Frightening judicial precident set in US.

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.

**Kilkrazy**

^^ All of that -- the Rule of Law and everything.

What is the problem with following due process?

**Emperors Faithful**

sebster wrote:
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?

I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitiveand take him alive if they can. I don't even understand what the father is suing for. What damages could possibly be awarded (especially if he's so far avoided capture or death)?

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.

So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?

Kilkrazy wrote:^^ All of that -- the Rule of Law and everything.

What is the problem with following due process?

Expediency...and the chance that they may be found innocent when you really don't want them to be.

**Ouze**

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitive

Fugitive from what? He hasn't been charged with a crime.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?

Which part of this, exactly, is a conspiracy theory?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Expediency...and the chance that they may be found innocent when you really don't want them to be.

It's truly stomach turning how quickly some people are willing to trade liberty for expediency.

Why don't you guys move to Iran, or China? I think you'd find their treatment of dissidents more in line with your views.

**Emperors Faithful**

Ouze wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think there's a list where people must be killed. It's Capture or Kill. So if they can, I'd assume that they'd treat him like any fugitive

Fugitive from what? He hasn't been charged with a crime.

Wait...so what is he then? I thought the whole point was that he was part of an illegal organization (namely Al-Qaeda). What is he wanted for?

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...people like conspiracy theorists fear being put on one of these Capture or Kill lists?

Which part of this, exactly, is a conspiracy theory?

What? I didn't say this was a conspiracy. I just wondered if people were worried that this list may be expanded to include them. I did enjoy the whole journey though.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Expediency...and the chance that they may be found innocent when you really don't want them to be.

It's truly stomach turning how quickly some people are willing to trade liberty for expediency.

Why don't you guys move to Iran, or China? I think you'd find their treatment of dissidents more in line with your views.

You've never even heard a joke in your life have you?

**Frazzled**

agroszkiewicz wrote:
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.

He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.

Nowhere does the Constitution protect the world from the US Air Force.

**Emperors Faithful**

Well, if you targetted Doctor Haneef (on a suspicion and without a trial) or something through an airstrike I'd be fairly pissed. Just becuase you have a competent airforce doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.

At this point we're mingling the news story of Julian Assange (Australian citizen) and Anwar al-Awlaki (US Citizen). I believe he was referring to the latter.

**Medium of Death**

As this guy holds joint citizenship in Yemen and the US, couldn't the US Government just revoke his citizenship? Leaving him as a citizen of Yemen.

Denaturalization is how the US government revokes or cancels your US citizenship because you've done something that's contrary to being a US citizen. There are several things that can jeopardize your citizenship:

* Concealing facts or lying to the immigration officials
* Refusing to testify before the US Congress
* Joining certain organizations
* Receiving certain military discharges

Solving the problem in the first place. I know there are some problems about leaving people stateless (meaning Britain needs to look after 'captain hook'), but this guy has another state so I wouldn't imagine this to be an issue. Would like clarification though.

**rubiksnoob**

I believe that this does set a precedent with the potential for abuse, yet that doesn't mean it will be abused.
But knowing the government, it's anyone's guess.

In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, assasination is totally justified. But the process for targeting a US Citizen overseas should be a little more than the President signning a few papers and then handing things over to the CIA. It sort of skips over the whole idea of checks and balances.

Y'know, that thing our government is sort of based on.

It should be something along the lines of, the president makes a request to have x person killed and/or captured due to them presenting y threat to national security, blah, blah, etc. And then it is then given to a congressional commitee to review, and so on, and then given to the courts for the stamp of approval.

Or something like that.

**dogma**

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

No, its legally accurate.

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Yes, and that makes him a citizen insofar as he enacted his claim to citizenship.

Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't call you a citizen of the US if you were born here, but lived your entire life in Australia.

You would be wrong no to do so.

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Its nice that you feel that way, but it has no relevance to the matter at all.

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Also because engaging in clandestine operations within nations that are close allies and members of NATO, without their permission, is foolish; especially given that Assange isn't a significant threat.

Honestly, it isn't even particularly useful to drag him through the mud. There will always be people willing to publish illicit documents, the trick is insuring that they're never allowed to receive them.

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Yes, because clearly law enforcement and intelligence services are above and beyond Presidential influence.

Its certainly not point and click, but let's at least not try and pretend that Sebster's comment was wholly off the mark. It certainly wasn't any more of an over extension than your definition of citizenship according to personal judgment.

**Ouze**

Medium of Death wrote:As this guy holds joint citizenship in Yemen and the US, couldn't the US Government just revoke his citizenship? Leaving him as a citizen of Yemen.
Denaturalization is how the US government revokes or cancels your US citizenship because you've done something that's contrary to being a US citizen.

You're confusing revoking citizenship with denaturalizing someone, which has much less stringent requirements. The latter is not applicable, because he is not a naturalized citizen - he was born in New Mexico. The former is extremely, and rightfully, nearly impossible to do - he would have to explicitly renounce his US citizenship and file papers to that effect with a foreign embassy.

He could also lose it by serving as an officer in a foreign military, or at any rank if that military is engaged in hostilities with the US. As we do not recognize Al-Qaeda as an actual army, and we're not at war with Yemen, that's out.

