Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/lawsuit.al.awlaki/index.html

Here is the tldr for lazies.

A judge threw a "unique and extraordinary" lawsuit out of court Tuesday, leaving open the question of whether the U.S. government can legally target American citizens for death abroad without a trial.

In an 83-page opinion, Bates declared that it was up to the elected branches of government, not the courts, to determine whether the United States has the authority.

Godamighty, thats frightening.

Does it matter?

Even if the courts decided it was illegal they (the powers that be) would do it anyway.

If the United States goverment wants you dead or alive, there is little that is going to protect you.

Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...

Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...

Who also no longer has a residence in the US, etc, etc.

The guy renounced his citizenship when he started his radical preaching. So he's fair game.

Well, more fair game. Doesn't matter if he still retained citizenship, he no longer lives in the country and is a member of a group actively seeking to cause harm to the US and its citizenship.

Goodbye radical, hello UAV launched Hellfire.

Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...

I'm not talking about the specifics of the case, I'm talking about the judicial precedent it sets for future cases.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...

I'm not talking about the specifics of the case, I'm talking about the judicial precedent it sets for future cases.

So now the US will be launching death squads overseas to kill anyone it doesn't like? Huh... Why's that Wikileaks guy still alive?

The idea that this is a precedent for anything horrible is a bit of a logical leap. You really can't sue those guys Al-awhatisname's dad was trying to sue. And determining whether or not the US has the right to take military action is not under the court's jurisdiction. There is no new precedent in this case. The judge basically laid out the status quo as it is and has been for awhile.

Besides. There's nothing stopping the government from pulling an Andrew Jackson anyway. Explosions are way cooler than trials. Judges should stop being party poopers

agroszkiewicz wrote:I'm not talking about the specifics of the case, I'm talking about the judicial precedent it sets for future cases.

No you're not. You're talking about the specifics of this case.

He's a known target. That's why he's on a CIA compiled list of capture OR kill targets.

This isn't the government issuing a blanket kill order for any American citizen who's joined Al-Qaeda. This is a specific individual, targeted for a reason(reason: he was the man communicating and encouraging the Ft. Hood shooter).

So where's the "frightening judicial precedent" there?

Kanluwen wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:I'm not talking about the specifics of the case, I'm talking about the judicial precedent it sets for future cases.

No you're not. You're talking about the specifics of this case.

Really, you know what I'm talking about even thought I specifically told you that I was talking about something other than what you said? wtf

here is my original post

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/lawsuit.al.awlaki/index.html

Here is the tldr for lazies.

A judge threw a "unique and extraordinary" lawsuit out of court Tuesday, leaving open the question of whether the U.S. government can legally target American citizens for death abroad without a trial.

In an 83-page opinion, Bates declared that it was up to the elected branches of government, not the courts, to determine whether the United States has the authority.

Godamighty, thats frightening.

I assume you understand the concept of legal precedent right?

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

In case you are just too stubborn to read that here is a quote from the first sentence of the page.

establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

I guess I should just spell it out for you. There is now a legally recognized precedent set by a member (albeit very junior in the scheme of things) the judicial branch that states it is the sole province of elected officials NOT any form of judiciary body to determine the legality of targeting any American citizen that is not currently residing in the US.

Kanluwen wrote:So where's the "frightening judicial precedent" there?

The Obama administration is arguing that it has the right to assassinate American citizens either abroad or domestically, in it's sole discretion, with absolutely no oversight, and that it's a state secret to even discuss the matter. You don't see a problem with this?

The US Constitution takes priority over common law. And the powers of the Judicial branch are cleanly laid out in the constitution as it pertains here (as far as I understand it).

The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations. That falls under the other two branches.

There is no precedent set by this case. This is the way things have been. Mr. Miller sums this up pretty well:

court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action

Precedent says the court can't do anything. The President is commander and chief. Congress determines when he can go to war and under what means he can conduct it. The Judicial branch has no power here.

LordofHats wrote:
There is no precedent set by this case.

??????????????????

Persuasive precedent
Main article: Persuasive precedent

Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, State courts versus Federal courts in the United States), and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.

Okrite? Hell, I'll even point out the part that one of you guys is going to point out about how my point isn't valid.....but it is because I already considered that.

Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.

LordofHats wrote:The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations.

Perhaps you should check this out.

LordofHats wrote:Again. Precedent is irrelevant here. The constitution covers war powers.

Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.

Ouze wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations.

Perhaps you should check this out.

Mkay. How about this bit: "EO 12036 would be superseded by new legislation in the future." Which would be this one: EO 12333. An Executive order can be undone by another executive order. It's only legally binding so long as no president decides to write a new EO invalidating the previous one. An EO isn't really an obstacle in this situation.

