Suspected terrorist's parents and ACLU sue the U.S. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Suspected terrorist's parents and ACLU sue the U.S.


Detectorist
07-20-2012, 20:35
I hope they win. The US government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

I hope folks understand that.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/07/american-drone-strike-victims-parents-sue-u-s-government-in-d-c-court-77974.html

RenoF250
07-20-2012, 20:43
Didn't he go to the enemies side of a war zone?? I think he got what he had coming.

ray9898
07-20-2012, 20:46
I hope they win. The US government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

I hope folks understand that.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/07/american-drone-strike-victims-parents-sue-u-s-government-in-d-c-court-77974.html

An enemy combatant in a foreign land plotting the murder of US citizens is just another enemy combatant.

CitizenOfDreams
07-20-2012, 21:42
During Stalin era, "the enemy of the people" could be instantly imprisoned or executed. But even they were given some sort of a phony trial to make it look somewhat legal. I could never think that the United States, the stronghold of Liberty, would one day one-up Stalin.

teumessian_fox
07-20-2012, 21:46
I hope they win. The US government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

I hope folks understand that.


Thanx for posting that.

Excellent kill.

Keep up the good work American war machine.

:perfect10:

.264 magnum
07-20-2012, 21:47
The ends justify the means - period.

These turds, terrorists themselves, were hanging with an uber terrorist who got smoked from above. Tough.

.264 magnum
07-20-2012, 21:47
An enemy combatant in a foreign land plotting the murder of US citizens is just another enemy combatant.

End of discussion.

bmoore
07-20-2012, 21:55
An enemy combatant in a foreign land plotting the murder of US citizens is just another enemy combatant.

Thread concluded.

Hauptmann6
07-21-2012, 07:34
What are we supposed to do? Send the local cops to arrest him?

JMS
07-21-2012, 07:53
I hope they win. The US government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

I hope folks understand that.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/07/american-drone-strike-victims-parents-sue-u-s-government-in-d-c-court-77974.html

So your only issue is that he is a US citizen? :rofl:

Did you shed some tears when Bin Laden was killed?

Diesel McBadass
07-21-2012, 08:09
Killing a enemy cobatatnt plotting to murder american citizens during a time of war is not murder.

And who gives a crapere they were born, he pretty much renounced citizenship by becoming a terrorist anyway.

Killing terrorists is always badass too.

willie_pete
07-21-2012, 08:23
It's a complicated issue. On one hand, he's an American citizen. On the other hand he's a scum sucking, vile terrorist intent on killing other US citizens.
Uhhhhh, on second thought it's not very complicated at all. Nevermind.

WP

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 09:07
Didn't he go to the enemies side of a war zone??

The government says he did. We all know they'd never lie about something like that, right?

Diesel McBadass
07-21-2012, 09:41
The government says he did. We all know they'd never lie about something like that, right?


im sure he was a upstanding citizen collecting toys for orphans and rebuilding churches......

Random
07-21-2012, 09:47
Sweet. You guys just said "alleged" and "suspected" justifies killing you. I got lots of suspicions about people. I was afraid to act on any of it before.

Diesel McBadass
07-21-2012, 09:49
Bin Laden was only a suspected terrorist, he never got a fair trial:crying:

Oh wait i forgot i dont give 2 ***** about terrorists. Kill em all.

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 10:26
im sure he was a upstanding citizen collecting toys for orphans and rebuilding churches......

I'm sure he was a terrorist scumbag.

That's not the point.

This is about the precedent set, not about this particular individual. If it is legal for the US government to decide to kill US citizens without due process, where does that end? What if tomorrow the government decides that anyone who doesn't turn in their "assault rifle" is a terrorist, what then? Can they call in drone strikes on your house?

Bin Laden was only a suspected terrorist, he never got a fair trial

Bin Laden was not a US citizen.

ray9898
07-21-2012, 10:49
Fine then....they killed him in self-defense of this nation if that makes you feel better. Allowing him to stay in foreign lands to coordinate terrorist attacks is certainly not the answer.

Sometimes things are just the right thing to do, everything is not a 'slippery slope'.

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 11:12
Fine then....they killed him in self-defense of this nation if that makes you feel better.

And when they decide that you are a threat to this nation, and come after you... then what?

Allowing him to stay in foreign lands to coordinate terrorist attacks is certainly not the answer.

Setting a precedent that the US government can legally target its own citizens for assassination is certainly not the answer either.

Sometimes things are just the right thing to do, everything is not a 'slippery slope'.

I literally cannot think of a better example of "slippery slope" than this one.

Detectorist
07-21-2012, 11:13
You just gotta love the GT chest thumpers who hold the 2nd Amendment in such high regard yet are more than willing to disregard other sections of the Constitution so willingly.

US Citizens have certain rights. Period. It doesn't matter if we don't like them. it doesn't matter if we suspect the particular citizen is suspected of killing Americans.

So, if a wanted known mass murderer US citizen stepped across the border into Mexico, the US President can order his murder?

This is not a slippery slope. This is the Constitution we're talking about.

Dexters
07-21-2012, 11:40
Bin Laden was only a suspected terrorist, he never got a fair trial:crying:

Oh wait i forgot i dont give 2 ***** about terrorists. Kill em all.

Was he a USA citizen?

Oh wait ...

Dexters
07-21-2012, 11:42
You just gotta love the GT chest thumpers who hold the 2nd Amendment in such high regard yet are more than willing to disregard other sections of the Constitution so willingly.

US Citizens have certain rights. Period. It doesn't matter if we don't like them. it doesn't matter if we suspect the particular citizen is suspected of killing Americans.

So, if a wanted known mass murderer US citizen stepped across the border into Mexico, the US President can order his murder?

This is not a slippery slope. This is the Constitution we're talking about.

True.

Sad also, that people don't get it.

If, Martin Luther King, or Malcom X left the USA and they were accused of being terrorist - killing them would be OK?

ilgunguygt
07-21-2012, 11:56
You just gotta love the GT chest thumpers who hold the 2nd Amendment in such high regard yet are more than willing to disregard other sections of the Constitution so willingly.

US Citizens have certain rights. Period. It doesn't matter if we don't like them. it doesn't matter if we suspect the particular citizen is suspected of killing Americans.

So, if a wanted known mass murderer US citizen stepped across the border into Mexico, the US President can order his murder?

This is not a slippery slope. This is the Constitution we're talking about.
Once you take up arms against our country you lose the protection of the constitution. You become the enemy and need to die.

Random
07-21-2012, 13:17
Once you take up arms against our country you lose the protection of the constitution. You become the enemy and need to die.

Gotta correct that. I think you meant to say "Once you are SUSPECTED of or we think you MAY BE PLANNING to take up arms...."

To which, every person on this board has openly stated the circumstances that they would take up arms against this country. In many instances they have listed the weapons and their locations. Boy, this one's gonna be easy.

BudMan5
07-21-2012, 15:11
I have been in the service of my country since 1965 but I am retired now and mostly drink beer.

Killing an American citizen without affording due process is unconstitutional.

Of course, violating the constitution has never seemed to bother this president.

I wonder if all of you will defend killing Americans without due process when a (or this) president decides you need killing, "for the good of the country"?

Besides guaranteeing you the right to not be forced into testifying against yourself, the 5th Amendment also guarantees, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"

If we're going to start picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution the President can ignore on his own say so, then don't start crying when he orders the Army to confiscate all of your guns either.

The Constitution is either a real guarantee of freedom or it is just a made up hodge podge of words that really don't mean anything.

Eric
07-21-2012, 15:21
Good grief. What would have happened to an American citizen that went to Germany and conspired against the US, during WWII? We damned sure would have scragged him, if/when the opportunity arose.

These guys were not killed in their living rooms, in Anywhere, USA. They were killed in a war zone, while conspiring with enemies of this country. In my opinion, they deserved EVERY BIT of what they got.

Diesel McBadass
07-21-2012, 15:27
yeah in a war zone are we supposed to shoot the non americans and hope the traitor gives up so we can waste money on a trial? Nope,, you blow the guy up before he can hurt anyone else.

ray9898
07-21-2012, 15:28
Good grief. What would have happened to an American citizen that went to Germany and conspired against the US, during WWII? We damned sure would have scragged him, if/when the opportunity arose.

These guys were not killed in their living rooms, in Anywhere, USA. They were killed in a war zone, while conspiring with enemies of this country. In my opinion, they deserved EVERY BIT of what they got.

Exactly....put an American who takes up the roll of an enemy combatant in Germany, Japan, Vietnam or Iraq and what do you think would happen?

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:30
Good grief. What would have happened to an American citizen that went to Germany and conspired against the US, during WWII?

For that matter, what would have happened to an American citizen of Japanese descent, during WWII?

Oh, that's right--we locked them up in concentration camps, yet many of them still felt enough loyalty and patriotism to this country that they volunteered to serve, and some of them made the 442nd RCT the most decorated unit in the US armed forces, ever.

We have a history of forgetting to respect the rights of our citizens when it's inconvenient. We do a better job than anyone else on the planet, but we still don't do well enough.

These guys were not killed in their living rooms, in Anywhere, USA.


"Guys" is a good point--there were two US citizens killed in the attack. Did the 16-year-old son of a terrorist deserve to die because his father was a scumbag and he probably would have grown up to be one too?

They were killed in a war zone

We're at war with Yemen? :dunno:

In my opinion, they deserved EVERY BIT of what they got.

Mine too. They were probably both scumbags.

But my "opinion" isn't law. And it shouldn't be. I cannot accept the idea that we allow the President to assassinate Americans because he thinks they "deserve" it.

Bren
07-21-2012, 15:31
I hope they win. The US government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

I hope folks understand that.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/07/american-drone-strike-victims-parents-sue-u-s-government-in-d-c-court-77974.html

Are you actually claiming that we should not kill an enemy combatant/terrorist, just because he is a US citizen?:upeyes:

How about this for a better policy: we do kill our enemies, and we don't kill our friends and we don't care who issued their passport.

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:31
yeah in a war zone

What "war zone" are you talking about?

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:32
How about this for a better policy: we do kill our enemies, and we don't kill our friends and we don't care who issued their passport.

Who gets to decide who "our enemies" are?

Do you really trust the Obama administration to do that?

Eric
07-21-2012, 15:34
For that matter, what would have happened to an American citizen of Japanese descent, during WWII?

Oh, that's right--we locked them up in concentration camps, yet many of them still felt enough loyalty and patriotism to this country that they volunteered to serve, and some of them made the 442nd RCT the most decorated unit in the US armed forces, ever.

We have a history of forgetting to respect the rights of our citizens when it's inconvenient. We do a better job than anyone else on the planet, but we still don't do well enough.




"Guys" is a good point--there were two US citizens killed in the attack. Did the 16-year-old son of a terrorist deserve to die because his father was a scumbag and he probably would have grown up to be one too?



We're at war with Yemen? :dunno:



Mine too. They were probably both scumbags.

But my "opinion" isn't law. And it shouldn't be. I cannot accept the idea that we allow the President to assassinate Americans because he thinks they "deserve" it.

You are making some ridiculous comparisons. I'll say again that these guys were not attacked on their couches, in the US of A. They were in a war zone, conspiring with enemies of this country. These guys (Including that 16-year-old) made themselves enemies of this nation with their deliberate actions. They put themselves on a battlefield, on the wrong side, and they got what enemies get. Eric

coqui33
07-21-2012, 15:36
Is everybody missing the fact that the kid was 16 years old? I understand the justification for assassinating the father (whether or not I agree with it). But why launch a separate drone strike against the child?

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:38
You are making some ridiculous comparisons.

Fair enough.

I'll say again that these guys were not attacked on their couches, in the US of A. They were in a war zone

They were in Yemen.

At the time, there were no US troops in Yemen.

How is that then a "war zone"?

These guys (Including that 16-year-old) made themselves enemies of this nation with their deliberate actions.

How long will it be until "owning an assault rifle" is enough to get you designated an "enemy of this nation"?

BudMan5
07-21-2012, 15:41
Exactly....put an American who takes up the roll of an enemy combatant in Germany, Japan, Vietnam or Iraq and what do you think would happen?

You mean like Tokyo Rose(tried and convicted and then pardoned by President Ford) ,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Iva_Toguri_mug_shot.jpg/200px-Iva_Toguri_mug_shot.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iva_Toguri_mug_shot.jpg)

Axis Sally(tried and convicted)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/AxisSallyMugshot.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AxisSallyMugshot.jpg)

or Jane Fonda? (got clean away with it)

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/haja-129-20071115-39.gif

Eric
07-21-2012, 15:41
Fair enough.



