Jihadin wrote:Again he was a combatant and not a criminal. Two sets of rules/laws. Law suit not going anywhere.

Jihadin wrote:Again he was a combatant and not a criminal. Two sets of rules/laws. Law suit not going anywhere.

Ouze wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Again he was a combatant and not a criminal. Two sets of rules/laws. Law suit not going anywhere.

You have proven to be remarkably facts-resistant in this arena, so while it's probably fruitless to try and explain why, suffice it to say that your contentions are not legally accurate; except for that last bit. That part is true but not for the reasons you think it is. I agree it will be dismissed, but for lack of standing or sovereign immunity, flip a coin; either is accurate.

If supporting terrorism makes you a combatant, then legally, the President could order a nuclear strike on the city of Boston and claim that anyone not connected with the IRA was collateral damage. Hell, you'd better shoot me right now, because technically under that interpretation

BaronIveagh wrote:Sovereign immunity might not apply here (we'll see), as they're suing the people involved directly, rather than the government as a whole (there is precedent for this in New York state). As far as standing goes: actually, yes, once they're deceased, the immediate family does have standing to bring a wrongful death suit. As the parents and grandparents of the deceased parties, they would have standing.

Jihadin wrote:He influence the Ft. Hood shooter for one as a "editor"

A clerk at the brigade level in combat is a combatant but not involved in actual combat but he still a viable target.

His son was with him when the Hellfire hit. His teenage son. Its pretty hard to identify a teenager in that region in a shooting match let alone on the screen as the Hellfire goes in. Collateral damage. Since I had the joy of experience after the fact of one fight involving two teens amongst the shooters trying to win a prize on a "Shoot an American day" I'm not shocked nor sad.

If supporting terrorism makes you a combatant, then legally, the President could order a nuclear strike on the city of Boston and claim that anyone not connected with the IRA was collateral damage. Hell, you'd better shoot me right now, because technically under that interpretation

That would be an unlawful order that would not be carried out. Since we're on this bit. Do you think I should be prosecuted for assisting or killing a enemy combatant? Do you think the pilot that pushed the "launch" button for the Hellfire that killed Awalaki should be prosecuted then under US laws? We're both murderers?

deathholydeath wrote:Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki engage in the incitement of hate and violence against United States citizens and military personnel?

deathholydeath wrote:Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki engage in the incitement of hate and violence against United States citizens and military personnel?

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric to.

Bromsy wrote:

Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric to.

Goddamn, he played D&D? Had it coming then.

deathholydeath wrote:Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki engage in the incitement of hate and violence against United States citizens and military personnel?

Steve steveson wrote:I fear this comes under the US law of "because we said so and noone will argue with us or else". The same law that the US use to conduct attacks deep inside Packistan without taling to the govenment. The same law that the US use to transport kidnapped people through the EU. Hell the same law that has let people in the US fund terrorist groups like the IRA for years with almost zero action.

Steve steveson wrote:I fear this comes under the US law of "because we said so and noone will argue with us or else". The same law that the US use to conduct attacks deep inside Packistan without taling to the govenment. The same law that the US use to transport kidnapped people through the EU. Hell the same law that has let people in the US fund terrorist groups like the IRA for years with almost zero action.

Steve steveson wrote:I fear this comes under the US law of "because we said so and noone will argue with us or else". The same law that the US use to conduct attacks deep inside Packistan without taling to the govenment. The same law that the US use to transport kidnapped people through the EU. Hell the same law that has let people in the US fund terrorist groups like the IRA for years with almost zero action.

BaronIveagh wrote:...National Security trumps Constitutional Rights.

BaronIveagh wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki engage in the incitement of hate and violence against United States citizens and military personnel?

So has the President's former preacher.

Ouze wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki engage in the incitement of hate and violence against United States citizens and military personnel?

Sure. So what?

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:...National Security trumps Constitutional Rights.

Of course it does. The worst case is a failure to eliminate a threat, an innocent victim, and a settlement.

deathholydeath wrote:My question, I suppose, is whether his incitement of violence combined with his association with Al-Qaeda is sufficient to classify him as an enemy combatant legally. I'm under the general impression that those who aid and abet the enemy essentially give up their civilian status.

But I'm far from an expert.

BaronIveagh wrote:...and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along...

Ahtman wrote:
bs. There is a world of difference between "I don't like the USA, and the USA doesn't like me" and "Go out and kill Americans". He didn't just express a dislike of the USA or it's policies, he actively called for violence against people. I don't like Rev. Wright either, but he didn't encourage people to kill other people.

Ouze wrote:
There isn't any real legal basis in this line of thinking - "if the president decides you're a terrorist, with no meaningful oversight, then you no longer have any rights of any kind at all" - but that hasn't stopped any of the so-called experts in 2 separate administrations from, in a rather self-serving fashion, from taking that idea and running with it anyway. So I think expertise on this topic is maybe a little overrated.

Ouze wrote:Well put, Baron.

BaronIveagh wrote:...that neither Congress nor the President has the power to repeal your rights as a citizen...

BaronIveagh wrote:No one asks why they would do such a thing.

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:...that neither Congress nor the President has the power to repeal your rights as a citizen...

Congress can do basically whatever it wants, including strip you of rights via the amendment process.

Ahtman wrote:Still, I'm not sure understanding why someone would call for, propagate, fund, and encourage violence should mean that we shouldn't stop them if we can. It is good to know to help in the future but it wouldn't stop us from stopping people like that now. There are certainly issues to be considered and discussed, but we can't really have that discussion if the attitude is that of conflating disagreeing with policy with actively calling for death and destruction.

Ahtman wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:No one asks why they would do such a thing.

Really? No one? Not even you?