I know this is a crazy thought, but I'm just, you know... spit-balling this here... we could try indicting him for suborning a felony to start with, issuing a warrant, and then asking Yemen to extradite him, and then... yeah, this could work - put him on trial and send him to jail. Crazy idea, I know, but I think that could work.

**Medium of Death**

Ah drat...

http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/09/30/yemen-government-will-not-extradite/

...Yemen would not extradite U.S.-born radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki to the United States if he were captured. Although the U.S. has requested extradition, Yemen’s constitution forbids extradition of Yemeni citizens to another country.

However, al-Awlaki is being pursued by Yemen authorities in their efforts against al-Quida, and is one of the individuals they have targeted for capture.

So you need to get Yemen to revoke his Citizenship... the plot thickens...

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:
I know this is a crazy thought, but I'm just, you know... spit-balling this here... we could try indicting him for suborning a felony to start with, issuing a warrant, and then asking Yemen to extradite him, and then... yeah, this could work - put him on trial and send him to jail. Crazy idea, I know, but I think that could work.

Yemen doesn't have the capacity to extradite him. Really, the relative weakness of their government is the central issue in US-Yemen relations due to the number of wanted terrorists there.

What we really need to do is develop legislation regarding what actually constitutes war, a foreign military, and other such things.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:He's not a US citizen. It voids your argument.

At this point we're mingling the news story of Julian Assange (Australian citizen) and Anwar al-Awlaki (US Citizen). I believe he was referring to the latter.

He renounced his citizenship.

Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.

Nuts.

**Ouze**

I was not aware that we had already requested he be extradited.

We're still not without options. For one, we can have congress legally issue a letter of marque to organizations like Blackwater to capture him - this would be my preferred option. We could indict him, and then have bounty hunters or the CIA snatch him and bring him either here, or to a third party - Canada or the UK - and extradite him from there. If he's an American fugitive, these guys are just serving a lawful warrant, not kidnapping him.

It's not that I think he's innocent, I don't want to be misconstrued. Nor am I some pacifist who abhors the thought of the death penalty. I'd like nothing better then to see this man brought back to the US, tried for treason, and executed.

I just think we have adequate remedies within our legal system to do so in a way that is wholly consistent with our laws and values. Whatever damage this man has done, whatever damage he could possibly do, would be dwarfed by setting the precedent that the US President can decide a US citizen who has not been charged with a crime can be lawfully murdered, with no recourse or oversight.

I made a chart to explain why I feel this way.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
He renounced his citizenship.

Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.

Nuts.

So you're arguing that he's a regular member of a foreign military, indicating the tacit renunciation of citizenship, and therefore making him subject to the Geneva Conventions?

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:He renounced his citizenship.

[needs citation]

Frazzled wrote: Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War.

Er, technically...

However, the executive is charged with enforcing the rulings of the courts, and it's up to congress to impeach him for not doing so. They obviously chose not to do so.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Additionally, when you are actively in the camp of enemy forces you are permitted to be targetted as an enemy force. Thats time honored tradition back to the Revolutionary War. Else you're saying it was illegal for the US to prosecute the Civil War. After all, they were all US citizens and none of them were offered a trial before being targetted by Minie Balls.

That argument has been made frequently, and usually very well. The counter-argument is that civil wars entail the breakdown of the legal system, so it really doesn't matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
[needs citation]

Well, its pretty easy to get out of that by arguing that he has effectively become a member of a foreign military, but that has some undesirable implications, for people like Frazzled, for military detention.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:Well, its pretty easy to get out of that by arguing that he has effectively become a member of a foreign military, but that has some undesirable implications, for people like Frazzled, for military detention.

Not to mention the US Government has been fighting tooth and nail for years to establish the precedent that Al Qaeda is not a organized military, to avoid all the awful entanglements that would create.

**Kanluwen**

dogma wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I know this is a crazy thought, but I'm just, you know... spit-balling this here... we could try indicting him for suborning a felony to start with, issuing a warrant, and then asking Yemen to extradite him, and then... yeah, this could work - put him on trial and send him to jail. Crazy idea, I know, but I think that could work.

Yemen doesn't have the capacity to extradite him. Really, the relative weakness of their government is the central issue in US-Yemen relations due to the number of wanted terrorists there.

What we really need to do is develop legislation regarding what actually constitutes war, a foreign military, and other such things.

Why the feth do we need legislation regarding "a foreign military"?

Al-Qaeda isn't a foreign military. It's an organization that, for all intents and purposes, is a private entity backed by people from multiple countries.

**reds8n**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Wait...so what is he then? I thought the whole point was that he was part of an illegal organization (namely Al-Qaeda). What is he wanted for?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858990

In 2004, a German citizen was snatched in Macedonia and allegedly taken to a secret prison by the CIA. Agents had apparently mistaken him for an al-Qaeda suspect. A 2007 cable from the US embassy in Berlin details the efforts the US made to persuade Germany not to issue international arrest warrants for the CIA agents accused of involvement.