They were in Yemen.

At the time, there were no US troops in Yemen.

How is that then a "war zone"?



How long will it be until "owning an assault rifle" is enough to get you designated an "enemy of this nation"?



Did you listen to President Bush's declaration of war against terrorism? He made it pretty clear that anywhere we find terrorists aligned against us, that area is going to be a war zone. FWIW, do you remember the USS Cole? Wars have been fought for a lot less than that. Eric

Random
07-21-2012, 15:44
Good grief. What would have happened to an American citizen that went to Germany and conspired against the US, during WWII? We damned sure would have scragged him, if/when the opportunity arose.

These guys were not killed in their living rooms, in Anywhere, USA. They were killed in a war zone, while conspiring with enemies of this country. In my opinion, they deserved EVERY BIT of what they got.

You can be in the same building as someone else and not be conspiring. I would've thought it would take more than suspicion to justify killing an American.

Wasn't aware that your rights began to diminish the farther you got away from Anywhere, USA. Lots of Americans are in warzones having conversations, or as you guys say, conspiring with locals right now. That doesn't necessarily make them terrorists. Please don't kill them.

Bren
07-21-2012, 15:44
Good grief. What would have happened to an American citizen that went to Germany and conspired against the US, during WWII? We damned sure would have scragged him, if/when the opportunity arose.


Some did. Most were killed during the war, but I am surprised at the leniency that Martin James Monti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti)(SS-Untersturmführer) receieved - I'd have expected a death sentence - just the desertion would have qualified him for it, much less becoming an SS officer.

The other well-known American SS officer was SS-Hauptsturmführer Peter Delaney, from Louisiana, who was killed during the war.

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:48
Did you listen to President Bush's declaration of war against terrorism? He made it pretty clear that anywhere we find terrorists aligned against us, that area is going to be a war zone.

Ah, I get it. President Bush said it was ok, so that makes it ok.

Now, to the central point: Who in the government gets to define what a "terrorist" is?

Al-Awlaki was certainly a terrorist scumbag. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever committed a terrorist act himself. He may have conspired to commit such acts. He certainly incited them.

But right here, on GT, I've read the posts of many members who talk about what they'll do when the government shows up to confiscate their guns, and how they'll resist with lethal force.

Are they terrorists?

Who gets to decide?

FWIW, do you remember the USS Cole?

I do. I remember it well, I was on active duty at the time.

Wars have been fought for a lot less than that.

Wars against "terrorism"?

Wars with no end goal, no clear enemy, no apparent boundaries on government power... when have we fought a war like that?

Bren
07-21-2012, 15:49
You can be in the same building as someone else and not be conspiring. I would've thought it would take more than suspicion to justify killing an American.

Wasn't aware that your rights began to diminish the farther you got away from Anywhere, USA. Lots of Americans are in warzones having conversations, or as you guys say, conspiring with locals right now. That doesn't necessarily make them terrorists. Please don't kill them.

Just in a building with some guys?:rofl:

Did you not read the name in the article? Anwar al-Awlaki.

At least make some effort, like pasting that into Google, before you say things that are ridiculous and people make fun of you. Al-Awlaki wasn't a bystander, he was the target - he was a senior enough Al Queda official that he was one of the guys we were searching for and he was one of the ones tied to terrorism inside the US.

Eric
07-21-2012, 15:49
You can be in the same building as someone else and not be conspiring. I would've thought it would take more than suspicion to justify killing an American.

Wasn't aware that your rights began to diminish the farther you got away from Anywhere, USA. Lots of Americans are in warzones having conversations, or as you guys say, conspiring with locals right now. That doesn't necessarily make them terrorists. Please don't kill them.

If a person travels thousands of miles to hang out with known terrorists and avowed enemies of this country, bad things may befall them.

I can see, from some of the responses here, that it is pointless to debate this matter. I've spoken my piece and I'll bow out. You guys are welcome to believe what you like. THIS is America, after all.



FWIW, Yemen is not. Eric

Gallium
07-21-2012, 15:50
And when they decide that you are a threat to this nation, and come after you... then what?



Setting a precedent that the US government can legally target its own citizens for assassination is certainly not the answer either.



I literally cannot think of a better example of "slippery slope" than this one.


Stephen,

Does this mean you are ok with the US government targeting non citizens for assassination?

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:54
Stephen,

Does this mean you are ok with the US government targeting non citizens for assassination?

Yes. Absolutely.

There needs to be Congressional oversight, but I'm 100% fine with raining Hellfire missiles down on terrorists.

I'm also OK with killing American citizens who put on the uniforms of countries who are at war with the US; if I remember correctly there's a legal mechanism that revokes citizenship in such cases.

Bren
07-21-2012, 15:56
Al-Awlaki was certainly a terrorist scumbag. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever committed a terrorist act himself. He may have conspired to commit such acts. He certainly incited them.

Committing the crime "yourself" isn't a legal requirement for american criminals (or any other country's) so why would it be for terrorists?

Should we pardon Charles Manson? He was never convicted of killing anybody himself.

Eric
07-21-2012, 15:57
Yes. Absolutely.

There needs to be Congressional oversight, but I'm 100% fine with raining Hellfire missiles down on terrorists.

I'm also OK with killing American citizens who put on the uniforms of countries who are at war with the US; if I remember correctly there's a legal mechanism that revokes citizenship in such cases.

I believe there is a mechanism in a missile fired from a drone that removes one's citizenship, when that US citizen decides to throw their lot in with foreign terrorists. I believe other items are removed as well. NOW I'm out.:supergrin: Eric

Bren
07-21-2012, 15:58
Yes. Absolutely.

There needs to be Congressional oversight, but I'm 100% fine with raining Hellfire missiles down on terrorists.

I'm also OK with killing American citizens who put on the uniforms of countries who are at war with the US; if I remember correctly there's a legal mechanism that revokes citizenship in such cases.

Our enemies don't always wear uniforms. Al Awlaki would have been, for example, probably a colonel if AQ was a national Army - are you saying if they had worn matching clothes you'd feel better? :rofl:

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 15:58
Committing the crime "yourself" isn't a legal requirement for american criminals (or any other country's) so why would it be for terrorists?

Should we pardon Charles Manson? He was never convicted of killing anybody himself.

You're the lawyer, not me, so I bow to your expertise.

Manson was convicted of conspiracy, right?

Al-awlaki was not convicted of conspiracy, right?

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 16:00
Our enemies don't always wear uniforms.
That's absolutely true.

Does that mean we get to kill anyone not wearing a uniform?

Al Awlaki would have been, for example, probably a colonle if AQ was a national Army - are you saying if they had worn matching clothes you'd feel better?

Yes.

If Al-Qaeda was a national Army, then we could have declared war on the nation it was affiliated with.

You're a lawyer, do you not see a difference between the treatment of someone wearing a uniform and someone who is not? There is an entire body of international law on the subject.

Random
07-21-2012, 16:08
Just in a building with some guys?:rofl:

Did you not read the name in the article? Anwar al-Awlaki.

At least make some effort, like pasting that into Google, before you say things that are ridiculous and people make fun of you. Al-Awlaki wasn't a bystander, he was the target - he was a senior enough Al Queda official that he was one of the guys we were searching for and he was one of the ones tied to terrorism inside the US.

Read the names. Read the article. Your para-phrasing of my words is a bit misleading, and I doubt anyone's making fun of me.

I think I just place a little more value and weight on our constitution and the protections it provides than some. I stand by every word I've said and I wish it took more than suspicion of wrongdoing or suspicion of intent to commit wrongdoing to revoke them. Sadly, I am seemingly outnumbered.

Rick C
07-21-2012, 16:34
Memorandum of Notification.

Detectorist
07-21-2012, 16:50
May I remind the good folks on here that the US Constitution does not differentiate, regarding rights such as 'due process', between its citizens in the US or abroad.

It doesn't give permission to the Federal Government to target for assassination US citizens because they don't look like us, or are SUSPECTED of wrongdoing.

Jose Padilla was held for 3 years. In the end, he went to trial and was convicted of fewer crimes than he was *suspected* of.

BamaTrooper
07-21-2012, 17:00
Were they the targets or collateral damage?

KalashniKEV
07-21-2012, 19:48
Don't have time to read it all, but I skimmed:

1) Some of you guys hold your American citizenship pretty cheap.

2) Some of you guys don't believe in constitutionally protected freedoms, and are thus enemies of the constitution.

Both of these things DISGUST me.

Anwar al Awlaki was "the radicalizer." He had special insight into American culture and values that allowed him to craft a radical message that resonated with... disaffected people.
(Kind of like Ted Nugent) :supergrin:

He needed to die, no doubt. HOWEVER, because of his unique status as an American citizen, there were certainly blocks that should have been checked before he made the Pursue, Kill/Capture list- which is NOT the same as the FBIs 10 Most Wanted (which he was also on).

These blocks were not checked.

If it's OK to kill American citizens without due process, then we never needed to put Charles Manson on trial either. We could have avoided that huge media circus, the cost of incarceration and appeals, and just popped him in the head before he ever had the cuffs on.

These guys were not killed in their living rooms... They were killed in a war zone...

Actually they were not killed in a combat zone, they were in Yemen, and while they weren't in their living room, they were leaving breakfast at a roadside diner.

(just for clarification)

Eric
07-21-2012, 19:51
Don't have time to read it all, but I skimmed:

1) Some of you guys hold your American citizenship pretty cheap.

2) Some of you guys don't believe in constitutionally protected freedoms, and are thus enemies of the constitution.

Both of these things DISGUST me.

Anwar al Awlaki was "the radicalizer." He had special insight into American culture and values that allowed him to craft a radical message that resonated with... disaffected people.
(Kind of like Ted Nugent) :supergrin:

He needed to die, no doubt. HOWEVER, because of his unique status as an American citizen, there were certainly blocks that should have been checked before he made the Pursue, Kill/Capture list- which is NOT the same as the FBIs 10 Most Wanted (which he was also on).

These blocks were not checked.

If it's OK to kill American citizens without due process, then we never needed to put Charles Manson on trial either. We could have avoided that huge media circus, the cost of incarceration and appeals, and just popped him in the head before he ever had the cuffs on.



Actually they were not killed in a combat zone, they were in Yemen, and while they weren't in their living room, they were leaving breakfast at a roadside diner.

(just for clarification)


They were kill in a country hostile to ours, where they were consorting with known terrorists. We declared war on terror and vowed to fight it wherever we found it, after 9-11. That makes Yemen a war zone. (Just a clarification)

KalashniKEV
07-21-2012, 20:00
We declared war on terror and vowed to fight it wherever we found it, after 9-11. That makes Yemen a war zone. (Just a clarification)

Thanks for clarifying... since Terror exists everywhere, then everywhere is a "War Zone."

Brucev
07-21-2012, 20:03
Re: OP. If you lie down with the dogs you'll generally get up with their fleas. He made his bed. You know the rest. As for the family, they did not go to war against America. He did. It is understandable that they would grieve his death. I bear them no ill-will. As to their suit and the aclu... it is without merit.

Diesel McBadass
07-21-2012, 20:05
so whats the alternative, give him a summons and hope he shows up?

Eric
07-21-2012, 20:14
Thanks for clarifying... since Terror exists everywhere, then everywhere is a "War Zone."

Be obtuse if you like. I think most reasonable people can see where the bear **** in the buckwheat. Eric

ilgunguygt
07-21-2012, 20:21
Gotta correct that. I think you meant to say "Once you are SUSPECTED of or we think you MAY BE PLANNING to take up arms...."

To which, every person on this board has openly stated the circumstances that they would take up arms against this country. In many instances they have listed the weapons and their locations. Boy, this one's gonna be easy.
NO, thats not what I meant, nor is it what I said. Its what you wanted me to say, its what you said, and it fits your opinion nicely.


There was no doubt, he paid for it. That happens. I hope they take out anyone else like him.

ray9898
07-21-2012, 20:24
so whats the alternative, give him a summons and hope he shows up?

....and I guess hope he does not lead his terror organization to another attack.

Dexters
07-21-2012, 20:25
They were kill in a country hostile to ours, where they were consorting with known terrorists.


What par of that they were not charged, not proved in court, not allowed to defend themselves in court don't you understand?



We declared war on terror and vowed to fight it wherever we found it, after 9-11. That makes Yemen a war zone. (Just a clarification)

A war zone is not a free fire zone against US citizens.

