Due process clause, and judicial process are different?

[midnight]

http://www.bradblog.com/

"On today's show I was joined by Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel.com to discuss the madness of Obama's policies for targeting U.S. citizens as "terrorists" without due process, as discussed by AG Eric Holder earlier this week;"

[dballance]

2. Not until recently

That lame explaination/justification that Eric Holder gave is as bad as anything John Yoo ever did

[Ziggystrange]

3. I don't like it anymore than anyone else but...

Technically the A.G. is right, and this will be a judicial/Constitutional mind bender.
At some point the buck has to stop at the President.

Due process.

When? Where? Who?
What circumstances?

Here is an example of 2 kinds of due process.

The police see a crime in progress - - The Agency that be sees a terrorist crime in progress.
The police kill the suspect before he shoots hostage - - The US sends a drone to kill the terrorist committing the crime.

In both cases the nationality / Geographical location of the person killed is irrelevant.
Due process depends on the circumstances.

[midnight]

4. The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government

that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality&quot and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses these words have had in American constitutional law.http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

I think they better re-read this.....

[JDPriestly]

5. Could you please describe what crime in process our Agency saw?

When the police become aware that a crime is in process, they try to arrest the suspects and bring them to trial. They attempt to obtain the release of the hostage without loss of life.

What you are describing is excessive force, not respect for the law, for life and for due process.

Holder's claim of "imminent danger" and self-defense is rather indefensible without more explicit evidence. This was a terrible decision. It was an abandonment of our Constitution and our most basic value of equal justice before the law -- if evaluated based on the evidence made public.

It is a travesty.

[zipplewrath]

6. I don't think so

Using the expression "due process" to describe acts of police facing a crime in progress is a distortion of the constitutional concept. My problem with Holder's assertions are about exactly that. He should be basing their authority on such a "police power" basis, not a due process basis.

We must differentiate between:

He was going to act. We had limited opportunities to stop him. We saw the chance. We took it.

And:

It is easier than bringing him to trial, so we shot him.

If they are willing to stand up to that scrutiny, they should be willing to take these actions to one of their secret courts. Much more importantly, these actions should be reviewable after the fact by a court.