There is also a difference between covert assassination and military operation to kill someone. Besides. If an EO sets up a bunch of advisory boards to make sure proper procedures were followed when deciding to kill someone, and we're about to kill someone, guess the advisory boards and oversight committees said it was okay?

Please explain how the fact that this case clearly establishes a persuasive precedent for allowing elected officials to target US citizens outside of the US is irrelevant.

Because the only precedent this sets is that war powers are given to the Legislative and Executive branches. Surprise surprise. That's in the Consitution. It's not a matter of precedent it's a matter of constitutional law.

LordofHats wrote: Which would be this one: EO 12333. An Executive order can be undone by another executive order. It's only legally binding so long as no president decides to write a new EO invalidating the previous one

Funny you should say that. Have you read EO 12333? It actually strengthened the proscription against assassinaton. Are you making the argument members of the CIA or the US military are not in the employ of, or working on behalf of, or agents of, the United States?

LordofHats wrote: Besides. If an EO sets up a bunch of advisory boards to make sure proper procedures were followed when deciding to kill someone, and we're about to kill someone, guess the advisory boards and oversight committees said it was okay?

I think the doctrine you're looking for is "If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal"

Hey, how'd that work out for Nixon?

Stormrider wrote:Tough call, a cleric who is a US citizen, but has called for and influenced attacks on the US. Hmm...

So kill him, if it's clear and obvious to everyone involved that he needs killing then there'd be no problem in getting authorisation passed through a special court. But you really need to have that special court, or else you risk a case where the powers that be want to kill someone, and it really isn't so cut and dry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Who also no longer has a residence in the US, etc, etc.

The guy renounced his citizenship when he started his radical preaching. So he's fair game.

Citizenship does not work that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:So now the US will be launching death squads overseas to kill anyone it doesn't like? Huh... Why's that Wikileaks guy still alive?

That's a very poor comparison. Assange is an Australian citizen, so not under any protection from the US constitution, the ability of the US government to kill him remains the same regardless of this decision. He isn't being killed because he is currently residing in the UK, who are close allies with the US, and with Sweden, to whom they are beginning a process to see if he needs to face trial there. Meanwhile, Australia is beginning a process to see if he has broken any laws here, if that looks likely the UK and Swedish governments will extradite him back here to face trial.

Instead, the issue is what you do with US citizens who represent a threat, but are living in places where it is not practical to capture them.

The idea that this is a precedent for anything horrible is a bit of a logical leap.

No, it's really how it works. Well meaning or seemingly practical legislation is used by governments looking to expand their power, it's pretty much how governments go bad.

You know, for a country that keeps talking about how it needs to keep guns to protect itself from its government, it's incredible how indifferent so many of you are to actually maintaining constitutional checks on your government.

And determining whether or not the US has the right to take military action is not under the court's jurisdiction. There is no new precedent in this case. The judge basically laid out the status quo as it is and has been for awhile.

It's been held for a long time that the full extent of the powers granted to the legislative and the executive by the constitution are interpreted by the courts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:The US Constitution takes priority over common law. And the powers of the Judicial branch are cleanly laid out in the constitution as it pertains here (as far as I understand it).

The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations. That falls under the other two branches.

There is no precedent set by this case.

You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?

This is fething ridiculous.

sebster wrote:You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?

This is fething ridiculous.

Meanwhile, all these tea party guys are screeching about how a government that's incapable of dealing with a flood, locating a single dude on a mountain hooked to a dialysis machine for nearly a decade, running an efficient post office, hospital for veterans, or department of motor vehicles is clearly incapable of administering health-care, yet - inexplicably - can be trusted with these literally unchecked powers previously reserved for kings and would never abuse or misuse them.

Makes sense to me! Totes.

Ouze wrote:Meanwhile, all these tea party guys are screeching about how a government that's incapable of dealing with a flood, locating a single dude on a mountain hooked to a dialysis machine for nearly a decade, running an efficient post office, hospital for veterans, or department of motor vehicles is clearly incapable of administering health-care, yet - inexplicably - can be trusted with these literally unchecked powers previously reserved for kings and would never abuse or misuse them.

Makes sense to me! Totes.

It’s very odd, isn’t it?

I mean, I'm not surely there's really anything else to be said other than that. It's just very odd.

It's been held for a long time that the full extent of the powers granted to the legislative and the executive by the constitution are interpreted by the courts.

And the court said it didn't have the power to review the case, which seems constitutionally consistent to me. Power to declare war and operate war fall under the other two branches in very clear language which seems to be what Bates was referring to in his decision. EDIT: Then again this is the 'War' on Terror.

You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?

