard process. The military agrees to be held to a second set of laws, with a second set of rights assigned under those laws, but they agree to those up front and clearly -- it's briefed and understood that you are agreeing to a new paradigm. Further, that paradigm isn't very much removed from "standard" as far as due process goes -- you still have a right to a jury trial, you still have right to representation, you still have the right to face your accuser, etc.
Your due process is handled by a different system, but is still there. And, to top it off, if you commit a civilian crime while enlisted, you're prosecuted by the civilian authorities and get your full set of due process there. So the military has a second set of laws, they don't obviate the "standard" set.
Enemy combatants are not US citizens nor are they on US soil. (Edit) Even if you accept the concept that you can name a US citizen as an enemy combatant for whatever reasons, that naming doesn't remove his citizenship and the due process that goes along with it.
...Supreme Court (edit) in the case of Yasser Hamdi. The justices said an American detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention.
It is not a legal process.
Thus, the due process clause doesn't govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them — even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.
There was no legal process followed here. The Administration dubbed Alwaki and enemy combatant and solicited a legal opinion from Justice as to whether or not they could kill him. Justice said, 'Yup, we think so,' and so they did. At no point did this ever become a legal process.
So, your contention is that if something is left somewhere, which is not illegal but maybe foolish, and someone else does something horrible, then blame needs to be apportioned between the person that, without coercion, did something horrible, and the person that did something foolish? Mmkay. I suppose, then, that you apportion blame to Obama for people that use the ACA to commit fraud? He left it there, right?
Any argument that apportions blame based on another party's actions is a straight up fail. Bush didn't do anything right with the Patriot Act, and he did plenty more wrong under it and other things, but none of that, none of that, in any way makes him responsible in the least for Obama deciding, on his own, to pursue a new understanding of the law that allowed him to assassinate a US citizen without trial.
I have stated that you are incorrect, and I stand by that.Umbran is wrong, and you should know it.
Where was Alwaki's US citizenship revoked? Under what circumstances can your due process be diminished?
He was a US citizen, and had the full suite of those protections. He was also an enemy combatant, with many fewer protections. Under due process, he's entitled to ALL of the legal rights and protections he can have. So he got the ones under enemy combatant, and conveniently was bureaucratically denied those under his US citizenship.
NOTHING revoked Alwaki's citizenship. He died a (scumbag adherent of a vile ideology) US citizen. One denied his due process.
Yes, they do. No warrant to search or seize Alwaki was issued. You misunderstand what the FISA courts had jurisdiction over.
As defined in law, that IS due process. You may not like it, but the isn't a court in this land that will say otherwise about a Grand Jury style proceeding.No, you are correct. Grand juries can be used to indict ham sandwiches. We appear to be in full agreement that Alwaki has not yet had his due process.
Your source says nothing about courts, and Alwaki's "case" didn't go through any court. I scare quoted "case" because there wasn't anything like a case.
Your source does, however, vet my explanation of events. Obama sought a legal opinion from Justice on whether or not he had the legal fig leaf to assassinate a US citizen abroad. He then made the call.
Firstly, the only law Obama used to assassinate Alwaki was the AUMF. The Patriot Act, grand pile of steaming mess that it was, really has no bearing here.
God forbid you ever hand your neighbor a screwdriver and he kills someone with it, because you'd have blame. Right?
I don't.No, I disagree with the notion that we had the right to assassinate Alwaki the way we did. Why on Earth would you think that I would like a splashier method of assassination?
Again, what? If I manage to parse that properly, you're asking what the fallout would be for repealing the laws authorizing generic drone strikes? I dunno, no one tried. I've not be happy with the drone program for quite some time. When used in direct support of US troops, I like drones. When used as roving assassination tools, I hate them. I'd have been fine with they're authorization revoked.
But that aside, the issue here isn't that Obama could either decide to reinterpret the AUMF to authorize drone strikes anywhere in the world (he did this) AND that they allowed the assassination of US citizen OR he could advocate for their repeal. Obama did not have to use the tools left him. Further, he didn't have to expand them in scope. Even further, he didn't have to seek a new legal opinion about the legality of assassinating US citizens. This isn't a serious case of 'he had to do it that way or he had to risk the political fallout of seeking the repeal of the laws that formed the basis of the drone program.'
I had thought you were wanting to be 100% honest, but it seems you'd rather just frame the conversation in stilted and illogical ways so that you can reach your desired outcome: Obama had no choice.
Originally Posted by Ovinomancer
Trying to compare the voluntary agreement to the UCMJ when you join the military to the denial of a US citizen's rights by executive decree is both ludicrous and deeply insulting to anyone who's served.