Detectorist
07-21-2012, 20:26
Re: OP. If you lie down with the dogs you'll generally get up with their fleas. He made his bed. You know the rest. As for the family, they did not go to war against America. He did. It is understandable that they would grieve his death. I bear them no ill-will. As to their suit and the aclu... it is without merit.

It doesn't work that way. Even the worst criminal US citizen has a right to 'due process'.

The President of the US does not have the authority to murder any US citizen just because he is suspected of something.

The real conservatives, the ones who are truly concerned with preserving our constitutional rights, lost a huge chance here. They could have started the impeachment process for Obama. However, most of the republicans in Congress are absolutely gutless.

Eric
07-21-2012, 20:29
What par of that they were not charged, not proved in court, not allowed to defend themselves in court don't you understand?




A war zone is not a free fire zone against US citizens.

You know what? I can't think of any clearer way for someone to renounce their citizenship than to go to a country hostile to ours, take up with terrorists who have attacked us many times before and plot against us. If they had been within the jurisdiction of this country, then I am sure they would have received due process. They placed themselves outside of that system however, in a country hostile to us, with terrorists who have repeatedly attacked us. Maybe those points have been mentioned. Eric

Gallium
07-21-2012, 20:32
I don't understand why all the *****footing around someone solely because he or she was born here, or both of its parents were born here,

versus any other rif raf head that needs killing. There is either a legitimate pressing need, or their aint - country of origin, affiliation or allegiance be damned.

Now the part that causes me pause is WHERE we decide to bring the fight. Monroe Doctrine and Big Stick Policy notwithstanding, the USA had NO BUSINESS going into Grenada. Yeah, we kicked some island commie butt...but really? As DevilDog says, it is easy enough for any president to declare war on an action, and provide intelligence that such action is being perpetrated against us in certain locations.

Now you may think I am a fool. Fine. I understand that terrorism (ists) is/can be nebulous, amorphous, fluid, loosely organized, determined...and that attacks can have devastating results (imagine if Aurora was perpetrated by someone alleging to Al Quaeda)...and I know enough about intelligence gathering to know that what we see on the public front is a complete artificial construct.

But still...

Dexters
07-21-2012, 20:51
You know what? I can't think of any clearer way for someone to renounce their citizenship than to go to a country hostile to ours, take up with terrorists who have attacked us many times before and plot against us. If they had been within the jurisdiction of this country, then I am sure they would have received due process. They placed themselves outside of that system however, in a country hostile to us, with terrorists who have repeatedly attacked us. Maybe those points have been mentioned. Eric

Again, you ignored all my points.

Maybe if the person killed was someone you approved of you might see it differently.

I don't need to approved or disapprove of a USA citizen to think they should get due process.

Previously, I posted that if M.L. King or Malcom X or the Black Panther leaders went outside the USA to a so called terrorist country could they be killed without due process?

Eric
07-21-2012, 21:04
Again, you ignored all my points.

Maybe if the person killed was someone you approved of you might see it differently.

I don't need to approved or disapprove of a USA citizen to think they should get due process.

Previously, I posted that if M.L. King or Malcom X or the Black Panther leaders went outside the USA to a so called terrorist country could they be killed without due process?


I didn't ignore your points. I simply didn't see a need to reply to them. I don't think any of them apply to this situation.

I disagree with you on this and you are unlikely to say anything to change my mind. I suspect the reverse is also true. So, let's agree to disagree. Eric

Detectorist
07-21-2012, 21:22
http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html

Sam Spade
07-21-2012, 21:28
There wasn't a single warrant served at Gettysburg. Were those tens of thousands unconstitutionally deprived of due process?

JMS
07-21-2012, 21:33
They should be awarded 1,000,000 Yemeni Rial :rofl:

He revoked his citizenship when he turned against this country. So many apologists on this forum.

devildog2067
07-21-2012, 21:39
Be obtuse if you like. I think most reasonable people can see where the bear **** in the buckwheat. Eric

Unfortunately, UNreasonable people often are empowered to make those decisions.

Mushinto
07-21-2012, 21:44
May I remind the good folks on here that the US Constitution does not differentiate, regarding rights such as 'due process', between its citizens in the US or abroad....

Actually, you got that backwards.

The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land; our land. The constitution does not apply to crimes committed outside of the U.S.

The Constitution does not however, differentiate between citizens and non-citizens regarding rights.

So, other than being totally wrong, you have some good points.

AA_Khost
07-21-2012, 22:06
An enemy combatant in a foreign land plotting the murder of US citizens is just another enemy combatant.

Very well said!

Detectorist
07-21-2012, 23:00
Actually, you got that backwards.

The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land; our land. The constitution does not apply to crimes committed outside of the U.S.

The Constitution does not however, differentiate between citizens and non-citizens regarding rights.

So, other than being totally wrong, you have some good points.

The Supreme Court says differently. Are you a lawyer? Look up
Reid v. Covert



Actually, all you 2nd Amendment thumpers should look it up.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 03:36
US Constitution, Article 3 Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I argue that this video is an overt act that clearly demonstrates Anwar Al Awlaki fulfilling the requirements for conviction. He is clearly levying war, adhering to al Qaeda and actively aiding al Qaeda. He clearly identifies himself as al Qaeda. How many of you that are so concerned about poor Mr Awlaki are going to argue that this video is not convincing evidence? Is there anything ambiguous about Awlaki here? Weep for poor Mr Awlaki if it suits you. I am damn glad he is dead.


Awlaki's own testimony was willingly put out on the internet by him for how ever many witnesses choose to watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeUqvE-h--w&feature=related

G26S239
07-22-2012, 03:42
Who gets to decide who "our enemies" are?

Do you really trust the Obama administration to do that?
Awlaki's own testimony that I posted on page 3 of this thread is sufficient for me. What more would he have to do to meet your requirements to be considered an enemy of the USA?

G26S239
07-22-2012, 04:16
May I remind the good folks on here that the US Constitution does not differentiate, regarding rights such as 'due process', between its citizens in the US or abroad.

It doesn't give permission to the Federal Government to target for assassination US citizens because they don't look like us, or are SUSPECTED of wrongdoing.

Jose Padilla was held for 3 years. In the end, he went to trial and was convicted of fewer crimes than he was *suspected* of.
Article 1 Section 9 clause 2 "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the rebellion. The Union Army did not go to the battlefields with arrest warrants, they went to war and killed who they had to kill to win as Sam Spade has already noted.

I do not consider it reasonable to unnecessarily risk the lives of Army Special Forces during the midst of a war with al Qaeda to arrest Awlaki to put his treasonous person on trial when his adherence to al Qaeda in time of war is so obvious by his own admission.* How many loyal American lives would you consider a reasonable trade off to have allowed Awlaki his day in court? How much longer should he have been allowed to run his branch of al Qaeda in the largely ungoverned tribal areas of Yemen, as opposed to killing him, in the hope that the opportunity to arrest him would arise? A month? 2 years? How long?

*Please watch that video I posted on page 3 and tell me where you see reasonable doubt that Awlaki did not mean exactly what he said when he declared himself al Qaeda.

Bren
07-22-2012, 08:14
You're the lawyer, not me, so I bow to your expertise.

Manson was convicted of conspiracy, right?

Al-awlaki was not convicted of conspiracy, right?

Conviction is part of the legal enforcement process for punishing a crime. Al Awlaki was an enemy combatant, not a person being sentenced for a crime. He was not convicted and he need not be. The comparison is valid.

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 08:14
Who gets to decide who "our enemies" are?

Do you really trust the Obama administration to do that?

In this case, Congress does. The AUMF (which reads just like a declaration of war) lists exactly who's in the crosshairs. Don't wanna be there, don't sign up with those groups--easy peasy.

Had Anwar filled *his* duties as an American citizen and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the courts, he'd be alive. Rights aren't a one-way street, you know. If you want due process, then you can have it...but not while you're packing underwear bombs in Yemen.

Dexters
07-22-2012, 08:19
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Who gets to decide who "our enemies" are?

Do you really trust the Obama administration to do that?


Awlaki's own testimony that I posted on page 3 of this thread is sufficient for me. What more would he have to do to meet your requirements to be considered an enemy of the USA?

The point you are missing is the due process part.

1. Gov't gathers evidence & presents it in court
2. Defendant has an opportunity to refute Gov't
3. Judgement
4. Appropriate sentence

You are going directly to death without any such process except that the president approved it. Why? Because you don't like the guy that got killed.

Previously, I posted that if M.L. King or Malcom X or the Black Panther leaders went outside the USA to a so called terrorist country could they be killed without due process?

Bren
07-22-2012, 08:42
The point you are missing is the due process part.

1. Gov't gathers evidence & presents it in court
2. Defendant has an opportunity to refute Gov't
3. Judgement
4. Appropriate sentence

You are going directly to death without any such process except that the president approved it. Why? Because you don't like the guy that got killed.

The part all of your are missing is that due process only applies to prosecution for a crime, not military action. The day due process applies to killing military enemies in military actions (as in, not people we have captured), regardless of their citizenship, this country ceases to exist.

Every single AQ member can get due process...all he has to do is submit himself to the court's jurisdiction. If he chooses to stay in the field and fight our military, then due process does not apply and we have a right to kill him.

If you MUST compare it to criminal prosecution, then a terrorist fighting us in Afghanistan, pakistan, etc., is about like a criminal who decides the police will never take him alive - if he doesn't want to be arrested, he can run and fight until he is killed. His choice.

Dexters
07-22-2012, 08:56
The part all of your are missing is that due process only applies to prosecution for a crime, not military action. The day due process applies to killing military enemies in military actions (as in, not people we have captured), regardless of their citizenship, this country ceases to exist.

Every single AQ member can get due process...all he has to do is submit himself to the court's jurisdiction. If he chooses to stay in the field and fight our military, then due process does not apply and we have a right to kill him.

Not talking about Every single AQ member


If you MUST compare it to criminal prosecution, then a terrorist fighting us in Afghanistan, pakistan, etc., is about like a criminal who decides the police will never take him alive - if he doesn't want to be arrested, he can run and fight until he is killed. His choice.

Not talking about Non USA or USA citizens in Afghanistan.



We are talking about the OP & 2 USA citizens killed.

The military/CIA is who carried out the killing - it isn't the due process.

First comes the due process then the sentience, if found guilty.

Previously, I posted that if M.L. King or Malcom X or the Black Panther leaders went outside the USA to a so called terrorist country could they be killed without due process?

Bren
07-22-2012, 09:38
We are talking about the OP & 2 USA citizens killed.

The military/CIA is who carried out the killing - it isn't the due process.

First comes the due process then the sentience, if found guilty.

Previously, I posted that if M.L. King or Malcom X or the Black Panther leaders went outside the USA to a so called terrorist country could they be killed without due process?

So you didn't understand anything I posted?

Malcolm X and M.L. King were right here in the US and were not charged with crimes (at the time they dided, obviously both had been charged in the past). More - neither of them was a member of an armed force opposing the U.S. in a war. You state nothing in your post that makes them a valid comparison.

Likewise, nothing suggests Al Awlaki was killed as a penalty for a crime, although he could have been if this was part of the legal process vs. a war.

Had Al Awlaki been here and available for arrest, he'd have been captured/arrested and he'd have gotten due process. He wasn't and he was killed as an enemy combatant.

There is nothing I am aware of to suggest that Al Awlaki was killed just because he was outside the country, or even because he as a criminal. He was killed because we are in a fully declared war against AQ and he is a senior AQ member at war against us. Due process is not and has never been aprt of that, here or anywhere.

You ave taken the BS "straw man" argument style to a pretty high level - congratulations on that, anyhow.

ray9898
07-22-2012, 09:46
1. Gov't gathers evidence & presents it in court
2. Defendant has an opportunity to refute Gov't
3. Judgement
4. Appropriate sentence

You are going directly to death without any such process except that the president approved it. Why? Because you don't like the guy that got killed.

....and the point you are missing is he fled the jurisdiction of the US civilian legal system to continue to lead a terrorist organization in a foreign land which had specific intent of murdering American citizens. Considering we had an valid ongoing military action against his organization he became a valid military target.

Gallium
07-22-2012, 10:27
The part all of your are missing is that due process only applies to prosecution for a crime, not military action. The day due process applies to killing military enemies in military actions (as in, not people we have captured), regardless of their citizenship, this country ceases to exist.

