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.

Well put, Baron.

Ouze wrote:Well put, Baron.

It's something people forget, this has all been done before. And Unless the Supreme Court were to overturn it's ruling, that ruling stands to this day, that neither Congress nor the President has the power to repeal your rights as a citizen, war or not, combatant or not. Frankly, I've never seen a more cut and dried case of the suspension of rights then to be killed by your own government, without trial, regardless of your crimes or 'combatant' status.

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.

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.

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.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

My point was, partially, that as Reverend Wright would say, our chickens came home to roost.


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'...

The ironic thing is, by murdering him, in way, we proved him right.

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.

I don't think that's really the issue. I don't particularly care that he's dead, I'm inclined to think it's a good thing--he was inciting violence against Americans, and since I'm an American... well, you get the idea. I think the question is what impact this will/could have on the rights of American citizens, and since I'm an American citizen that's a point of concern... and well, you get the idea. The point being that, ideally, he would have gotten a trial before his execution. The debate regards the effect this has on rights and due process for American citizens. or something like that.
I'm not coherent. I'm going to bed.

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.

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

And yes, people that say "we the people" are silly.

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'...

People don't exist in static states as absolutely one thing or another. He was an American citizen, but he was also an enemy combatant because of his status as a terrorist leader. It is a murky area at best, and proclaiming absolute knowledge of the rightness or wrongness of it would presume more wisdom than any one human possesses. [The OT Forum] had this discussion before, and even as recently as few days ago. I shed no tears for his death but I would still like more transparency in the process of how individuals are selected for kill or capture lists.

And yes, there is a long and proud tradition of ignoring the constitution when it suited us going all the way back to the very beginning of the country, with things like the Alien and Sedition Acts. It isn't secret knowledge, and many people are aware of such things.

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

Get 38 states to agree on anything anymore.

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

How much money do you want to spend?

dogma wrote:

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

How much money do you want to spend?

Does anyone have that much money anymore?
Someone must have some money because it all went somewhere...
Or it just disappeared...

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.

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.

Excellent.
He can pay for you guys to agree to remove everyone's rights.
That should work perfectly...

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

IN any other legal system, you're right. In the US legal system...???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:

Jihadin wrote:He was a cleric to.

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

Eighth level cleric too. I hear he was a regular badass with a +4 mace.

I'm interested to see where this goes.

I'm guessing "National Security" secrets will make any court case impossible to carry forward as the Government will simply refuse to cooperate.

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.

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.

You'd be surprised how often it actually happens. In the sited Supreme Court case, the defendant later successfully sued several of the parties involved for defamation and false imprisonment. He didn't get much, but the court did find in his favor.

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

This describes half the teabaggers, republican candidates, the catholic church, most fox news employees, Westboro,etc., etc.

I'm all for taking out Palin and company with some drone strikes, but come on...

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

Ummm... It doesn't work that way... These men are being sued over the actions of the federal government. Regardless of the name listed in the suit, they can claim immunity because the basis of the suit falls under the sovereignty of the government. 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.

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.

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.

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.

How the hell do you figure that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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

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

In the case of Clinton, had he been found guilty of sexual harassment, he would have been liable as he was acting outside his capacity as the President. In the case of the drone strike the relevant people, if they had anything to do with the strike at all, were all acting in the capacities of their offices.

In the first case the person acts, in the second the office does.

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.)

They might, or they might not. My guess is that they won't because doing so goes against the nominal GOP platform. They might try to frame it as Obama infringing American rights, but its more likely that no one will touch it because the issue is messy and insignificant.

BaronIveagh wrote:How the hell do you figure that?

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

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).

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


Who, btw, are backing this case now.



Here's a link to the actual filing. http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/tk_complaint_to_file.pdf

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

...

You can challenge the legality of government actions and their constitutionality all the time. Which is what the ACLU does (they backed the previous injunction to stop the drone strike as well).

Who, btw, are backing this case now.

Whoopdity do? It's not going to go anywhere. It's a political statement and serves no other purpose. The people listed cannot be sued. You can't win damages from the government. At best, all you'll get is an apology and a pat on the back (and I doubt they'll get that).

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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

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

They're not prosecuting the man the pulled the trigger. And, not entirely clear on this, but last I checked, it was unlawful to order US soldiers to fire on unarmed US civilians who were not a direct threat. Further, it also violates standing US law prohibiting assassinations. I know the CIA used to have to go through third parties to have US citizens murdered in the past.

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

Varies with treaties. DeValera wasn't executed by England as it was unclear, so the English decided to error on the side of caution. However, in the context of a US citizen being killed by the CIA, yes.

'...and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances.' is what the Supreme Court has claimed.