People do actually ask such questions. Many articles about the subject also talk about the journey from imam to terrorist leader. Still, I'm not sure understanding why someone would call for, propagate, fund, and encourage violence should mean that we shouldn't stop them if we can. It is good to know to help in the future but it wouldn't stop us from stopping people like that now. There are certainly issues to be considered and discussed, but we can't really have that discussion if the attitude is that of conflating disagreeing with policy with actively calling for death and destruction.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Only if you let them. Remember, Congress can only propose amendments, it's those silly 'We the People' guys that have to approve them.

BaronIveagh wrote:And, I'll point out that, in the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that every citizen, regardless of situation, is protected by their rights under the Constitution. And, mind you, they ruled this in the trial of a man sentenced to die for treason in the midst of a far more serious national crisis then the 'War on Terror'...

dogma wrote:
No, Congress passes amendments, and then State legislatures ratify them.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Get 38 states to agree on anything anymore.

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Get 38 states to agree on anything anymore.

How much money do you want to spend?

purplefood wrote:
Does anyone have that much money anymore?

dogma wrote:

purplefood wrote:
Does anyone have that much money anymore?

Sure, Bill Gates.

The latest US Census cost ~13 billion USD, quadruple that and you roughly cover influence costs.

Jihadin wrote:Again he was a combatant and not a criminal. Two sets of rules/laws. Law suit not going anywhere.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Again he was a combatant and not a criminal. Two sets of rules/laws. Law suit not going anywhere.

You have proven to be remarkably facts-resistant in this arena, so while it's probably fruitless to try and explain why, suffice it to say that your contentions are not legally accurate; except for that last bit. That part is true but not for the reasons you think it is. I agree it will be dismissed, but for lack of standing or sovereign immunity, flip a coin; either is accurate.

Sovereign immunity might not apply here (we'll see), as they're suing the people involved directly, rather than the government as a whole (there is precedent for this in New York state). As far as standing goes: actually, yes, once they're deceased, the immediate family does have standing to bring a wrongful death suit. As the parents and grandparents of the deceased parties, they would have standing.

Bromsy wrote:

Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric to.

Goddamn, he played D&D? Had it coming then.

LordofHats wrote:The real definition of pointless legal suits? Suing men/women who can only be sued if they agree to be sued, which none of them are going to do.

]Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki engage in the incitement of hate and violence against United States citizens?

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Sovereign immunity always applies, if the Sovereign decides it does.
Relatives of Bad Guy who rightfully got snuffed: "We'll sue you !"
Sovereign US of ing A: "NO."
Relatives: "wha?"
Sovereign US of A: "You look suspicious, have you ever thought about visiting Cuba?"
Relatives"we're just going to go away now."
Sovereign: "Good idea. Whats that sound? Is that a drone? tee hee"

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Sovereign immunity always applies, if the Sovereign decides it does.
Relatives of Bad Guy who rightfully got snuffed: "We'll sue you !"
Sovereign US of ing A: "NO."
Relatives: "wha?"
Sovereign US of A: "You look suspicious, have you ever thought about visiting Cuba?"
Relatives"we're just going to go away now."
Sovereign: "Good idea. Whats that sound? Is that a drone? tee hee"

Frazz, what I'm not sure what it more horrifying, that you think this is how that works under the law, or that your sarcasm came across making the USA sound like Hitler in Epic Rap Battles of History.

Frazzled wrote:
1. I sound nothing like Hitler. I sound much more like Vader.
2. This is old school law. The Royal is immune from suit in court. You can't sue the King in the King's court. The only time this is not the case is when the Royal permits it. Now there are old school methods around it and the Bill of Right scome into play, but its all irrelevant if the Government truly decides it won't be sued.

BaronIveagh wrote:OK, I think that's where the break is: They're not suing the government directly. You can bring suit against individual members of the government, and they would have to face it in court, without being able to claim Sovereign Immunity. This is how suits have been successfully brought against Generals, Presidents, and members of Congress in the past. I'll use Slick Willie as an example: You'd bring suit against 'William Jefferson Clinton', not 'The President of the United States', since, though they're the same person (at one time), they're effectively two different entities, only one of which is subject to Sovereign Immunity.

BaronIveagh wrote:You'd bring suit against 'William Jefferson Clinton', not 'The President of the United States', since, though they're the same person (at one time), they're effectively two different entities, only one of which is subject to Sovereign Immunity.

LordofHats wrote:And no one has ever successfully sued the government or its agents. They've gotten token nods of "Okay okay, here you go now go away" which is pretty detached from winning.

dogma wrote:
They are, but William Jefferson Clinton did act under the auspices of the Presidency. In his capacity as President of the United States he is immune from prosecution. In his capacity as a guy that likes larger women, he is not.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but William Jefferson Clinton (in this case) commits the crime, the President of the United States does not.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Further, it's an election year for the president. If he tries to claim 'state secrets' 'executive privilege' or 'Sovereign Immunity', then the opposition will squawk (if they have three braincells to rub together.)

BaronIveagh wrote:How the hell do you figure that?

LordofHats wrote:
Because for all intents and purposes suing the federal government and its agents is impossible (with regards to their administrative/government-type powers).

BaronIveagh wrote:If that was true, then there would be no ACLU.

Who, btw, are backing this case now.

Jihadin wrote:CIA gave the JSOC drone operater the green light to fire. You cannot prosecute a soldier for killing Alawaki because it was a lawful order coming from the Commander in Chief who authorised the targeted killing of Awalaki

Jihadin wrote:
The US Constitution applies to US Citizen in another country? Thought they fall under that country constitution. Thought the US constitution applies within the soverign nation and territory? Or those acting on behalf of the US government in another country

Relapse wrote:Screw the dude, he incited people to try their hand at killing Americans.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NASSER AL-AULAQI,

as personal representative of the estates of

ANWAR AL-AULAQI and

ABDULRAHMAN AL-AULAQI

c/o American Civil Liberties Union

of the Nation’s Capital

4301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 434

Washington, D.C. 20008,

SARAH KHAN,

as personal representative of the estate of

SAMIR KHAN

c/o American Civil Liberties Union

of the Nation’s Capital

4301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 434

Washington, D.C. 20008,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEON C. PANETTA,

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20301-1000,

WILLIAM H. MCRAVEN,

Commander, Special Operations Command

7701 Tampa Point Boulevard

MacDill Air Force Base, FL 33621-5323,

JOSEPH VOTEL,

Commander, Joint Special Operations Command

P.O. Box 70239

Fort Bragg, N.C. 28307,

DAVID H. PETRAEUS,

Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D.C. 20505,

All in their individual capacities,

Defendants.