Every single AQ member can get due process...all he has to do is submit himself to the court's jurisdiction. If he chooses to stay in the field and fight our military, then due process does not apply and we have a right to kill him.

If you MUST compare it to criminal prosecution, then a terrorist fighting us in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., is about like a criminal who decides the police will never take him alive - if he doesn't want to be arrested, he can run and fight until he is killed. His choice.

Clearest most simple explanation yet.

Thank you. Now let's see how many are still befuddled.

rgregoryb
07-22-2012, 13:16
some people need killing, he was one of them...I don't care where his momma spit him out. He intended to and did harm to the USA.....good riddance and rot in hell you piece of vermin.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 14:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Who gets to decide who "our enemies" are?

Do you really trust the Obama administration to do that?
Watch Awlaki's own video and tell me why you believe his own statements are not sufficient to prove his status as an enemy of the USA.


The point you are missing is the due process part.

1. Gov't gathers evidence & presents it in court
2. Defendant has an opportunity to refute Gov't
3. Judgement
4. Appropriate sentence

You are going directly to death without any such process except that the president approved it. Why? Because you don't like the guy that got killed.

Previously, I posted that if M.L. King or Malcom X or the Black Panther leaders went outside the USA to a so called terrorist country could they be killed without due process?

Article 1 Section 9 clause 2 "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the rebellion. The Union Army did not go to the battlefields with arrest warrants, they went to war and killed who they had to kill to win as Sam Spade has already noted.

I do not consider it reasonable to unnecessarily risk the lives of Army Special Forces during the midst of a war with al Qaeda to arrest Awlaki to put his treasonous person on trial when his adherence to al Qaeda in time of war is so obvious by his own admission.* How many loyal American lives would you consider a reasonable trade off to have allowed Awlaki his day in court? How much longer should he have been allowed to run his branch of al Qaeda in the largely ungoverned tribal areas of Yemen, as opposed to killing him, in the hope that the opportunity to arrest him would arise? A month? 2 years? How long?

*Please watch that video I posted on page 3 and tell me where you see reasonable doubt that Awlaki did not mean exactly what he said when he declared himself al Qaeda.
I already answered that Dexters. Something you seem to be unaware of about fugitives is that they often prefer to remain free instead of turning themselves in, especially if they face the prospect of being put on Federal Death Row in Terra Haute Indiana or one of the SHU's in Florence or Marion.

Will you answer the questions I posted above Dexters? How many LOYAL American lives are you willing to trade for Awlaki having his day in court? Just how many months or years would you have allowed him to continue running his branch of al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Yemen rather than have him killed?

Leaving the scumbag free to act as an executive member of al Qaeda inciting violence against the USA because of his citizenship status while killing his buddies for the same thing seems like a very stupid idea to me.

frank4570
07-22-2012, 15:04
So, it's a war on terror. Does that mean that we are at war anywhere there are terrorists, and the rules of war apply? Battlefield rules of engagement anywhere there may be terrorists?

ray9898
07-22-2012, 15:10
So, it's a war on terror. Does that mean that we are at war anywhere there are terrorists, and the rules of war apply? Battlefield rules of engagement anywhere there may be terrorists?

We have certainly conducted military operations in many places this organization called home and against anyone found to be a member.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 16:01
So, it's a war on terror. Does that mean that we are at war anywhere there are terrorists, and the rules of war apply? Battlefield rules of engagement anywhere there may be terrorists?
Sure Frank. There have been 50 drone missile strikes in the Midwest USA this year alone.

gjk5
07-22-2012, 16:06
Was he a USA citizen?

Oh wait ...


In order to ascertain that a rights-treading JBT would have needed to ask him for ID and we can't have that either.

Dexters
07-22-2012, 16:37
Malcolm X and M.L. King were right here in the US and were not charged with crimes (at the time they dided, obviously both had been charged in the past).

And neither were the people killed.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

gjk5
07-22-2012, 16:42
And neither were the people killed.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.



I know I can't be the only one that is sick to death of that stupid ass quote and every lame variation of it.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 16:54
And neither were the people killed.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Yet somehow here you are, speaking on behalf of al Qaeda.

Eric
07-22-2012, 18:15
And neither were the people killed.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

First the British came for us and we kicked their asses.
Then the French came for us and we kicked their asses.
Then the British came again and we gave them a fresh ass-kicking.
Then ... Jump forward a couple hundred years, more or less...
Then the terrorists came for us and we kicked their asses, wherever those asses were to be found. Eric

Dexters
07-22-2012, 18:38
Yet somehow here you are, speaking on behalf of al Qaeda.

Not al Qaeda - the USA.

As is Ben Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Not so much that he cares about al Qaeda but because he cares about the USA.

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 18:49
Awlaki's own testimony that I posted on page 3 of this thread is sufficient for me. What more would he have to do to meet your requirements to be considered an enemy of the USA?

OK, great. You think he was a terrorist, and I think he was a terrorist. Al-awlaki was undoubtedly a scumbag terrorist who deserved exactly what he got.

But it's not about my requirements or your requirements. We don't sit on the "decide who is a terrorist" committee.

What happens when the next enemy in the "war on terror" is determined to be former military veterans who own assault rifles and have "potentially dangerous PTSD" or some other such crap? You think it can't happen?

ray9898
07-22-2012, 18:49
First the British came for us and we kicked their asses.
Then the French came for us and we kicked their asses.
Then the British came again and we gave them a fresh ass-kicking.
Then ... Jump forward a couple hundred years, more or less...
Then the terrorists came for us and we kicked their asses, wherever those asses were to be found. Eric

How true.

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 18:52
Conviction is part of the legal enforcement process for punishing a crime. Al Awlaki was an enemy combatant, not a person being sentenced for a crime. He was not convicted and he need not be. The comparison is valid.

This is, basically, the core of the issue I have.

The "enemy combatant" label is a new one (effectively, anyway) and I understand that, since Al-Qaeda is not a military organization, our legal mechanisms to deal with these people have to change. We can't declare war on Al-Qaeda, so we declare them enemy combatants.

Fine. Let's go kill them. I'm ok with that--as long as they are not also US citizens. US citizens are guaranteed certain rights, and I don't believe that slapping the "enemy combatant" label on a US citizen should strip them of those rights.

ray9898
07-22-2012, 19:00
Here we go....making the jump from a military action in the midst of an decade long conflict against a self acknowledged leader in a terrorist organization to doing the same to a military veteran with an assault rifle in Kansas.

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 19:03
Here we go....making the jump from a military action in the midst of an decade long conflict against a self acknowledged leader in a terrorist organization to doing the same to a military veteran with an assault rifle in Kansas.

In terms of reality and sensibility, the two are miles apart.

In terms of legal precedents, they're frighteningly close, as far as I can tell. But I'm no expert. It appears not to bother Bren, and he's a lawyer.

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 19:06
Fine. Let's go kill them. I'm ok with that--as long as they are not also US citizens. US citizens are guaranteed certain rights, and I don't believe that slapping the "enemy combatant" label on a US citizen should strip them of those rights.

So you wanted Meade to serve warrants at Gettysburg?

For all the societal whining about the militarization of the police, we apparently need to look at this urge to turn the military into cops. That's BS.

Once the authorization/declaration comes down, it's kill people and break things mode. There wasn't a question in any man's mind that AQ and all its affiliates were proscribed. Al-awaki had plenty of notice and opportunity to remove himself from the line of fire. If an American continues to make war on his country after notice, he's *had* his due process. His congress has passed a law, his president has signed it, and in this case his family brought it to court before the bombs fell. Al-Awaki had the same due process and got the same consideration as the guys who ate grapeshot in Pickett's charge.

It's war, not community policing.

Dexters
07-22-2012, 19:10
The "enemy combatant" label is a new one (effectively, anyway) and I understand that, since Al-Qaeda is not a military organization, our legal mechanisms to deal with these people have to change. We can't declare war on Al-Qaeda, so we declare them enemy combatants.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Not used any more by the Obama Admin.

Also, wasn't for US citizens.

gjk5
07-22-2012, 19:11
First the British came for us and we kicked their asses.
Then the French came for us and we kicked their asses.
Then the British came again and we gave them a fresh ass-kicking.
Then ... Jump forward a couple hundred years, more or less...
Then the terrorists came for us and we kicked their asses, wherever those asses were to be found. Eric


OK, that's a nice fresh variation that I like!

Not al Qaeda - the USA.

As is Ben Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Not so much that he cares about al Qaeda but because he cares about the USA.


That one too, overused and oft misinterpreted. I doubt old Ben would have given a pass to a guy actively working in Britain with British to achieve our downfall.

He most likely would have advocated a simple tree and rope solution. They had traitors in the Revolutionary War too.

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 19:14
So you wanted Meade to serve warrants at Gettysburg?

Why are you bringing stuff from 1860 into this?

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 19:14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

A term not used any more by the Obama Admin.

Also, wasn't for US citizens.

I think John Walker Lindh would disagree.

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 19:17
I think John Walker Lindh would disagree.

Taliban Johnny, may he rot in hell, was indicted by a federal grand jury and convicted of criminal charges.

EDITED TO ADD: Holy crap, is his sentence half-over already?

Dexters
07-22-2012, 19:20
That one too, overused and oft misinterpreted. I doubt old Ben would have given a pass to a guy actively working in Britain with British to achieve our downfall.

He most likely would have advocated a simple tree and rope solution. They had traitors in the Revolutionary War too.



I agree because they had trials, and only hung if found guilty in court.

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 19:24
Why are you bringing stuff from 1860 into this?

What, the Constitution wasn't yet written?

It's a direct example of Americans taking up arms against Americans. The manner in which they were handled--as soldiers, not as criminals--is absolutely on point. Even without the Geneva and Hague conventions, the ones who were uniformed and organized were accorded the protections of the customs of war, not the court system.

Now comes Anwar. He's given all the protections of the laws of war, too.

Eric
07-22-2012, 19:25
I agree because they had trials, and only hung if found guilty in court.

Actually, they would have been hanged. We mustn't forget to give them their full measure of respect.

A picture is hung. A US citizen that plots against his fellow countryman and is found in this country gets hanged. After a fair trial, that is.

On the other hand, if that traitorous terrorist has removed himself to a hostile foreign country, outside of our country's civil reach or jurisdiction, he may instead face a missile, hung on the hard-point of a drone. Eric

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 19:26
Taliban Johnny, may he rot in hell, was indicted by a federal grand jury and convicted of criminal charges.

EDITED TO ADD: Holy crap, is his sentence half-over already?

Yup. But before we captured him, we did our level best to kill him. No indictment in sight.

gjk5
07-22-2012, 19:28
I agree because they had trials, and only hung if found guilty in court.

If they had the means to kill someone not within their custody that they knew to be a traitor, they would have.

If we had Al-Awlaki in custody we would not have marched him out and shot him. He would have gotten a nice cushy trial on our nickel.

ray9898
07-22-2012, 19:28
Congress invoked the Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 18, 2001.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 19:29
Not al Qaeda - the USA.

As is Ben Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Not so much that he cares about al Qaeda but because he cares about the USA.
This piece of merde getting killed in Yemen WHILE MAKING WAR AGAINST THE USA takes away liberty how? You want to extend Constitutional protections to people making war on the USA overseas? How about we extend 14th Amendment equal protection under the law rights to Awlaki's cohorts? It seems discriminatory to okay killing them because they aren't US citizens while sparing Awlaki because he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeUqvE-h--w

OK, great. You think he was a terrorist, and I think he was a terrorist. Al-awlaki was undoubtedly a scumbag terrorist who deserved exactly what he got.

But it's not about my requirements or your requirements. We don't sit on the "decide who is a terrorist" committee.

What happens when the next enemy in the "war on terror" is determined to be former military veterans who own assault rifles and have "potentially dangerous PTSD" or some other such crap? You think it can't happen?
Well I consider it a good thing that you aren't on any such committee. Look at that video again and tell me how that treasonous scumbag = any random military vet who owns a rifle. Maybe instead of sending a Seal assassination team against bin Laden Randolph Scott should have gone over there and shot the guns out of everyone's hand?

Dexters
07-22-2012, 19:31
Actually, they would have been hanged. We mustn't forget to give them their full measure of respect.

A picture is hung. A US citizen that plots against his fellow countryman and is found in this country gets hanged. After a fair trial, that is.



Past tense and a past participle of hang

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hang?show=0&t=1343006994

Eric
07-22-2012, 19:32
Past tense and a past participle of hang

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hang?show=0&t=1343006994

I don't care what Merriam has to say on the subject. A picture gets hung, a person gets hanged. That distinction is older than this country. Eric

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 19:35
Well I consider it a good thing that you aren't on any such committee. Look at that video again
How do you not get that this is not about the specifics?

