Drone Strike Lawsuit

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.

**BaronIveagh**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18896232

This will be interesting. I've been waiting to see the US government defend it's position that National Security trumps Constitutional Rights.

**Jihadin**

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

**BaronIveagh**

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

Yes, because being a magazine editor in a pro terrorist magazine makes you a combatant. Oh, wait, under the law it doesn't.

On the subject of Anwar al-Awlaki: Lots of claims have been made, but Anwar al-Awlaki was little more then a charismatic agitator. To claim him as a combatant means we could, legitimately, claim anyone who speaks out against the US is a combatant.

We cannot even make that claim regarding the murder of his sixteen year old son, also a US citizen.

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, *I'M* an enemy combatant, for my past support of a terrorist organization (I did get my picture taken with Gerry Adams, after all.)

While I don't doubt there are people on this board who would applaud a drone strike on my house, it does not make it legal.

**Ouze**

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.

**BaronIveagh**

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**

I guess I can see where they could sue over killing Anwar - that was an op with the express goal of killing that sack of crap... but the kid? That was just straight up wrong place wrong time. You bring a kid to a camp full of Al Qaeda jerkoffs and he happens to catch a missile that wasn't specifically intended for him - maybe you should have shelled out for boarding school or something.

**Jihadin**

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?

**Ouze**

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.

Fair enough on the latter. I'm reasonably sure it will be dismissed on the former though, or they'll get it tossed for state secrets if not.

**purplefood**

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?

I don't think he is saying killing a combatant is illegal.
I think he is questioning what makes a person a combatant...
Since he draws a similarity between a US citizen who is pro-Whatever terrorist group but apparently not actually involved in any actual terrorist activities and a US citizen who was/is pro-IRA...
I guess that's what he is saying anyway...

**deathholydeath**

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

**Ouze**

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?

**Jihadin**

He was a cleric to.

**Kovnik Obama**

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

Possibly, but if I'm reading the exerpts of the Geneva convention correctly (I most likely am not

), you can't be declared a illegal combatant until your captured or you attempt to resist your capture. Like actually taking a gun on a soldier...

Also, a fair numbers of talking heads in the States could be accused of the same thing

Come on please send a drone after Limbaugh. Pwetty pweeeeease

**Jihadin**

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.

**purplefood**

I get member and agent but how do you classify an associate?

**Jihadin**

Willingly work with them

**purplefood**

Wouldn't that be a member or an agent?

**Bromsy**

Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric to.

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

**Ouze**

1.) Ex parte Quirin has had several relevant major elements of it overruled later by subsequent decisions;
2.) It also requires a declared war; which we have not done;
3.) And of course, al-Awlaki wasn't detained, he was assassinated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:
Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric to.

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

Nice.

**BaronIveagh**

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. Amusingly enough, one's protected by his rights under the Constitution, the other supposedly is not. The difference between them? We like one.

And, again, if aiding and abetting gets you sent to Getmo or assassinated, why is the mayor of Pittsburgh still alive? After all, he contributed millions to a known terrorist organization that meets all these criteria. Or how about Congressman Peter King? He supported a known terroist group that has killed Americans. Why is HE not in getmo awaiting a secret military tribunal?

**Steve steveson**

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.

**Kovnik Obama**

Ah so I wasn't even looking at the right doc! Thanks Jihadin!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

You mean politics?

**Bromsy**

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.

Whaddya mean "almost" zero action?

*Tupac walk out this conversation*

**BaronIveagh**

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.

A little food for thought on this whole issue.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Interview with Hermann Göring, Nuremberg Diary

**dogma**

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. Provided the absence of a revolution (which conditions don't support), the guy's replacement has already been born.

**Ahtman**

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.

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.

**deathholydeath**

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?

Mostly that it's illegal ( I think in the case of al-Qaeda the threat of violence is convincingly imminent enough to warrant its classification as criminal). I'm not entirely familiar with the bounds of the patriot act and similar legislation as it applies to those who assist organizations deemed to be terrorists by the U.S. govt. 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.

**Ouze**

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.

While that's certainly an... exigent line of thinking, in my opinion that choice writ large is a more considerable threat to our way of life then to some guy blowing up a building.

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.

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.

**dogma**

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

No it isn't. There's an entire industry devoted to doing so.

What you're saying is what people say when they want to wash their hands of politics and policy.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

Grtanted, Wright has always protested violence in all forms, where as Anwar al-Awlaki turned away from peace. Mind you, after we had him jailed without trial by a foreign power for 18 months. One must wonder if that might have changed his mind, from the man who called for peace following 9/11 to the man we bombed.

“They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters.

No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That's what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn't want to deal with...” - Louis Farrakhan

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

“All Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission” - Abraham Lincoln

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads to anarchy or despotism”. - Supreme Court Justice David Davis, US v Milligan

Who says history doesn't repeat itself?