No. 12-cv-_____

2



COMPLAINT

(Violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendments and Bill of Attainder Clause – targeted

killing)

INTRODUCTION




1. Since 2001, and routinely since 2009, the United States has carried out

deliberate and premeditated killings of suspected terrorists overseas. The U.S. practice of

“targeted killing” has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many

hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in

the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the

context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and

the Philippines. These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process,

and evidence never presented to the courts. This case concerns the role of Defendants

Leon C. Panetta, William H. McRaven, Joseph Votel, and David H. Petraeus

(collectively, “Defendants”) in authorizing and directing the killing of three American

citizens in Yemen last year. The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S.

citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law.

2. In late 2009 or early 2010, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen, was added

to “kill lists” maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and the Joint

Special Operations Command (“JSOC”), a component of the Department of Defense

(“DOD”). On September 30, 2011, unmanned CIA and JSOC drones fired missiles at

Anwar Al-Aulaqi and his vehicle, killing him and at least three other people, including

Samir Khan, another American citizen. Defendants authorized and directed their

subordinates to carry out the strike.

3

3. On October 14, 2011, Defendants authorized and directed another drone strike

in Yemen, this one approximately 200 miles away from the strike that had killed Anwar

Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan two weeks earlier. The October 14 strike killed at least seven

people at an open-air restaurant, including two children. One of the children was 16-

year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, who was Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s son and also an American

citizen.

4. Defendants’ killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was unlawful. At the time of the

killing, the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen.

Outside the context of armed conflict, both the United States Constitution and

international human rights law prohibit the use of lethal force unless, at the time it is

applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent

threat of death or serious physical injury. Upon information and belief, Anwar Al-Aulaqi

was not engaged in activities that presented such a threat, and the use of lethal force

against him was not a last resort. Even in the context of an armed conflict, the law of war

cabins the government’s authority to use lethal force and prohibits killing civilians who

are not directly participating in hostilities. The concept of “direct participation” requires

both a causal and temporal nexus to hostilities. Upon information and belief, Defendants

directed and authorized the killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi even though he was not then

directly participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war.

5. Defendants’ killing of Samir Khan and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was also

unlawful. Upon information and belief, neither Samir Khan nor Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi

was engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to

life; nor was either of them directly participating in hostilities. The news media have

4

reported, based on statements attributed to anonymous U.S. government officials, that

Samir Khan was not the target of the September 30 strike and that Abdulrahman Al-

Aulaqi was not the target of the October 14 strike. If the Defendants were targeting

others, they had an obligation under the Constitution and international human rights law

to take measures to prevent harm to Samir Khan, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, and other

bystanders. Even in the context of an armed conflict, government officials must comply

with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to

protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Samir Khan and Abdulrahman Al-

Aulaqi were killed because Defendants failed to take such measures.

6. Plaintiffs are the personal representatives of the estates of Anwar Al-Aulaqi,

Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. They seek damages from Defendants for their

role in authorizing and directing the killings of Plaintiffs’ sons and grandson in violation

of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Bill of Attainder Clause.



JURISDICTION AND VENUE




7. This complaint is for compensatory damages resulting from the conduct of

Defendants, all of them U.S. government officials, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments and the Bill of Attainder Clause.

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(federal question) and the U.S. Constitution.

9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).



PARTIES




10. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi is the father of Anwar Al-Aulaqi and the

grandfather of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. He is a citizen and resident of Yemen. He

5

brings this suit as the personal representative of the estates of his son and grandson,

American citizens who were killed by missile strikes authorized and directed by

Defendants.

11. Plaintiff Sarah Khan, an American citizen, is the mother of Samir Khan. She

brings this suit as the personal representative of the estate of her son, an American citizen

who was killed by missile strikes authorized and directed by Defendants.

12. Defendant Leon C. Panetta is the Secretary of Defense, a post he has held

since July 2011. As Defense Secretary, he has ultimate authority over U.S. armed forces

worldwide, including over JSOC. He authorized Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s continued

placement on JSOC’s kill list after July 2011 and authorized and directed the missile

strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. Between

February 2009 and June 2011, Defendant Panetta was the Director of the CIA. As CIA

Director, he authorized the addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to the CIA’s kill list. He is sued

in his individual capacity.

13. Defendant William H. McRaven is Commander of the U.S. Special

Operations Command (“USSOCOM”), a post he has held since August 2011. As

Commander of USSOCOM, Defendant McRaven has authority over JSOC, a subordinate

unified command within USSOCOM. He authorized and directed the missile strikes that

killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. Between June 2008

and June 2011, he was the Commander of JSOC. In that capacity, he authorized the

addition of Anwar Al-Aulaqi to JSOC’s kill list. He is sued in his individual capacity.

14. Defendant Joseph Votel is the Commander of JSOC, a post he has held since

June 2011. As Commander of JSOC, he has authority over JSOC operations. He

6

authorized and directed the missile strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. He is sued in his individual capacity.

15. Defendant David H. Petraeus is the Director of the CIA, a post he has held

since September 2011. As CIA Director, he has ultimate authority over the CIA’s

operations worldwide. He authorized and directed the missile strikes that killed Anwar

Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi. He is sued in his individual

capacity.



FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS




“Targeted Killings” by the United States

16. The first reported post-2001 targeted killing by the U.S. government outside

Afghanistan occurred in Yemen in November 2002, when a CIA-operated Predator drone

fired a missile at a terrorism suspect traveling in a car with other passengers. The strike

killed all passengers in the vehicle, including an American citizen. The United Nations

Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions later stated that

the strike constituted “a clear case of extrajudicial killing” and set an “alarming

precedent.”

17. Since 2002, the United States has continued to carry out targeted killings

outside the context of armed conflict. The pace of these killings has increased

dramatically since 2009. In the course of carrying out these killings, the government has

killed many hundreds of civilian bystanders. In December 2009, a U.S. missile strike in

the village of al-Majalah, Yemen, killed 41 people, including 21 children.

18. In April 2012, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan acknowledged

publicly that the United States carries out targeted killings of suspected terrorists “beyond

7

hot battlefields like Afghanistan,” often using “remotely piloted aircraft” known as

“drones.” Both the CIA and JSOC are involved in authorizing, planning, and carrying

out these killings; both the CIA and JSOC have carried out such killings in Yemen; and,

according to a December 2011 report in the

Washington Post and other news sources, the

CIA and JSOC “share intelligence and coordinate attacks.” Greg Miller,

Under Obama,

an Emerging Global Apparatus for Drone Killing


, Wash. Post, Dec. 27, 2011.

19. Both the CIA and JSOC maintain “kill lists” setting out the names of the

individuals they intend to kill.

See Jo Becker & Scott Shane, Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a

Test of Obama’s Principles and Will


, N.Y. Times, May 29, 2012. Upon information and

belief, the inclusion of an individual on one or both of the lists represents a standing order

authorizing and directing certain government personnel to kill that individual. In a

February 2011 interview with

Newsweek, the CIA’s former acting general counsel John

Rizzo described the CIA’s list as “basically a hit list.” He stated that there are

approximately 30 individuals on the list “at any given time,” and that “[t]he Predator

[drone] is the weapon of choice, but it could also be someone putting a bullet in your

head.” Tara McKelvey,

Inside the Killing Machine, Newsweek, Feb. 13, 2011.

20. Senior government officials, including then-Director of National Intelligence

Dennis Blair and Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, have made clear that

the government’s claimed authority to carry out the targeted killing of suspected

terrorists, including killings executed outside the context of armed conflict, extends to

American citizens. However, government officials have offered incomplete and

inconsistent explanations of the legal standards that govern the placement of U.S. citizens

on the kill lists. Some officials have suggested that the U.S. government targets its

8

citizens only if they present “imminent” threats, but they have defined the term

“imminent” so broadly as to negate its meaning.

Defendants’ Decision to Authorize the Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi

21. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi is a Yemeni citizen who moved to the United

States in 1966 to study as a Fulbright scholar at New Mexico State University. He and

his wife lived in the United States until 1978, when they moved back to Yemen. In

Yemen, he served as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and president of Sana’a

University, and founded and served as president of Ibb University. He currently resides

in Yemen with his wife, who is an American citizen, and their family.

22. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s son, Anwar, was born in 1971 in New Mexico.

He moved to Yemen with his parents in 1978. In 1991, he returned to the United States

to attend college at Colorado State University. He obtained his master’s degree from San

Diego State University and then enrolled in a Ph.D. program at George Washington

University, which he attended through December 2001. While living in the United

States, he married and had children, including Abdulrahman. He left the United States in

2003, first for the United Kingdom and then for Yemen.

23. In January 2010, the

Washington Post reported that JSOC had added Anwar

Al-Aulaqi to its kill list and had tried unsuccessfully to kill him in December 2009. Dana

Priest,

U.S. Military Teams, Intelligence Deeply Involved in Aiding Yemen on Strikes,

Wash. Post, Jan. 27, 2010. Other media organizations reported the same information. In

March 2010, the

Wall Street Journal reported that then-CIA Director Defendant Panetta

stated that Anwar Al-Aulaqi was “someone that we’re looking for” and that “there isn’t

any question that he’s one of the individuals that we’re focusing on.” Keith Johnson,

9



U.S. Seeks Cleric Backing Jihad


, Wall St. J., Mar. 26, 2010. In April 2010, multiple

media organizations, including the

Washington Post, reported that Anwar Al-Aulaqi had

been added to the CIA’s kill list.

See Greg Miller, Muslim Cleric Aulaqi Is 1st U.S.

Citizen on List of Those CIA Is Allowed To Kill


, Wash. Post, Apr. 7, 2010.

24. The decision to add Anwar Al-Aulaqi to government kill lists was made after

a closed executive process. Defendant Panetta participated in this process, and upon

information and belief Defendant McRaven participated in this process as well. Upon

information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s killing

even though, at the time lethal force was used, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not engaged in

activities that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, and even though

there were means short of lethal force that could reasonably have been used to address

any such threat. Upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed Anwar

Al-Aulaqi’s killing even though he was not then directly participating in hostilities within

the meaning of the law of war.

25. In or around June 2010, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel

completed a memorandum providing legal justifications for the killing of Anwar Al-

Aulaqi. Substantial portions of the memorandum were summarized in October 2011 by

the

New York Times, which reported, based on conversations with individuals who had

read the document, that the memorandum “provided the justification for acting [against

Anwar Al-Aulaqi] despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law

against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international

laws of war.” Charlie Savage,

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen,

N.Y. Times, Oct. 8, 2011.

10

26. Between the time Anwar Al-Aulaqi was added to the JSOC and CIA kill lists

and the time he was killed, government officials told reporters that Al-Aulaqi had “cast

his lot” with terrorist groups and encouraged others to engage in terrorist activity. Later,

they claimed he had played “a key role in setting the strategic direction” for “Al Qaeda in

the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).” The government never publicly indicted Anwar Al-

Aulaqi for any crime.

Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s Lawuit to Enjoin the Government from Killing His Son

27. On August 30, 2010, Nasser Al-Aulaqi filed suit in this Court as next friend of

his son, Anwar, asking that the Court enter an injunction barring the President, the CIA,

and DOD (including JSOC) from carrying out the targeted killing of his son unless the

executive concluded that he presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life,

and that there were no reasonably available measures short of lethal force that could be

expected to address that threat. After hearing argument on November 8, 2010, the Court

dismissed the Complaint on December 7, 2010, holding that Nasser Al-Aulaqi lacked

standing to assert his son’s constitutional rights and that at least some of the issues raised

by the Complaint were non-justiciable political questions. No appeal was taken.

Samir Khan

28. Plaintiff Sarah Khan is a U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States since

1992 with her husband and children. Her son, Samir, was born in 1985 and became a

U.S. citizen in 1998.

29. Samir Khan attended elementary school in Queens, New York, and high

school on Long Island, New York. After graduating from high school in 2003, he moved

11

to North Carolina, where he attended a community college and worked part-time. He left

for Yemen in October 2009.

30. Anonymous government officials have told reporters that Samir Khan was a

“propagandist” for AQAP. The government never publicly indicted him for any crime.

The September 30, 2011 Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan

31. On the morning of September 30, 2011, Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan

were in the Yemeni province of al-Jawf, some 90 miles northeast of Sana’a. Upon

information and belief, Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and Petraeus authorized

and directed personnel under their command to fire missiles at Anwar Al-Aulaqi and his

vehicle from unmanned U.S. drones. The missiles destroyed the vehicle and killed

Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and at least two others. Witnesses reported that the

missile strike left the vehicle a “charred husk” and “tore the [victims’] bodies to pieces.”

Dominic Rushe, et al.,

Anwar al-Awlaki Death: US Keeps Role Under Wraps to Manage

Yemen Fallout


, Guardian, Sept. 30, 2011; Sudarsan Raghavan, Awlaqi Hit Misses al-

Qaeda Bombmaker, Yemen Says


, Wash. Post, Sept 30, 2011. According to a September

30, 2011 article in the

Washington Post and a June 2012 book by journalist Daniel

Klaidman, personnel under Defendants’ command had been surveilling Anwar Al-Aulaqi

for a period as long as three weeks leading up to the strike. Greg Miller,

Strike on Aulaqi

Demonstrates Collaboration Between CIA and Military


, Wash. Post, Sept. 30, 2011;

Daniel Klaidman,

Kill or Capture (2012). Defendants’ lengthy surveillance suggests that

the use of lethal force was not a last resort and that additional measures could have been

taken to protect bystanders from harm.

12

32. The surveillance and the strike were carried out by the CIA and JSOC. Upon

information and belief, Defendant Petraeus was personally responsible for authorizing

and directing the CIA’s involvement in the September 30 strike, and Defendants Panetta,

McRaven, and Votel were personally responsible for authorizing and directing JSOC’s

involvement in it. Defendants coordinated with each other in planning the attack and

carrying it out.

33. Senior government officials, including Defendant Panetta and President

Barack Obama, have acknowledged the responsibility of the United States for killing

Anwar Al-Aulaqi. On the same day the strike was carried out, DOD published a news

article stating that “[a] U.S. airstrike . . . killed . . . Anwar [Al-Aulaqi] early this

morning” and that he had been “high on the military-intelligence list of terrorist targets.”

Lisa Daniel,

Panetta: Awlaki Airstrike Shows U.S.-Yemeni Cooperation, Am. Forces

Press Service, Sept. 30, 2011. The following day, Defendant Panetta stated in a public

speech that “it is because of th[e] teamwork between our intelligence and our military

communities that we were successful in . . . taking down al-Awlaki.” Three weeks later,

President Obama stated on national television that “working with the Yemenis, we were

able to remove [Anwar Al-Aulaqi] from the field.”

Tonight Show with Jay Leno (NBC

television broadcast Oct. 25, 2011).

34. Defendants’ killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was unlawful. Upon information and

belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike even though, at the time the strike

was carried out, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not engaged in activities that presented a concrete,

specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Upon information and

belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike even though there were means short

13

of lethal force that could reasonably have been used to neutralize any threat that Anwar

Al-Aulaqi’s activities may have presented. The killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi was unlawful

even if analyzed under the law of war because, upon information and belief, Defendants

authorized and directed the strike even though Anwar Al-Aulaqi was not then directly

participating in hostilities within the meaning of the law of war.

35. Defendants’ killing of Samir Khan was also unlawful. Samir Khan was not

engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death

or serious physical injury; nor was he directly participating in hostilities. If he was killed

because of the government’s targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, his killing was unlawful

because Al-Aulaqi’s killing was unlawful and because, upon information and belief,

Defendants authorized and directed the strike without taking legally required measures to

avoid harm to bystanders. Even in the context of an armed conflict, government officials

must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible

measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Samir Khan was killed

because Defendants failed to take such measures.

The October 14, 2011 Killing of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi

36. Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi’s grandson, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, was born in

Denver, Colorado, on August 26, 1995. He was raised in the United States until 2002,

when he moved with his family to Yemen. At the time of his death, he was a student in

his first year of high school and resided in Sana’a, Yemen, with his mother, siblings,

grandmother, and grandfather.

37. On October 14, 2011, Abdulrahman was at an open-air restaurant near the

town of Azzan, in the southern Yemeni province of Shabwa. Upon information and

14

belief, Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and Petraeus authorized and directed

personnel under their command to fire missiles from unmanned U.S. drones at a person at

or near the restaurant. According to media sources, the intended target was Ibraham Al-

Banna, an Egyptian national, but it was later reported that he was not among those killed

by the strike.