If we empower someone in the government to decide who is a terrorist who needs to be taken out... how do we then ensure that the person who decides isn't a liberal who thinks the NRA is a "terrorist organization" (there are plenty of them, you know)?

I don't give two ****s about Al-awlaki, may he rot in hell. I care about the next American citizen we decide to target, and the next and the next. I fear that it might not take long for the definition of "terrorist" to get much broader.

Maybe instead of sending a Seal assassination team against bin Laden Randolph Scott should have gone over there and shot the guns out of everyone's hand?

Bin Laden was not a US citizen.

Eric
07-22-2012, 19:36
Past tense and a past participle of hang

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hang?show=0&t=1343006994

For the record though:

Originally these words were pretty much interchangeable, but “hanged” eventually came to be used pretty exclusively to mean “executed by hanging.” Does nervousness about the existence of an indelicate adjectival form of the word prompt people to avoid the correct word in such sentences as “Lady Wrothley saw to it that her ancestors’ portraits were properly hung”? Nevertheless, “hung” is correct except when capital punishment is being imposed or someone commits suicide.

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/hanged.html

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 19:36
I don't care what Merriam has to say on the subject. A picture gets hung, a person gets hanged. That distinction is older than this country. Eric

Yep. This usage can be found in many dictionaries, as well.

Eric
07-22-2012, 19:37
How do you not get that this is not about the specifics?

If we empower someone in the government to decide who is a terrorist who needs to be taken out... how do we then ensure that the person who decides isn't a liberal who thinks the NRA is a "terrorist organization" (there are plenty of them, you know)?

I don't give two ****s about Al-awlaki, may he rot in hell. I care about the next American citizen we decide to target, and the next and the next. I fear that it might not take long for the definition of "terrorist" to get much broader.



Bin Laden was not a US citizen.

Bud, you have some strange ideas about the entitlements of citizenship. People seem to forget that there are no rights without responsibilities. Trying to turn this case into some sort of slippery slope scenario is just silly. Eric

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 19:45
I fear that it might not take long for the definition of "terrorist" to get much broader.


The definition of terrorist doesn't really matter, nor does the list of terrorist organizations. As you might say elsewhere, those factors are necessary but not sufficient.

What matters is the proscription made in the Authorization to Use Military Force/Declaration of War. Until the NRA or your bridge club is named there, no one's going to be dropping bombs on their heads. If you ever *should* find yourself listed in the AUMF passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, then you have some serious decisions to make.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 19:49
How do you not get that this is not about the specifics?

If we empower someone in the government to decide who is a terrorist who needs to be taken out... how do we then ensure that the person who decides isn't a liberal who thinks the NRA is a "terrorist organization" (there are plenty of them, you know)?

I don't give two ****s about Al-awlaki, may he rot in hell. I care about the next American citizen we decide to target, and the next and the next. I fear that it might not take long for the definition of "terrorist" to get much broader.



Bin Laden was not a US citizen.
It is about specifics. That traitorous POS was very specific about being al Qaeda. He was very specific about making war against the USA while retaining his US citizenship. He was an officer in the ranks of al Qaeda hiding out in the ungoverned tribal areas of Yemen where any extradition request is about useless. So any chance of arresting him had little chance of success. The alternative to killing that POS while he was in the drone operators sights is what? Letting him get away to fight another day? Another month? Another 5 years?

Since you are so torn up over this why don't you explain how you would have handled the situation. What would you have done? Let him go? Sent in Chuck Norris? What? Please be specific.

devildog2067
07-22-2012, 19:51
Bud, you have some strange ideas about the entitlements of citizenship. People seem to forget that there are no rights without responsibilities.

I must have missed that part in the Constitution--the same one that you and I both swore an oath to defend.

Oh wait, no, that's because it isn't there.

I absolutely agree with you on the moral principle--there are no rights without concurrent responsibilities. But the legal principle is entirely different.

The US goverment does not get to kill US citizens without "due process of law." Full stop. That's all it says.

I think Bren would argue that the meaning of "due process" is changing, from an old "criminal procedure" definition to something that works within the new "war against terrorism" we find ourselves in. He may very well be right. But as of now, as far as I know, "due process" still means "someone has to try and convict you before the government may kill you."

Trying to turn this case into some sort of slippery slope scenario is just silly. Eric

I think ignoring the possibility is even more silly.

12 years ago, would you have believed someone who said that the United States of 2012 would have a "Transportation Security Administration" whose job it is to feel up grandmas and a prison where we hold people who have not been charged with any crime?

I simply do not understand how a group of gun owners is not frightened by the idea that the government gets to decide which US citizens are no longer deserving of the protections they are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Sam Spade
07-22-2012, 19:56
You need to address my historical example, as dated as you may feel it is. Because that is *exactly* a case of the US government doing what you claim can't be done.

I'm sorry that it's inconvenient for your theory of what the Constitution does and does not allow. But that data isn't going away.

Eric
07-22-2012, 20:01
I must have missed that part in the Constitution--the same one that you and I both swore an oath to defend.

Oh wait, no, that's because it isn't there.

I absolutely agree with you on the moral principle--there are no rights without concurrent responsibilities. But the legal principle is entirely different.

The US goverment does not get to kill US citizens without "due process of law." Full stop. That's all it says.

I think Bren would argue that the meaning of "due process" is changing, from an old "criminal procedure" definition to something that works within the new "war against terrorism" we find ourselves in. He may very well be right. But as of now, as far as I know, "due process" still means "someone has to try and convict you before the government may kill you."



I think ignoring the possibility is even more silly.

12 years ago, would you have believed someone who said that the United States of 2012 would have a "Transportation Security Administration" whose job it is to feel up grandmas and a prison where we hold people who have not been charged with any crime?

I simply do not understand how a group of gun owners is not frightened by the idea that the government gets to decide which US citizens are no longer deserving of the protections they are guaranteed under the Constitution.

I am not frightened because I think the action taken was a reasonable one, given the circumstances. I do not consider someone who moves to a hostile country to wage war on this country a citizen any longer. The aegis the military acted under to kill these guys doesn't draw a distinction as to the citizenship of these scumbags, nor do I think it should.

I think your opinions on this are wrong-headed. You have a right to those opinions though, whether I consider them wrong-headed or not. Eric

Eric
07-22-2012, 20:06
Bud, you have some strange ideas about the entitlements of citizenship. People seem to forget that there are no rights without responsibilities.

I must have missed that part in the Constitution--the same one that you and I both swore an oath to defend.

Oh wait, no, that's because it isn't there.

Funny, people manage to use toilet paper every day, even though there are no instructions printed on the packaging. How is that possible?

I think anyone with half a brain understands implicitly that any right, up to and including the right to life, can be taken away from them, if their actions warrant it. Welcome to the real world. Eric

CJStudent
07-22-2012, 20:13
Funny, people manage to use toilet paper every day, even though there are no instructions printed on the packaging. How is that possible?

I think anyone with half a brain understands implicitly that any right, up to and including the right to life, can be taken away from them, if their actions warrant it. Welcome to the real world. Eric

Don't hold back; tell him how you really feel!

:rofl:

For the record, I'm 100% on Eric's side in this. When someone makes war on you, you make war back. It's when you blur the line between military action and law enforcement (and yes, I have and continue to do both sides of the coin) that things get stupid.

Dexters
07-22-2012, 20:36
Funny, people manage to use toilet paper every day, even though there are no instructions printed on the packaging. How is that possible?



The Constitution

toilet paper

Eric
07-22-2012, 20:41
The Constitution

toilet paper

Are you really going to resort to such asinine comments? Good grief.

Every few months it seems, I have to relearn why I don't reply to threads like this. Thanks for the refresher course. Eric

wprebeck
07-22-2012, 21:31
Are you really going to resort to such asinine comments? Good grief.

Every few months it seems, I have to relearn why I don't reply to threads like this. Thanks for the refresher course. Eric

Lol.

When the Feds start naming domestic rights groups, such as the NRA as terrorist organizations, I'll worry about things. Being that there were two landmark firearms cases won at the federal level (McDonald and Heller) within the last few years, and an individual right to own a gun has now been recognized - I strongly doubt anyone's fevered imagination has to work overdrive right now.

Besides which - we have a plethora of criminal gangs to first denounce as terrorist groups. When the Bloods and Crips, along with Mara Salvatrucha and Los Surenos get named, then we'll be getting somewhere

wprebeck
07-22-2012, 21:34
A quick question - how do only PARTS of the Constitution apply when I'm not in the country? I have no 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th Amendment (just to name a few) protections out of the country. Why do other protections apply?

Detectorist
07-22-2012, 21:39
A quick question - how do only PARTS of the Constitution apply when I'm not in the country? I have no 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th Amendment (just to name a few) protections out of the country. Why do other protections apply?

Your basic constitutional rights do apply when out of the Country if the US government is on your tail.

Don't they teach Cops anything any more?

Check out Reid v. Covert

CitizenOfDreams
07-22-2012, 21:58
Besides which - we have a plethora of criminal gangs to first denounce as terrorist groups.

What makes you sure NRA or GlockTalk won't be first?

wprebeck
07-22-2012, 21:59
Your basic constitutional rights do apply when out of the Country if the US government is on your tail.

Don't they teach Cops anything any more?

Check out Reid v. Covert

They taught me not to consort with an enemy that is actively trying to kill Americans. Numerous others have debated this point with you - I'm not rehashing their valid arguments. Several have been officers, one is a practicing attorney with a tad bit of criminal law under his belt. I'm good with what happened. When you do bad things, with bad people, in a country other than your own - bad things might happen.

What you, and others, aren't getting is simple: There is a very limited, and well defined, set of circumstances that we agree must happen before killing a "citizen" on foreign soil is acceptable. In your examples, Malcolm X, MLK, the NRA, or a guy with an AR15 in Kansas were in a foriegn country, actively aiding an enemy of our country. And yes, the Executive Branch does get to say who our enemies are, subject to certain restrictions. Its how this place works.

Detectorist
07-22-2012, 22:03
They taught me not to consort with an enemy that is actively trying to kill Americans. Numerous others have debated this point with you - I'm not rehashing their valid arguments. Several have been officers, one is a practicing attorney with a tad bit of criminal law under his belt. I'm good with what happened. When you do bad things, with bad people, in a country other than your own - bad things might happen.

What you, and others, aren't getting is simple: There is a very limited, and well defined, set of circumstances that we agree must happen before killing a "citizen" on foreign soil is acceptable. In your examples, Malcolm X, MLK, the NRA, or a guy with an AR15 in Kansas were in a foriegn country, actively aiding an enemy of our country. And yes, the Executive Branch does get to say who our enemies are, subject to certain restrictions. Its how this place works.

Did you even attempt to read the case I cited? The US Supreme Court says you're wrong.

wprebeck
07-22-2012, 22:03
What makes you sure NRA or GlockTalk won't be first?

Umm...the whole Constitution thingy, with plenty of case law. Again, there is no indication that the Feds are planning on killing any of us for being gun owners, supporters, or participants on a gun board.

As I stated above -

Being a member of the NRA and owning some guns does not equate to moving to a foreign country and planning/executing attacks against American interests. If you think so, I'd submit its you that has an issue.

Mushinto
07-22-2012, 22:05
The Supreme Court says differently. Are you a lawyer? Look up
Reid v. Covert

Actually, all you 2nd Amendment thumpers should look it up.

Interesting point. Even though this case concerns military personnel under U.S. law, you could be right.

So, I give it to you and say you are now only half-wrong.

The Constitution still does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens regarding rights.

As for hung vs hanged, Eric is correct.

For proof, I submit to you the old saw, "I wouldn't mind being hung, but I'd rather not be hanged."

wprebeck
07-22-2012, 22:08
Did you even attempt to read the case I cited? The US Supreme Court says you're wrong.

Odd - the synopsis I read said that the Constitution takes precedence over a treaty. No mention of people who are plotting and working with a declared enemy to attack American interests. Perhaps Sam or Brent would care to elaborate.

Detectorist
07-22-2012, 22:10
Interesting point. Even though this case concerns military personnel under U.S. law, you could be right.

So, I give it to you and say you are now only half-wrong.

The Constitution still does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens regarding rights.

As for hung vs hanged, Eric is correct.