Did I say that? I'm not arguing that the president should be able to go and kill anyone he wants. I'm saying that saying this case sets a precedent that says he can is not logically consistent at all. There is oversight for this sort of thing these days. A lot of it. It's not as simple as "government wants him dead so they gonna kill him."

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Who also no longer has a residence in the US, etc, etc.

The guy renounced his citizenship when he started his radical preaching. So he's fair game.

Citizenship does not work that way.

No gak sherlock. However, calling him a "citizen" is inflammatory at this point.

It's like when people protesting the Israeli blockade pointed towards the American "citizen" who was killed, ignoring the fact that the guy never actually lived in the US(was raised and lived in Turkey), but was only born here.

I wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you were born here, but lived your entire life in Australia.
I also wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you publicly state that you want nothing more to do with the country, other than to bring about its downfall.

LordofHats wrote:So now the US will be launching death squads overseas to kill anyone it doesn't like? Huh... Why's that Wikileaks guy still alive?

That's a very poor comparison. Assange is an Australian citizen, so not under any protection from the US constitution, the ability of the US government to kill him remains the same regardless of this decision. He isn't being killed because he is currently residing in the UK, who are close allies with the US, and with Sweden, to whom they are beginning a process to see if he needs to face trial there. Meanwhile, Australia is beginning a process to see if he has broken any laws here, if that looks likely the UK and Swedish governments will extradite him back here to face trial.

He's not being killed because he's a useless pecker. Plus, it's far far far more useful to discredit him and drag him through the mud exposing him for the self-righteous, chauvinistic piece of trash he is than it would be to kill him.
Killing him makes him a martyr, thus...it's not worth it.

Instead, the issue is what you do with US citizens who represent a threat, but are living in places where it is not practical to capture them.

No, that's not the issue. The issue is really this:
Why is the ACLU still pulling this crap?
This isn't a "Kill" list. That's a fallacy that keeps being espoused by the ACLU nonstop.
The CIA maintains a "Capture or Kill" list. It puts the, in their opinion, biggest threats to national security on there. It even makes mention of

LordofHats wrote:The US Constitution takes priority over common law. And the powers of the Judicial branch are cleanly laid out in the constitution as it pertains here (as far as I understand it).

The case is about a military operation to kill someone. Constitutionally, the courts have no jurisdiction over whether or not the government can engage in military operations. That falls under the other two branches.

There is no precedent set by this case.

You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?

This is fething ridiculous.

Kanluwen wrote:There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.

Oversight - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

sebster wrote:
You don't think it's dangerous to grant the President the power to kill citizens of his own country without any oversight?

This is fething ridiculous.

The frightening part for me is that the actual precedent is simply for "elected officials" to determine the legality of targeting a US citizen abroad for death.

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.

Oversight - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I've used the word once.

Maybe you should learn to count?

Or are you trying to imply the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security are incapable of compiling lists of people who are threats to national security, regardless of whether or not they're American citizens?

Because if that's the case...
The list this man appears on? It's not "Obama's Super-Secretest List of Americans Who Don't Like Me".

Kanluwen wrote:No gak sherlock. However, calling him a "citizen" is inflammatory at this point.

No, he is a citizen, it isn't inflammatory to call someone what they are.

It's like when people protesting the Israeli blockade pointed towards the American "citizen" who was killed, ignoring the fact that the guy never actually lived in the US(was raised and lived in Turkey), but was only born here.

I wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you were born here, but lived your entire life in Australia.
I also wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you publicly state that you want nothing more to do with the country, other than to bring about its downfall.

Nor would I, but the law considers them a US citizen, and grants them the same protections as other US citizens. The issue is we've already seen the US abduct and kill non-citizens on pretty dubious grounds, and now you're looking to remove those protections on your own citizens. With no formal consideration given to whether those citizens are inside or outside of the US.

It was bad when it was just other people's citizens, but when it's your own it is a whole other level of dangerous. There's a reason the CIA was prevented from operating inside the US, you know.

He's not being killed because he's a useless pecker. Plus, it's far far far more useful to discredit him and drag him through the mud exposing him for the self-righteous, chauvinistic piece of trash he is than it would be to kill him.
Killing him makes him a martyr, thus...it's not worth it.

That’s a load of nonsense, drawn from some crappy action movie or something. No-one, anywhere in the world is asking ‘should we kill this Assange guy?’ while some other guy replies ‘no, that’d just make him a martyr for his cause’. Nothing like that is happening.

What is happening is that Assange has brought himself in to police custody, to make a statement regarding the rape allegations. Meanwhile, other governments are looking to see what laws he’s broken, and what successful prosecutions might be brought against him. This is how you deal with criminals in countries with long histories of co-operation.

Which is entirely different to countries where their governments are ineffective, indifferent or outright supportive of terrorists living there.