See Gregory Johnsen, Signature Strikes in Yemen, Waq al-Waq, Apr. 19,

2012. The strike killed at least seven people, including Abdulrahman and one of his

cousins, another minor. Abdulrahman himself was 16 years old.

38. After the strike, a senior Obama administration official described

Abdulrahman to the

Los Angeles Times as a “military-aged male.” Ken Dilanian,

Grieving Awlaki Family Protests Yemen Drone Strikes


, L.A. Times, Oct. 19, 2011. Other

news sources described Abdulrahman as a militant in his twenties. To correct these

erroneous descriptions, Abdulrahman’s family provided his birth certificate to the



Washington Post


. After the Washington Post published the birth certificate, U.S. officials

acknowledged in anonymous statements to the press that Abdulrahman had been a minor.

39. Upon information and belief, Defendant Panetta was personally responsible

for authorizing and directing the CIA’s involvement in the October 14 strike, and

Defendants Petraeus, McRaven, and Votel were personally responsible for authorizing

and directing JSOC’s involvement in the October 14 strike. Defendants coordinated with

each other in planning the attack and carrying it out.

40. The killing of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was unlawful. Abdulrahman was not

engaged in any activity that presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death

or serious physical injury; nor was he directly participating in hostilities. If he was killed

because the government was targeting another individual, his killing was unlawful

15

because, upon information and belief, Defendants authorized and directed the strike

without taking legally required measures to avoid harm to him. Even in the context of an

armed conflict, the government must comply with the requirements of distinction and

proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information

and belief, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was killed because Defendants failed to take such

measures.



CAUSES OF ACTION

First Claim for Relief

Fifth Amendment: Due Process




41. Defendants’ actions described herein violated the substantive and procedural

due process rights of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi under

the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and

Petraeus violated the Fifth Amendment due process rights of Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir

Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi by authorizing and directing their subordinates to use

lethal force against them in the circumstances described above. The deaths of Anwar al-

Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi were a foreseeable result of

Defendants’ actions and omissions.



Second Claim for Relief

Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Seizure




42. Defendants’ actions described herein violated the rights of Anwar Al-Aulaqi,

Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi to be free from unreasonable seizures under

the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Defendants Panetta, McRaven, Votel, and

Petraeus violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi by authorizing and directing their subordinates to use lethal

16

force against them in the circumstances described above. The deaths of Anwar al-Aulaqi,

Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi were a foreseeable result of Defendants’

actions and omissions.



Third Claim for Relief

Bill of Attainder




43. Defendants’ actions described herein with respect to Anwar Al-Aulaqi

violated the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause. Defendants’ actions constituted an

unconstitutional act of attainder because Defendants designated Anwar Al-Aulaqi for

death without the protections of a judicial trial in the circumstances described above. The

death of Anwar al-Aulaqi was a foreseeable result of Defendants’ actions and omissions.



PRAYER FOR RELIEF




Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment awarding them:

A. Damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and

B. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Relapse wrote:@Baron,

You lost me when you started quoting Farrakhan.

Relapse wrote:@Baron,

You lost me when you started quoting Farrakhan.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Baron,

You lost me when you started quoting Farrakhan.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Frazzled wrote:
No.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
No.

No, the clock isn't right, or no, it's not right to ask if we're actually creating these guys at this point?

Frazzled wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
No.

No, the clock isn't right, or no, it's not right to ask if we're actually creating these guys at this point?

Neither. The use of Farrakhan other than to demonstrate flying rodent gak crazy is...misplaced. It equally impugns anything you post after that.

Ahtman wrote:If you have use the leader of a hate group to add emphasis to a point, I imagine the best thing to do would just say what you think and not rely on such a vile person to lend credence and weight, as it will do neither of those things and only taint the argument.

It also doesn't help that Farrakahn was absolutely wrong, as people do ask, but that isn't the point.

Ahtman wrote:If you have to use the leader of a hate group to add emphasis to a point, I imagine the best thing to do would just say what you think and not rely on such a vile person to lend credence and weight, as it will do neither of those things and only taint the argument.

BaronIveagh wrote:When one of the worlds foremost champions of peace, human rights, and equality

Ahtman wrote:
But you quoted Jimmy Carter.

Ahtman wrote:
Also, putting apostrophes around hate doesn't stop the Nation of Islam from being a hate group. They are to Islam what the white power groups are to Christianity.

BaronIveagh wrote:I've seen real hate. The nation of Islam barely gets through the door.

whembly wrote:Here's the deal in simple terms.

WE. ARE. AT. WAR.

whembly wrote:
There is no such thing is a "clean war" or "a surgical strike".

whembly wrote:
Aren't these Drone Strikes approved by some committee (judiciary/congressional/whateve?) before proceeding? You would think that not only the mission would be justified, but any legal ramafications would be satisfied prior to the strike.

Ahtman wrote:
Then it seems the problem is that you don't know what a hate group is, have a very limited understanding of the NoI, or both.

Frazzled wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Sovereign immunity always applies, if the Sovereign decides it does.
Relatives of Bad Guy who rightfully got snuffed: "We'll sue you !"
Sovereign US of ing A: "NO."
Relatives: "wha?"
Sovereign US of A: "You look suspicious, have you ever thought about visiting Cuba?"
Relatives"we're just going to go away now."
Sovereign: "Good idea. Whats that sound? Is that a drone? tee hee"

Frazz, what I'm not sure what it more horrifying, that you think this is how that works under the law, or that your sarcasm came across making the USA sound like Hitler in Epic Rap Battles of History.

1. I sound nothing like Hitler. I sound much more like Vader.
2. This is old school law. The Royal is immune from suit in court. You can't sue the King in the King's court. The only time this is not the case is when the Royal permits it. Now there are old school methods around it and the Bill of Right scome into play, but its all irrelevant if the Government truly decides it won't be sued.