For proof, I submit to you the old saw, "I wouldn't mind being hung, but I'd rather not be hanged."

Actually, the case centers on the constitutional rights afforded to US Citizens abroad when they commit crimes in a foreign country.

Being half wrong is much better than being mostly wrong, I guess. lol

Also, to cite the recap: "The Court agreed with the petitioners, concluding that as United States citizens they were entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, notwithstanding that they committed crimes in foreign soil."

Detectorist
07-22-2012, 22:14
Odd - the synopsis I read said that the Constitution takes precedence over a treaty. No mention of people who are plotting and working with a declared enemy to attack American interests. Perhaps Sam or Brent would care to elaborate.

I predict that the Court will rule that unless there was imminent danger to the US or its personnel, the assassination was illegal.

CitizenOfDreams
07-22-2012, 22:15
Umm...the whole Constitution thingy, with plenty of case law.

How can you be sure that "the Constitution thingy" will protect you? The case law just showed us that the Constitution does not apply to terrorists.

wprebeck
07-22-2012, 22:22
How can you be sure that "the Constitution thingy" will protect you? The case law just showed us that the Constitution does not apply to terrorists.

Again, if you equate being a member of the NRA with a person who joined, actively participated, and gained a high level leadership position with an organization that kills Americans - its you that has the problem, not I.

DaGump
07-22-2012, 22:48
Imagine a world where having a single complicit US Citizen in an enemy command bunker would prevent the US from attacking that bunker during time of war, for fear of depriving that citizen of his right to due process.

What sane person would advocate that?:upeyes:

CitizenOfDreams
07-22-2012, 23:23
Imagine a world where having a single complicit US Citizen in an enemy command bunker would prevent the US from attacking that bunker during time of war, for fear of depriving that citizen of his right to due process.

What sane person would advocate that?:upeyes:

In the case we are discussing, the US citizen himself was targeted, not a hypothetical command bunker.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 23:37
Actually, the case centers on the constitutional rights afforded to US Citizens abroad when they commit crimes in a foreign country.

Being half wrong is much better than being mostly wrong, I guess. lol

Also, to cite the recap: "The Court agreed with the petitioners, concluding that as United States citizens they were entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, notwithstanding that they committed crimes in foreign soil."
The case was specifically about US military dependents on a base overseas being convicted by a military tribunal under an existing agreement between the US and the UK*. That is why the court ruled the way they did. It had nothing to do with insisting that an American overseas serving with an enemy organization at war with the US MUST be brought back to the US for trial. What applies to the Shiite heap that all this fuss is about is Article 1 Section 9 clause 2 of the Constitution "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There is a huge difference between an American in custody of American authorities overseas in an allied nation and an American levying war against the USA and directing operations against the USA in a battle zone with no effective local government. None of you Awlaki boosters have yet addressed the issue of what you would have done with Awlaki when he was in the drone operators sights. Would you have let him go to continue operations and hope that no jet goes down before you could get Chuck Norris to arrest him Dectectorist? What would you have done different that would have resulted in Awlaki not being a threat while you figured out to get him back to the US safe and sound?
I predict that the Court will rule that unless there was imminent danger to the US or its personnel, the assassination was illegal.

I predict that the court will either pass on taking the case or determine that wartime necessity applies, same as it did during the Civil War. Awlaki WAS in open rebellion against the USA and he was a threat to the public safety.

*Another case from a US military base in Japan was consolidated with the case from the UK.

G26S239
07-22-2012, 23:43
In the case we are discussing, the US citizen himself was targeted, not a hypothetical command bunker.

Yes. He was targeted for being a POS who was directing operations against the US. Now he is dead. The dead POS is no longer a threat. Him being al Qaeda is not a maybe. He clearly declared himself such. al Qaeda being at war with the US is confirmed as well. He adhered to America's enemies in time of war. The video I posted is an overt act on his part that has substantially more than two witnesses. He is a dead treasonous POS.

Detectorist
07-22-2012, 23:58
The case was specifically about US military dependents on a base overseas being convicted by a military tribunal under an existing agreement between the US and the UK*. That is why the court ruled the way they did. It had nothing to do with insisting that an American overseas serving with an enemy organization at war with the US MUST be brought back to the US for trial. What applies to the Shiite heap that all this fuss is about is Article 1 Section 9 clause 2 of the Constitution "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There is a huge difference between an American in custody of American authorities overseas in an allied nation and an American levying war against the USA and directing operations against the USA in a battle zone with no effective local government. None of you Awlaki boosters have yet addressed the issue of what you would have done with Awlaki when he was in the drone operators sights. Would you have let him go to continue operations and hope that no jet goes down before you could get Chuck Norris to arrest him Dectectorist? What would you have done different that would have resulted in Awlaki not being a threat while you figured out to get him back to the US safe and sound?


I predict that the court will either pass on taking the case or determine that wartime necessity applies, same as it did during the Civil War. Awlaki WAS in open rebellion against the USA and he was a threat to the public safety.

*Another case from a US military base in Japan was consolidated with the case from the UK.

This has nothing to do with the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ only really applies to persons who have been detained..

What would I have done if I had my finger on the trigger of a Drone? Easy, refuse the order to murder a US Citizen who was posing no immediate threat to me or other US personnel, or our Allies.

There are many things we could have done. The first was to strip him of his citizenship.

Gallium
07-23-2012, 00:10
...

There are many things we could have done. The first was to strip him of his citizenship.


Did they do these things during the war of 1812? The civil war?

Detectorist
07-23-2012, 00:16
Did they do these things during the war of 1812? The civil war?

Actually, there are many things that were done during the CW that we don't do today. We know better.

However, neither the war of 1812 or the CW has anything to do with the present situation.

G26S239
07-23-2012, 00:18
This has nothing to do with the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Writ only really applies to persons who have been detained..

What would I have done if I had my finger on the trigger of a Drone? Easy, refuse the order to murder a US Citizen who was posing no immediate threat to me or other US personnel, or our Allies.Yeah the fact that in cases of open rebellion habeas corpus goes out the window, as it did during the civil war, might suggest that killing armed enemies in rebellion is okay too. As happened in the civil war. There were not a bunch of arrest warrants issued. In case it has escaped your notice the Farouk that Awlaki repeatedly refers to is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the underwear bomber that tried and failed to blow up a plane. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123894237 In the face of plots like that I like proactive measures better than the do nothing and cross your fingers approach that you would follow.

G26S239
07-23-2012, 00:33
There are many things we could have done. The first was to strip him of his citizenship.
Would you do that with in absentia court proceedings? And that would make it okay to kill him?

AK_Stick
07-23-2012, 00:52
I hope they win. The US government should not be in the business of murdering its citizens.

I hope folks understand that.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/07/american-drone-strike-victims-parents-sue-u-s-government-in-d-c-court-77974.html



When you go to a warzone, you side with the military your nation is fighting against, and you partake in military action, you are accepting the risk of death in a military action.


You are not guaranteed due process in a court of law on the military battle field.




You might have a case, had they sent someone into his hotel room to gun him down. Where they clearly had the ability to apprehend him, and instead chose to kill him.


Thats clearly not the case here.

fiveoboy01
07-23-2012, 01:03
As far as I'm concerned, he renounced his citizenship. Good as dead. I could care less. Go ahead and apply the slippery slope argument LOL.

Some of you need to get some common sense.

JMS
07-23-2012, 04:46
There are many things we could have done. The first was to strip him of his citizenship.

That's exactly what we did. He is no longer a US citizen :rofl:

Bren
07-23-2012, 05:50
This same thing came up in the thread about the military being willing to shoot American citizens. I still don't get it.

When and how did anybody come to think being an American citizen made a difference? The police shoot American citizens every day. I carry a gun every day and, if it is used, I expect it to beused on an American citizen. I expect the military to kill our enemies and whetehr they are citizens never entered into it. I'm guessing others feel the same, since we have oul soldiers swear and oath to:
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Since there isn't a word in the constitution about not shooting US citizens and we specifically want the military to act against both foreign and domestic enemies, I am at a loss to figure out who came up with the idea that there is some prohibition against killing an enemy just because he packs a US passport.

Then there is the rant about "due process" - due process is not based on citizenship and never has been. Criminal due process is based on being present in the country or being tried under the rules of our civil legal system. Those killed outside the system, for lawful reasons like self-defense or military action outside the U.S. have not been denied due process. Likewise, non-citizens charged with crimes in the US, or under the jurisdiction of our legal system, worldwide, get due process.

Goaltender66
07-23-2012, 06:17
And neither were the people killed.



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Stop with the cliches. It's clouding your thinking.

For example, I have every right in the world to be a communist, a trade unionist, or a Jew. I do not have a right to be a terrorist.

Equating the killing of enemy combatants to pogroms against Jews is very insulting to Jews.

Goaltender66
07-23-2012, 06:25
Then their is the rant about "due process" - due process is not based on citizenship and never has been. Criminal due process is based on being present in the country or being tried under the rules of our civil legal system. Those killed outside the system, for lawful reasons like self-defense or military action outside the U.S. have not been denied due process. Likewise, non-citizens charged with crimes in the US, or under the jurisdiction of our legal system, worldwide, get due process.

I'm also wondering if there's a mixup in some of these rants between procedural and substantive due process. I get the sense that some folks think due process only means appearing before a judge or taking part in a trial.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 06:35
Would you do that with in absentia court proceedings? And that would make it okay to kill him?

LOL....that is what I was thinking. I am sure that is not the case since they are blinded by "due process". Using their line of thinking we could not strip him of citizenship unless he had the opportunity to contest it in court.

mc1911
07-23-2012, 06:43
He was at war with the USA. A fitting end.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 07:37
Stop with the cliches. It's clouding your thinking.

For example, I have every right in the world to be a communist, a trade unionist, or a Jew. I do not have a right to be a terrorist.

Equating the killing of enemy combatants to pogroms against Jews is very insulting to Jews.

The issue isn't about your right to be a terrorist.

It is about due process and a USA citizen not being labeled a terrorist by the gov't and killed without due process.

The way some are approaching this situation is:

1. GOVERNMENT LABELS HIM AS BAD

2. KILL HIM

3 OK WITH SOME GT MEMBER BECAUSE HE WAS A POS.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 07:43
No...actually members understand there is a line in which a military action is justified since the person is fighting with an organized group who we have a legitimate military action against, does not matter if it is something like Al Qaeda or a foreign military. If he wanted to protect his right to due process he would have returned to the jurisdiction of our judicial system and had his day in court, instead he choose to continue to lead his terrorist organization from a foreign land.

The government did not have to "label him as bad". He did that with his own words and his choice to join a terrorist organization who has attacked this country by specifically targeting its citizens in the homeland and the military abroad.

Goaltender66
07-23-2012, 07:45
The issue isn't about your right to be a terrorist.

It is about due process and a USA citizen not being labeled a terrorist by the gov't and killed without due process.

The way some are approaching this situation is:

1. GOVERNMENT LABELS HIM AS BAD

2. KILL HIM

3 OK WITH SOME GT MEMBER BECAUSE HE WAS A POS.

Then you agree your use of Niemoller's quote is meaningless.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 07:47
No...actually members understand there is a line in which a military action is justified since the person is fighting with an organized group who we have a legitimate military action against, does not matter if it is something like Al Qaeda or a foreign military. If he wanted to protect his right to due process he would have returned to the jurisdiction of our judicial system and had his day in court, instead he choose to continue to lead his terrorist organization from a foreign land.

The United States Government specifically targeted an individual USA citizen and killed him without due process.

You can attempt to confuse the issue but it all comes back to the above.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 07:53
The United States Government specifically targeted an individual USA citizen and killed him without due process.

You can attempt to confuse the issue but it all comes back to the above.


You can attempt to confuse the issue by ignoring critical facts such as he was an enemy combatant in a foreign land with undisputed ties to an organization we were authorized to use military power against per a valid vote by Congress under the War Powers Resolution.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 08:02
You can attempt to confuse the issue by ignoring critical facts such as he was an enemy combatant in a foreign land with undisputed ties to an organization we were authorized to use military power against per a valid vote by Congress under the War Powers Resolution.

Not approved by Congress - a presidential memo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Dexters
07-23-2012, 08:06
In conclusion - the terrorist have won. They have gotten the USA government and some of its people to change.

They have gotten the USA and some people to compromise and/or abandon the law and its protections for USA citizens for temporary security.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 08:07
Not approved by Congress - a presidential memo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Ummm....the memo which was about his specific case was only justified because he was found to be an undisputed member of the organization specifically listed in the approval by Congress which had called for military power to be used.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 08:08
Ummm....the memo which was about his specific case was only justified because he was found to be an undisputed member of the organization specifically listed is the approval by Congress.