And you're overreaching.
There is oversight. Obama's not sitting down writing these lists. The CIA and FBI help compile them, along with Homeland Security.

What? You’re claiming an arm of government forming a list, which is then approved by a single person is adequate oversight for the governmental power to kill it’s own citizenships?

This is incredibly ridiculous.

If this guy is killed in a military operation, would that count as an assassination? Some of the posters may be reading too much into this. I think the rights Al whatshisface would be similar to that of a US fugitive resisting arrest. But whatever, your problem, mate.

Kanluwen wrote:I've used the word once.

Maybe you should learn to count?

It's a reference to The Princess Bride. I wouldn't advise you try the overly literal approach in this debate, it'll only hurt the chances of any real communication, and you're really unlikely to win it.

Or are you trying to imply the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security are incapable of compiling lists of people who are threats to national security, regardless of whether or not they're American citizens?

Are you claiming that Homeland Security, the CIA and FBI are immune to governmental influence? Because that'd be very stupid.

Because if that's the case...
The list this man appears on? It's not "Obama's Super-Secretest List of Americans Who Don't Like Me".

Obama is not the only President the US will ever have, and executive powers have a habit of lasting for a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:If this guy is killed in a military operation, would that count as an assassination? Some of the posters may be reading too much into this. I think the rights Al whatshisface would be similar to that of a US fugitive resisting arrest. But whatever, your problem, mate.

What makes it a military operation? The target isn't part of any military that the US is at war with.

Kanluwen wrote:
I've used the word once.

Maybe you should learn to count?

I can't use that Princess Bride quote without it. In any event, my issue is not with how many times you used it, but the incorrect context with which you did so. The Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA are subservient to the executive branch of the government. They are not capable of providing oversight to it. Your example is like saying a bank president can't make bad policy if his secretary agrees with him. The conflict of interest is so inescapable that no such relationship could possibly exist.

Meaningful oversight can only be provided to the executive branch by the legislative branch, which in turn is checked by the judiciary.

Kanluwen wrote:Or are you trying to imply the CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security are incapable of compiling lists of people who are threats to national security, regardless of whether or not they're American citizens?

Not only are they capable of it, I would indicate in case of the CIA it's very nearly their sole function. They are absolutely within their purview to determine who they consider to be a threat. They are not, however, authorized to determine "who we'd like killed". We're a nation of laws. If this man, who is an American citizen, committed a crime, we should charge him with a crime. We should indict him, and we should ask Yemen to hand him over. Then we should send him to jail for the rest of his life. That's how we do things in a lawful country.

Kanluwen wrote:Because if that's the case...
The list this man appears on? It's not "Obama's Super-Secretest List of Americans Who Don't Like Me".

Who knows? You've seen as much of the list and the rationale behind it's entries as I have, which is, none at all. It's a state secret.

If we keep discussing this, I'd like to divorce "the president" from "Obama", as I'm speaking of the executive branch in general, not Obama in particular. I assure you, i'm as repulsed by the reflexive leaning towards extrajudicial measures espoused by this president as I was by the previous one and trust neither of them, nor any future president we may have, with such unchecked powers.

In the history of this country, we've managed to survive the bottom half of the country going to war with the top half, the white house being burned to the ground, and two world wars without losing our core values that no man is above the law which is enshrined in the constitution. I hardly think a row over a few diplomatic cables no one will even remember in 90 days is worth turning our backs on it now.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:If this guy is killed in a military operation, would that count as an assassination? Some of the posters may be reading too much into this. I think the rights Al whatshisface would be similar to that of a US fugitive resisting arrest. But whatever, your problem, mate.

What makes it a military operation? The target isn't part of any military that the US is at war with.

I was under the impression he had been accused of leading an Al-Qaeda cell in Yemen. I'm not sure if the US can even be at war with an organization, but Al-Qaeda surely has to be an illegal organization? It would be interesting to know how welcome US operations in Yemen would be to the local government. Of course, extradition from Yemen isn't the problem that scenario, it's catching/(killing?) him in the first place.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was under the impression he had been accused of leading an Al-Qaeda cell in Yemen. I'm not sure if the US can even be at war with an organization, but Al-Qaeda surely has to be an illegal organization? It would be interesting to know how welcome US operations in Yemen would be to the local government. Of course, extradition from Yemen isn't the problem that scenario, it's catching/(killing?) him in the first place.

Even if you declare an organisation illegal, how do you properly determine who is and who isn't a member? How do you determine who is and who isn't capable of being captured, and needs to be killed instead?

People are arguing that those questions are obvious in this case, well then fine, a court can rubberstamp this and move on. But it means the oversight of that court will be there when targets are produced where the above isn't so obvious.