Jihadin wrote:Good thing isyou didn'tgo with the french trial

Jihadin wrote:Good thing isyou didn'tgo with the french trial

From this I'm guessing you don't know what happened to him?

Jihadin wrote:
A head shorter?

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:
A head shorter?

If he's talking about Charles I? Oh, yes.


Then again, that didn't turn out so well, in the end.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Depends on how you look at it. Sure we ended up with a new king later and had to put up with Cromwell until that point but it set a good legal precedent that not even the king is above the law.

BaronIveagh wrote:

whembly wrote:Here's the deal in simple terms.

WE. ARE. AT. WAR.

A war without end against a nebulous, faceless opponent, who's only identity seems to be 'people we don't like'. Who could be anywhere. At any time.

We've been down this road before. The United States Government revoked the citizens rights under the Constitution, on the grounds that we were at war, and nebulouis traitors 'copperheads' were under every woodpile. It began with good intentions and ended with witch hunts and innocent men being executed for treason by secret courts.

If a man like Abraham Lincoln could not prevent that slide into tyranny and madness, how could we ever hope to now in this corrupt government?

whembly wrote:
There is no such thing is a "clean war" or "a surgical strike".

While I agree on the clean war bit, I disagree with the second. My great uncle was, most likely, inventor of what we now call the IED (back in 1916). In over 40 bombings, he had only one that accidentally led to 'collateral damage' (and he regretted that one to his dying day).

whembly wrote:
Aren't these Drone Strikes approved by some committee (judiciary/congressional/whateve?) before proceeding? You would think that not only the mission would be justified, but any legal ramafications would be satisfied prior to the strike.

Actually, the legal ramifications were examined. They concluded that legally they had to take them alive, if possible, according to a leaked legal memorandum.

Beyond that, as I understand it, the Presidents advisers discuss the legality of it, the President makes the call, and the CIA makes the hit. No justification is ever given, and the process itself is conducted in secret.

Ahtman wrote:
Then it seems the problem is that you don't know what a hate group is, have a very limited understanding of the NoI, or both.

No, it's just that I've seen vastly worse.

Tell me, when was the last time the Nation of Islam stated off one of their meetings by burning children alive? That's hate. (and, Africa)

Or beat a pregnant woman nearly to death disguised as police officers in an attempt to start a race riot. That's hate. (and, Western New York circa 1998)

When someone says 'hate groups' this is the gak I think of. NoI is not quite the same thing.

Relapse wrote:
You'd best check some of the people Farrakhan likes to hang with, like the late unlamented Yahweh Ben Yahweh. Talk about a hatemonger.

BaronIveagh wrote:Mind you, after we had him jailed without trial by a foreign power for 18 months.

...

Even more damning is when the Yemeni's did arrest him as a favor for us, after 18 months in prison, we had to admit we had nothing and they let him go.

Bromsy wrote:

Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric too.

Goddamn, he played D&D? Had it coming then.

Jihadin wrote:They do have confessions on him. They have five confessions on the Dix grps indicating him as influencing. Ft Hood shooter and the UNderwear bomber citing him for their action. The stature alone condemns him. Thats high percentage chance their going to go with. Only way I can think of for the gov't to get pass the Amendments. I bet a case a beer on this

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

Last I heard, Marine, your oath was sworn to '..support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same... So help me God."

While that action may have killed a few enemies of the United States, they also undermined the Constitution itself.

Jihadin wrote:
Your going into an area of thought/discussion I can't go into

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:They do have confessions on him. They have five confessions on the Dix grps indicating him as influencing. Ft Hood shooter and the UNderwear bomber citing him for their action. The stature alone condemns him. Thats high percentage chance their going to go with. Only way I can think of for the gov't to get pass the Amendments. I bet a case a beer on this

And none of these confessions took place under oath, in a court of law (as far as I'm aware). That's what I'm driving at here. If you apply a car battery to a man's testicle's enough times, he'll tell you that you're God and he is your only chosen prophet. That testimony isn't admissible though, in any civilized court.

My point, and this seems to escape everyone, is this:

The US is a nation of laws. The assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, while quite possibly laudable, was a crime. The Supreme Court case I have been referring to was also a case of treason (and the accused faced death). The court ruled in favor of the accused, as his rights under the Constitution had been denied.

Last I heard, Marine, your oath was sworn to '..support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same... So help me God."

While that action may have killed a few enemies of the United States, they also undermined the Constitution itself.

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


Though you could always be an oathbreaker and join us in Náströnd.


Sal sá hón standa
sólo fiarri,
Nástrǫndu á,
norðr horfa dyrr.
Fello eitrdropar
inn um lióra.
Sá er undinn salr
orma hryggiom.

Sá hón þar vaða
þunga strauma
menn meinsvara
ok morðvarga
ok þannz annars glepr
eyrarúno. - Völuspá

Frazzled wrote:
Confessions don't have to be under oath. you just need witnesses or taping of said confession.
If the FBI has a legal tap of Willy The Wonka's phone and Willy talks on it about offing Hershey then thats definitely admissable.
Just saying...

The framers left it to Congress to decide the punishment for treason, which Congress in turn has defined as a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of death

Jihadin wrote:Congress

The framers left it to Congress to decide the punishment for treason, which Congress in turn has defined as a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of death

BaronIveagh wrote:Without a trial (of any sort in this case) The Government my not deprive a US citizen without Due Process.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Confessions don't have to be under oath. you just need witnesses or taping of said confession.
If the FBI has a legal tap of Willy The Wonka's phone and Willy talks on it about offing Hershey then thats definitely admissable.
Just saying...

To confess to treason, you have to do it in open court. That recording is certainly admissible evidence, it's not a confession under oath, per se. However, witnesses and evidence that you did it are good enough to try you in absentia, which was never done.