Who found that?

ray9898
07-23-2012, 08:13
Who found that?


Everybody....you can even go to Youtube and find it yourself in his own words.

Bottom line, we elect people that sometimes have to make decisions such as this in times of war. We may not be at war with another government but we are certainly at war with an organized group that poses just as great of a danger to our national security. His being part of such a group is no different than wearing an enemy uniform while fighting us under their flag.

fnfalman
07-23-2012, 08:16
Conviction is part of the legal enforcement process for punishing a crime. Al Awlaki was an enemy combatant, not a person being sentenced for a crime. He was not convicted and he need not be. The comparison is valid.

Timothy McVeigh was afforded a trial. Why was he not "an enemy combatant"?

Was McVeigh a terrorist? Yes.

Did McVeigh attack America and kill Americans? Yes

Did McVeigh plan to attack America and kill Americans? Yes

So, why was he captured and tried instead of summarily executed?

filerunner
07-23-2012, 08:18
He was guilty by association.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 08:31
Everybody....you can even go to Youtube and find it yourself in his own words.

Bottom line, we elect people that sometimes have to make decisions such as this in times of war. We may not be at war with another government but we are certainly at war with an organized group that poses just as great of a danger to our national security. His being part of such a group is no different than wearing an enemy uniform while fighting us under their flag.

We are talking about a specific issue not some generalities you insert because you have nothing else to contribute.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 08:34
Timothy McVeigh was afforded a trial. Why was he not "an enemy combatant"?

Was McVeigh a terrorist? Yes.

Did McVeigh attack America and kill Americans? Yes

Did McVeigh plan to attack America and kill Americans? Yes

So, why was he captured and tried instead of summarily executed?


Maybe because he was able to be captured. In this case the person fled the jurisdiction of our courts so he could lead his organization from a foreign land that was a stronghold for his terror organization.

BamaTrooper
07-23-2012, 08:34
I wonder why he didn't just turn himself in and go to trial?

ray9898
07-23-2012, 08:34
We are talking about a specific issue not some generalities you insert because you have nothing else to contribute.

ahhh....nothing to contribute. Don't you think highly of yourself.:upeyes:

fnfalman
07-23-2012, 08:37
Maybe because he was able to be captured. In this case the person fled the jurisdiction of our courts so he could lead his organization from a foreign land that was a stronghold for his terror organization.

I understand that McVeigh was captured. However, since that he was a terrorist and an enemy combatant, why didn't the cops just put a bullet in the back of his head? Why bother with the due process in his case?

Dexters
07-23-2012, 08:41
ahhh....nothing to contribute. Don't you think highly of yourself.:upeyes:

Not at all ...

... think about it.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 08:43
I understand that McVeigh was captured. However, since that he was a terrorist and an enemy combatant, why didn't the cops just put a bullet in the back of his head? Why bother with the due process in his case?


The obvious and most important reason is because he was not a member of an organization we were currently having an ongoing military conflict with in foreign lands.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 08:46
The obvious and most important reason is because he was not a member of an organization we were currently having an ongoing military conflict with in foreign lands.

None of which affects an individual USA citizens rights in the context of this discussion.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 08:51
None of which affects an individual USA citizens rights in the context of this discussion.

I think it does....I guess that is what we are arguing about.

Bilbo Bagins
07-23-2012, 09:02
Timothy McVeigh was afforded a trial. Why was he not "an enemy combatant"?

Was McVeigh a terrorist? Yes.

Did McVeigh attack America and kill Americans? Yes

Did McVeigh plan to attack America and kill Americans? Yes

So, why was he captured and tried instead of summarily executed?

Difference is he was on US soil and it was not a military action.

Kind of a weird thing I know of...you know US citizens do go off to fight in foreign lands all the time.

Look at Bosina, we had troops there and Americans of Serb and Croat decent were showing up all to help fight in their respective army. Techinically we dropped bombs on our own people.

Same with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we can't attack that unit because John Walker Lindh is in it? He was just lucky to be alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

Seriously how do we defend ourselvess if we impose the rule that enemy combatants of US citizenship cannot be harmed? Look Iran has a nuclear missle on board a ship and they are going to launch it off the east coast of the USA. Sink that ship...no wait there is a US citizen on board...darn are hands are tied.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 09:11
Seriously how do we defend ourselvess if we impose the rule that enemy combatants of US citizenship cannot be harmed?

We don't. If they join the opposing force in an ongoing military action then they are a valid lawful target and subject to the same military code as non-citizens enemies instead of civilian code.

Random
07-23-2012, 09:12
This conversation has morphed a bit. I step out alot so I still go off the OP. Are we still talking about the United States killing a 16 year old from Denver in a drone strike?
95% of Glocktalk is cool with it. 5% against?

Dexters
07-23-2012, 09:19
We don't. If they join the opposing force in an ongoing military action then they are a valid lawful target and subject to the same military code as non-citizens enemies instead of civilian code.

He was killed in Yemen by a drone, not indiscriminately on the the battle field.



The United States Government specifically targeted an individual USA citizen and killed him without due process.



I understand how these annoying little facts can be troublesome for your position. But, they are important.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 09:25
He was killed in Yemen by a drone, not indiscriminately on the the battle field.
.

The battle field is any foreign land these groups occupy just as detailed in the military force approved by Congress.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 09:40
The battle field is any foreign land these groups occupy just as detailed in the military force approved by Congress.

Not relevant.

Not approved by Congress - a presidential memo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

You are proving my point. Those in favor of tyranny will say or do anything to justify their position.

fnfalman
07-23-2012, 09:42
The obvious and most important reason is because he was not a member of an organization we were currently having an ongoing military conflict with in foreign lands.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

So you can't be a terrorist and enemy of the State committing treasonous acts without belonging to a gang?

fnfalman
07-23-2012, 09:45
Difference is he was on US soil and it was not a military action.

Kind of a weird thing I know of...you know US citizens do go off to fight in foreign lands all the time.

Look at Bosina, we had troops there and Americans of Serb and Croat decent were showing up all to help fight in their respective army. Techinically we dropped bombs on our own people.

Same with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we can't attack that unit because John Walker Lindh is in it? He was just lucky to be alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

Seriously how do we defend ourselvess if we impose the rule that enemy combatants of US citizenship cannot be harmed? Look Iran has a nuclear missle on board a ship and they are going to launch it off the east coast of the USA. Sink that ship...no wait there is a US citizen on board...darn are hands are tied.


There's a big difference between bombing a camp full of terrorists some of which may be Americans versus specifically targeting an American and kill him/her without due process.

Gallium
07-23-2012, 09:47
Not relevant.



You are proving my point. Those in favor of tyranny will say or do anything to justify their position.


You're a hard one to have dialogue with. Whenever you don't agree with something it's "not relevant".

Dexters
07-23-2012, 10:01
You're a hard one to have dialogue with. Whenever you don't agree with something it's "not relevant".

It is what it is.

Don't post irrelevant information and I won't say it isn't relevant.

Simple.

KalashniKEV
07-23-2012, 10:09
Same with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we can't attack that unit because John Walker Lindh is in it? He was just lucky to be alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh


You picked a terrible example. Did you even read the wiki?

Johnny Walker was captured on the battlefield, in a real and actual combat zone, while conducting warfare.

On February 5, 2002, Lindh was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten charges... he made a plea deal. You can read about it in the wiki.

You DO understand that this is all because he's an American citizen, and that's why he's in a Federal Prison in Indiana right now instead of Guantanamo, right???

I think some of you guys are confused regarding the issue at hand- there is no doubt that AAA needed to pay for his crimes, but the appropriate blocks were not checked.

Your American citizenship is not cheap, and it doesn't "go away" without due process or simply because you're doing Evil.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 10:45
You're a hard one to have dialogue with. Whenever you don't agree with something it's "not relevant".

No kidding. Obviously it is relevant. It is no different than if an American joined any other nations military when we were at war with them. Instead of this being against another government with a set battle field this is against an organization that has spread themself out over the world. Both are justified military actions with legal targets.

ray9898
07-23-2012, 10:56
He was killed in Yemen by a drone, not indiscriminately on the the battle field.



Not revelant. By your standards both would be an equal violation of his rights.

fnfalman
07-23-2012, 11:00
Your American citizenship is not cheap, and it doesn't "go away" without due process or simply because you're doing Evil.

As long as it doesn't happen to them, they don't care. Of course when it will happen to them, they'd care but then a wee bit late.

Bilbo Bagins
07-23-2012, 11:13
You picked a terrible example. Did you even read the wiki?

Johnny Walker was captured on the battlefield, in a real and actual combat zone, while conducting warfare.

On February 5, 2002, Lindh was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten charges... he made a plea deal. You can read about it in the wiki.

You DO understand that this is all because he's an American citizen, and that's why he's in a Federal Prison in Indiana right now instead of Guantanamo, right???

I think some of you guys are confused regarding the issue at hand- there is no doubt that AAA needed to pay for his crimes, but the appropriate blocks were not checked.

Your American citizenship is not cheap, and it doesn't "go away" without due process or simply because you're doing Evil.

But what is the difference between Walker Lindh on the battlefield of Afghanistan, and Anwar al-Aulaqi riding in an armed convoy of al Qaeda big-wigs in Yemen.

I guess if we find out that Adam Pearlman aka Azzam the American is in a convoy with Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al Qaeda you wouldn't launch the missile either. Just let the war go on for another decade. :dunno:

Sorry, I don't want to lose a prime target, or risk sending in a team of SEALs if they are available just to cherry pick one nasty US citizen out of an army of overseas enemy combatants.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 11:23
But what is the difference between Walker Lindh on the battlefield of Afghanistan, and Anwar al-Aulaqi riding in an armed convoy of al Qaeda big-wigs in Yemen.

I guess if we find out that Adam Pearlman aka Azzam the American is in a convoy with Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al Qaeda you wouldn't launch the missile either. Just let the war go on for another decade. :dunno:

Sorry, I don't want to lose a prime target, or risk sending in a team of SEALs if they are available just to cherry pick one nasty US citizen out of an army of overseas enemy combatants.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, a USA citizen was specifically targeted by the USA government and killed without due process.

You can not deal with that directly.

Can you?

Will you be injecting Middle Earth, hobbits and goblins next?

CJStudent
07-23-2012, 11:24
My head hurts now.

CJStudent
07-23-2012, 11:25
Anwar al-Aulaqi, a USA citizen was specifically targeted by the USA government and killed without due process.

You can not deal with that directly.

Can you?

Will you be injecting Middle Earth, hobbits and goblins next?

Guess what? He was in a foreign country, working AS A MEMBER OF A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH WE ARE AT WAR. He's making war on the US, and we're supposed to arrest him? Are you really that naive?

Eric
07-23-2012, 11:26
This is accomplishing nothing.

Dexters
07-23-2012, 11:30
Guess what? He was in a foreign country, working AS A MEMBER OF A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH WE ARE AT WAR. He's making war on the US, and we're supposed to arrest him? Are you really that naive?

In what court of law was that presented?

Dexters
07-23-2012, 11:38
This is accomplishing nothing.

Yes it does.

It shows those that see the core issue (due process) and are not willing to compromise that right for expediency.

It also show that there are many who are willing to close their eyes to that right and do whatever they can to delude themselves to justify their position.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

My job here is done.

KalashniKEV
07-23-2012, 12:07
But what is the difference between Walker Lindh on the battlefield of Afghanistan, and Anwar al-Aulaqi riding in an armed convoy of al Qaeda big-wigs in Yemen.

Wow... you're pretty terrible at this.

I don't completely agree with you, but I will... YES, I AGREE... what IS the difference between one American Citizen being afforded due process and another being targeted for extrajudicial killing?

(You can't be this dumb...)

Now I'll really blow your mind- what is the difference between AAA being targeted for extrajudicial killing by anonymous bureaucrats and 1LT Michael Behenna killing an AQI guy in a wadi during a prisoner release?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behenna

That was a true battlefield, and the individual was not an American citizen...


I guess if we find out that Adam Pearlman aka Azzam the American is in a convoy with Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al Qaeda you wouldn't launch the missile either. Just let the war go on for another decade. :dunno:

*sigh*

Now I know you're just clowning. You do understand targets and collateral damage, don't you?

And where is this "can't target because of an American citizen" come from??? WHO on this thread is saying that?