In an account of a high-level meeting between US and German officials, the cables states that US diplomats “pointed out that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the US”.

Then it gets fun..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_el-Masri

to borrow some thoughts...

Khaled El-Masri, was an innocent who had a misfortune to have the same name as a terrorist suspect. He was illegally kidnapped, imprisoned in Afghanistan, interrogated and tortured.

For over a year. His family had no idea what had happened to him. He had no chance to defend himself, to seek legal representation, every human right he had was taken from him. He had to go on a hunger strike for 27 days before he was able to force a meeting with a prison official and a CIA official. And this was taking place after they’d already found out that his passport was genuine and that he was innocent.

Eventually, after the news finally worked it’s way up to Condoleeza Rice and she ordered his release, they flew him out of Afghanistan and dumped him out of a van on a back road in Albania with no apology and no funds to get home.

That’s the equivalent of a Brit being abducted while on holiday in Ireland and being dumped in Iceland. Imagine that was you, or that he was your family member. Imagine the ordeal he and his family have gone through.

The US government and judiciary have blocked any attempts at proper recompense, or to bring those responsible for this appalling act to justice. And now finally it is revealed that they tried to prevent Germany from issuing arrest warrants for the agents responsible.

This just takes the biscuit. There are not the words strong enough to describe this outrage. This was a crime, a crime against the most basic of human rights and against the whole concept of liberty, democracy and civilisation. The fact that the US and German governments ultimately protected those responsible from any punishment or justice reveals just how wrong things have gotten.

I accept that there are terrorists, I accept that we need to defend ourselves and I accept that the nature of what security services do is not always pleasant. But there is not, and never can be an excuse for this kind of injustice. We are meant to be better than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we certainly claim to be. But things happen in our name which are just as abhorrent and the failure of our governments to put a stop to it is disgusting.

Don’t kid yourself that the UK isn’t complicit in this kind of thing. Maybe not in this incident but there have been others. And just think of how many more like Khaled there could be or will be in the future. What happened to Khaled and which continues to happen is utterly vile.

I am outraged by this and ashamed to know that we have been complicit in exactly this kind of crime and are allies with people who commit these crimes.

**Frazzled**

Sucks to be him. Oh well.

**dogma**

Kanluwen wrote:
Why the feth do we need legislation regarding "a foreign military"?

What is a foreign military? What distinguishes a foreign military from a foreign militia? From an organization like Al-Qaeda? How do we treat the members of each in a legal sense? How do international treaties apply to members of each?

That's just a short list of questions that are either unresolved, or have tentative resolutions.

Kanluwen wrote:
Al-Qaeda isn't a foreign military. It's an organization that, for all intents and purposes, is a private entity backed by people from multiple countries.

Did I indicate that it was a foreign military?

I don't think I've even written the proper name "Al-Qaeda" in this thread.

**Ouze**

reds8n wrote:

Then it gets fun..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_el-Masri

I'll see your Khaled el-Masri, and raise you a Maher Arar.

**rubiksnoob**

Frazzled wrote:Sucks to be him. Oh well.

Kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, all without an explanation, and then dumped on his ass hundreds of miles from his home without so much as a, "Our bad man, here's a few thousand bucks to get home comfortably."

And then no attempt to make up for the damage they did.

Sucks to be him is an understatement.

The fethers who did this should be subject to harsh fines and then fired after making an official apology. And this guy should get some sort of financial compensation for being imprisoned ILLEGALLY for over a YEAR.

**Frazzled**

As I said, sucks to be him.

**Gibbsey**

Ouze wrote:
dogma wrote:Well, its pretty easy to get out of that by arguing that he has effectively become a member of a foreign military, but that has some undesirable implications, for people like Frazzled, for military detention.

Not to mention the US Government has been fighting tooth and nail for years to establish the precedent that Al Qaeda is not a organized military, to avoid all the awful entanglements that would create.

And remember we dont have prisoners or war whe have "enemy combatants".

The question is how do you handle a citizen who is a domestic terrorist vs a citizen who is part of a foreign terrorist organization? When is it acceptable to kill terrorists without due process? only when its in a foreign country?

Obviously noone is saying if you cant take him alive you cant do anything, the question is if he can be captured shouldent that be persued instead of signing a death warrant?

**CptJake**

Pretty sure in this particular case the only precident set (which has been set many times) is that you must have correct legal standing to bring a case to court. Crap Bag's daddy did not, so the case got booted.

I am positive that if Crap Bag showed up at a US Embassy or Consulate and decided to come home and bring suit himself it would not be thrown out.

Jake

**Gibbsey**

Frazzled wrote:As I said, sucks to be him.

Having no legal recourse after being held for over a year? A bit of an understatement dont you think?

How would you react if say Afganistan held you with no charges for over a year?

**Frazzled**

Gibbsey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:As I said, sucks to be him.

Having no legal recourse after being held for over a year? A bit of an understatement dont you think?

How would you react if say Afganistan held you with no charges for over a year?

Again it sucks to be him. Are you saying it doesn't suck?

But then again life sucks. Then you die.

As the immortal bard once said: "We were born into this world cold, wet, and screaming. I see no reason for this to change."