Which is, again, my point. Someone confessing before the court and pleading guilty is waiving their trial by jury. They still have that right, they just are not exorcising it. In this case, however, due process was not followed. Guilt was never proven under the law. All that we have is a 'trust us' from the Government.

"And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook." Richard M Nixon.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The US is a nation of laws. The assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, while quite possibly laudable, was a crime.

Jihadin wrote:SO being indicted as a traitor is up to congress

Frazzled wrote:
Where are you getting that from? Also it doesn't have to be Treason. Merely joining the enemy army makes you a valid target.

dogma wrote:
And its been explained to you several times, very specifically, why it wasn't.
Moreover, you can cite the Constitution all you want, but Constitutional law is not criminal law. An act that is unconstitutional is not criminal.

Jihadin wrote:
A case beer is riding on this is that's the stance the gov't going to take.

Jihadin wrote:
All they have to do is show evidence to a judge who decides if congress has sufficent evidence to put him in the traitor catagory

Frazzled wrote:
Where are you getting that from? Also it doesn't have to be Treason. Merely joining the enemy army makes you a valid target.

Jihadin wrote:Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of[b] military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. [/b]

Where did you get Awlaki was condemned by a military tribunal?

Jihadin wrote:
Constitution is clear on this.

Jihadin wrote:
Unlawfum combatant does not have the protection of the Geneva Convention

Jihadin wrote:
You actually reading these before you post them? Capt dropped the ball on capturing the vessel coming OUT of instead of INTO. He expanded the scope of his orders

A separate order given by the executive enjoined seizure of American ships sailing from France, but this was not authorized by the Act of Congress

Jihadin wrote:Military Commissions Act of 2006

Jihadin wrote:Military Commissions Act of 2006

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, there is no legal definition in international law of an unlawful combatant because they are covered by the existing laws regarding soldiers and civilians.

While the United States Constitution (in article III, section 3) prohibits corruption of blood, it is nonetheless possible in many states for a crime to affect the inheritance rights of innocent relatives due to the slayer rule.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Military Commissions Act of 2006

Boumediene v. Bush, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was found unConstitutional in it's denial of detainees the right of habeus corpus and amended in 2009. Following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld a US citizen has the right to challenge his 'illegal enemy combatant' status before a court.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, there is no legal definition in international law of an unlawful combatant because they are covered by the existing laws regarding soldiers and civilians.

Artical 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention allows the status of a detainee to be determined by a 'competent tribunal'. Until such time as a tribunal takes place, however, they are to be accorded the same rights as a POW.

The only class of combatants denied protection under the Convention in this manner are mercenaries.

"A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."

Jihadin wrote:Notice the difference between Boumediene and Hamdi compare to Awlaki

Also go back and try "attainder of treason"

Show me where in the Article that covers Unlawful Combatant

Kilkrazy wrote:
Exactly. A mercenary would be counted as a murderer if he shot someone.

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." would apply, as Section 3 recognizes non-international conflicts between two parties. Granted, though, the US-Terrorist relationship is a bit cloudy. Currently the US is claiming they qualify as hostis humanis generis but then overlook that crimes in that category, while they do usually result in executions, still require public trials. The days of hanging them from the yard arm, as it were, have been over a long time.

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Jihadin wrote:
Armed forces is active duty
Militia = National Guards
Volunteer Corp = Peace Corp being an example if they so choose to assist the arm forces

BaronIveagh wrote:
"(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination. " - Executive Order 11905, Sec. 5

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." - Executive Order 12333, Sec 2.11

BaronIveagh wrote:
"It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army." Hague Convention (this takes some explaining, and is expanded on by the Geneva Conventions to include attacking the enemy in locations where, under the laws of war, they are safe, such as nations not currently engaged in hostilities. It further proscribes acts such as declaring that no prisoners will be taken, and the act of killing those incapable of fighting back.)

In addition, it prohibits a nation from declaring that the rights of a target in such hostilities are null and void. This treaty was ratified by Congress.

Jihadin wrote:Because Geneva/International/Laws of War doesn't cover Unlawful Combatants

dogma wrote:
You realize that the Executive has the power to, without consultation, rescind any Executive Order, yes? Executive Orders are not laws.

dogma wrote:
Those provisions only apply to lawful combatants, and al-Awlaki was most definitely not a lawful combatant. You might make a case that he was a protected person, but that's far from cut and dry and further entails separate prohibitions. Then, of course, there's the fact that international law has very little in common with national law.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No such rescinding has ever taken place.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And, actually, yes, they do have full force of law, as they are usually issued in pursuance to acts of Congress wherein the President has been granted discretionary power, or in pursuance of his duties as outlined in the Constitution (as head of the Armed Forces, for example.)

BaronIveagh wrote:
They may be overturned by Congress, or by the Courts, as well. These are, however, rare.

dogma wrote:
Actually, the Hague Convention does not differentiate between 'lawful' and 'unlawful' combatants. The Geneva Convention is the only one to even vaguely imply there might be more then one type.

dogma wrote:
Yes, and both are taken together as a single body of international law. You'll note my response to another poster in which I noted that the category of "unlawful combatant" is an inferred patchwork designed to overcome a deficiency in the present "legislation". You'll also note where I mentioned that international law, and national law, have very little in common; as the former cannot be read in the same sense as the latter.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You'll pardon me if I don't see the lack of an International Treaty providing a category for 'unlawful combatants' as a deficiency. But sadly, i also still subscribe to outmoded ideas like decency, human rights, and the rule of law. All of which the US has been quick to abandon of late in the name of expedience against 'illegal combatants'.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Some of you may know what the Paladin Group was.

dogma wrote:
In short, you can't try to make a legalistic argument, and then appeal to things like "decency".

dogma wrote:
I fail to see any significant parallels between the Paladin Group, and an isolated drone strike in a foreign country. Systematic slaughter doesn't really equate to killing one guy.