Just follow the proper procedure, validate the individual as a target, check the blocks... that's all...

Sorry, I don't want to lose a prime target, or risk sending in a team of SEALs if they are available just to cherry pick one nasty US citizen out of an army of overseas enemy combatants.

I don't even get it... who are you responding to?

AK_Stick
07-23-2012, 12:18
Anwar al-Aulaqi, a USA citizen was specifically targeted by the USA government and killed without due process.

You can not deal with that directly.

Can you?

Will you be injecting Middle Earth, hobbits and goblins next?

Do you have any proof he was singled out, and not simply involved in a military strike against a legitimate enemy force, in a war zone?

Wasn't he the one killed riding in a convoy of AQ-A headshead?


Sorry, you lose your right to contest a lack of due process when you make yourself a enemy combatant on a battlefield.

Detectorist
07-23-2012, 13:36
Do you have any proof he was singled out, and not simply involved in a military strike against a legitimate enemy force, in a war zone?

Wasn't he the one killed riding in a convoy of AQ-A headshead?


Sorry, you lose your right to contest a lack of due process when you make yourself a enemy combatant on a battlefield.

First of all, Yemen isn't a 'battlefield', as far as I know. We also have no proof that this guy was an immediate threat.

The Obama administration already has leaked out the fact that he has a 'kill' list. I think 2 Americans were on it.

We just can't kill American Citizens just because it's more convenient than trying to capture them or go through the proper due process every American has a right to.

fiveoboy01
07-23-2012, 13:42
Except this guy wasn't an American. Argue all you want on the technical merits, and where he was, and whether or not there was an actual battle going on, I don't give a damn. He renounced his citizenship and was a traitor. Good as dead.

AK_Stick
07-23-2012, 13:48
First of all, Yemen isn't a 'battlefield', as far as I know. We also have no proof that this guy was an immediate threat.

The Obama administration already has leaked out the fact that he has a 'kill' list. I think 2 Americans were on it.

We just can't kill American Citizens just because it's more convenient than trying to capture them or go through the proper due process every American has a right to.


Are we are currently conducting military strikes/action in Yemen/Pakistan on enemy forces? (yes). That pretty much makes it a battlefield.

Secondly, he was killed in a sanctioned military strike against a legitimate enemy force/target. That's hardly an assassination, it's called war. Unless you can find some proof that he was targeted soely because of who he was, and the convoy was not otherwise a legitimate strike target, I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

You can't ***** about a lack of due process when you're involved in military action against your nation, in a warzone.

Gallium
07-23-2012, 14:32
This is accomplishing nothing.

Are we then proceeding with notifying the Dept of State and the CIA ops folks to proceed with his ...uh, relocation?

Bren
07-23-2012, 14:54
In what court of law was that presented?

What law has ever required that to be presented in a court?

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to mine: NONE.

Bren
07-23-2012, 14:58
Timothy McVeigh was afforded a trial. Why was he not "an enemy combatant"?

Was McVeigh a terrorist? Yes.

Did McVeigh attack America and kill Americans? Yes

Did McVeigh plan to attack America and kill Americans? Yes

So, why was he captured and tried instead of summarily executed?

2 reasons that should be obvious to anyone:

1. Timothy McVeigh was captured/arrested without resistance, in a place where we could capture him, as many AQ members, both foreign and US have been.

2. Was he a member of a group that the U.S. is at war with? No.

See how simple these things are when you aren't stretching and contorting to find something to support your preconceived agenda?

Mushinto
07-23-2012, 22:31
Eric, I was going to suggent banishment to the Furball Forum, but I checked and we are already there.

KalashniKEV
07-24-2012, 08:17
Two points of clarification:

Except this guy wasn't an American. He renounced his citizenship and was a traitor.

This keeps getting mentioned over and over again, but to the best of my knowledge it is not true.

Do you have any information regarding AAA actually renouncing his citizenship?

Secondly, he was killed in a sanctioned military strike against a legitimate enemy force/target. That's hardly an assassination, it's called war.

There are two Predator/Reaper contracts- a gray and a black (this is open source).

The AFSOC (gray) program did not kill AAA in a military action, he was assassinated by the CIA (black) program.

AK_Stick
07-24-2012, 09:24
He was killed in a military action, as a legitimate military target. That the UAV said CIA and not USAF has no bearing upon the legitimacy of the strike.

KalashniKEV
07-24-2012, 18:33
He was killed in a military action, as a legitimate military target. That the UAV said CIA and not USAF has no bearing upon the legitimacy of the strike.

If the person behind the stick is a member of the military, wearing a uniform, then it's a "Military Action."

If the person on the stick is a Civilian wearing a polo shirt, it's an "assassination."

This is similar to the "battlefield" argument. You can wish it all you want, but it will never be true.

AK_Stick
07-24-2012, 23:00
If the person behind the stick is a member of the military, wearing a uniform, then it's a "Military Action."

If the person on the stick is a Civilian wearing a polo shirt, it's an "assassination."

This is similar to the "battlefield" argument. You can wish it all you want, but it will never be true.



You're right, gov't forces, with military hardware, striking military targets, inside a foreign country, based upon the Authorization of Military Use of Force (AMUF) doesn't fall under a battle field.

Similarly, when asked specifically about targeted killings (Which are different from assassinations) John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism specifically said.

"as a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. The Authorization for Use of Military Force—the AUMF—passed by Congress after the September 11th attacks authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force” against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11. There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against al-Qa’ida to Afghanistan."[11] And he further said: "As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. There is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."


If Mr. AAA allied himself with AQ, and was riding in a military convoy, of AQ headshead. (Which he was, when the strike happened) You can't really label it, an "assassination" It was a targeted strike, against a legitimate military target.

We are at war with AQ. That war is on, where ever they choose to hide. It may not be a "conventional" battlefield, but its a battlefield anywhere we bring the fight.

KalashniKEV
07-25-2012, 02:58
If Mr. AAA allied himself with AQ, and was riding in a military convoy, of AQ headshead.

This is a unique angle- are you saying that AAA was not the target of the strike, but collateral damage resulting from another target being serviced?

That would be one way to get around the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.

You can't really label it, an "assassination" It was a targeted strike, against a legitimate military target.

Semantics.

Sam Spade
07-25-2012, 07:10
Semantics.

Then in the interest of a logical and rational discussion, you shouldn't mind using the less emotional term.



The AUMF is key here. Does anyone doubt that Congress has the authority to pass it? Once the President signs it, Anwar becomes a legitimate target. That's the due process applicable to an American who joins AQ, or the Werchmact. Members of the groups we're at war with don't need to be indicted, and the US gov doesn't need a "mother may I" from a judge for every bomb dropped or round fired.

Had Anwar walked away when his government passed the AUMF, it'd be different. Joining, or remaining a member of, an organization committing acts of war against the US puts him righteously in the crosshairs.

AK_Stick
07-25-2012, 14:01
This is a unique angle- are you saying that AAA was not the target of the strike, but collateral damage resulting from another target being serviced?

That would be one way to get around the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.

Unless you have some proof that he was the sole target of the strike, and it wasn't because it was a armed convoy of enemy leadership, I think its pretty much the only likely scenario.

Secondly, as per the AMUF, it wouldn't be an extrajudicial killing.

It was a targeted strike against a legitimate enemy target, per the ROE. That is not the same as an assassination. No matter how you try and twist the term.


Semantics.

Not really, the two are not interchangeable terms.

The legal definition of assassination, would be :
Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official.


Therefore, killing a person who allied with, and/or a member of a military your nation is currently at war with, would not be an assassination.


To argue it otherwise, would mean that every time we drop a bomb on AQ-A, a sniper shoots one, or we ambush them, that we're "assassinating" the enemy. Which is blatantly false.

fiveoboy01
07-25-2012, 15:46
Two points of clarification:



This keeps getting mentioned over and over again, but to the best of my knowledge it is not true.

Do you have any information regarding AAA actually renouncing his citizenship?





AFAIC he renounced it with his actions and words. I don't care that he formally did or not.

Sam Spade
07-25-2012, 20:46
The second way to lose citizenship is to voluntarily perform any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing citizenship:

Naturalize in a foreign state after attaining the age of 18;
Take an oath or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state after attaining the age of 18;
Enter the armed forces of a foreign country if either
the armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US; or
the person serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;

http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article3.htm

Bren
07-26-2012, 05:10
Wow... you're pretty terrible at this.

I don't completely agree with you, but I will... YES, I AGREE... what IS the difference between one American Citizen being afforded due process and another being targeted for extrajudicial killing?

The difference is one was found in a place and condition where we could capture him and one was not. You may have noticed that we kill or capture enemies in like circumstances, regardless of citizenship. On fact, I don't think Lindh was even known to be an American when he was captured.

This thread seems to involve nothing more than a group of GT's most-liberal with a clear agenda, trying to ignore or change facts to make an argument for it. Neither law nor history supports the argument that the government is not supposed to kill US citizens who are on the other side in war. That's a rule you just made up on Glock Talk - it doesn't exist outside this thread.:upeyes:

Dexters
07-26-2012, 06:15
The difference is one was found in a place and condition where we could capture him and one was not. You may have noticed that we kill or capture enemies in like circumstances, regardless of citizenship. On fact, I don't think Lindh was even known to be an American when he was captured.

This thread seems to involve nothing more than a group of GT's most-liberal with a clear agenda, trying to ignore or change facts to make an argument for it. Neither law nor history supports the argument that the government is not supposed to kill US citizens who are on the other side in war. That's a rule you just made up on Glock Talk - it doesn't exist outside this thread.:upeyes:

You're right and you have a great idea there.

Take the Colorado movie shooter. Why go through all that trouble with charging and trying him.

Put him on a plane to Yemen, drone him, and tell people he was working with the enemy. Who would doubt it? His actions sure looked like a terrorist.

Sam Spade
07-26-2012, 06:25
You're right and you have a great idea there.

Take the Colorado movie shooter. Why go through all that trouble with charging and trying him.

Put him on a plane to Yemen, drone him, and tell people he was working with the enemy. Who would doubt it? His actions sure looked like a terrorist.

The scary thing is that you probably think you made a relevant point here.

Gallium
07-26-2012, 06:34
You're right and you have a great idea there.

Take the Colorado movie shooter. Why go through all that trouble with charging and trying him.

Put him on a plane to Yemen, drone him, and tell people he was working with the enemy. Who would doubt it? His actions sure looked like a terrorist.


Not relevant. :)

G26S239
07-26-2012, 07:09
You're right and you have a great idea there.

Take the Colorado movie shooter. Why go through all that trouble with charging and trying him.

Put him on a plane to Yemen, drone him, and tell people he was working with the enemy. Who would doubt it? His actions sure looked like a terrorist.

That ^^^ merde has nothing to do with what Bren posted.

Dexters
07-26-2012, 09:25
The scary thing is that you probably think you made a relevant point here.

Not relevant. :)

Original though ...






.... not

Bren
07-27-2012, 09:28
You're right and you have a great idea there.

Take the Colorado movie shooter. Why go through all that trouble with charging and trying him.

Put him on a plane to Yemen, drone him, and tell people he was working with the enemy. Who would doubt it? His actions sure looked like a terrorist.

That is both silly and unrelated to what I said.

The difference is one was found in a place and condition where we could capture him and one was not.

Pretty much the opposite of what you said.

Like the terrorists - if the Colorado shooter was on a battlefield and gave up, as he did in Colorado, he'd have been captured, like Lindh. If he did not give up and couldn't be captured, he'd have been killed like Al Alwaki. In his case, deadly force would be legal (at least constitutionally, don't know about Co. state law) even if he was running away.

Dexters
07-27-2012, 09:54
That is both silly and unrelated to what I said.



How so?

Bren
07-28-2012, 14:54
How so?

If you read more than the first sentence of the post, it is explained very simply. In fact, the remark you responded to was a pretty clear explanation of the same thing.

Dexters
07-28-2012, 15:17
You're right and you have a great idea there.

Take the Colorado movie shooter. Why go through all that trouble with charging and trying him.

Put him on a plane to Yemen, drone him, and tell people he was working with the enemy. Who would doubt it? His actions sure looked like a terrorist.

T



Pretty much the opposite of what you said.



Don't quote my previous posts except for the one above.

You changed my mind. And I agree with you

"You're right and you have a great idea there." Tells you that.

So, again.

"How so?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post

That is both silly and unrelated to what I said.

Dexters
07-28-2012, 15:19
deleted