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.

Frazzled wrote:Sucks to be him. Oh well.

Agreed, talk about hard luck.

Ummm... what's the big deal?

He's clearly an enemy combatant. Just because he hold US citizenship (even ignoring that he renounced), it doesn't mean he's immune from being treated as a valid target.

And, really, this doesn't set any precedent. This was a district court decision. If it gets appealed, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:

Some ACLU dill weed wrote:The American Civil Liberties Union, which backed the suit, called the outcome inconsistent with the Constitution and dangerous to American liberty.

"If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. Jaffer was one of the lawyers on the case.

How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.

Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:

Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?

Ouze wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:

Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?

They are not upholding our rights. Like everyone they have an agenda. They consistently come out on the wrong side of 2nd A cases.

Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?

Meh, let's not pretend they're purely champions of liberty. They're considerably more political than that, and it's unfortunate. If you like them, fine, but it's not clearcut.

Anyway, as far as this cleric goes, what I find interesting is that everyone here is concerned about assassinating him because he's an American citizen. Why is it ok to assassinate non-Americans, then? On some level I'd think it'd be MORE ok to assassinate your own people, since they're at least "yours."

I also don't really understand why we draw such a distinction between "assassination" and "war." If you're in a "war" you're trying to kill the enemy. If you can kill their high military leadership, you do it. That's just wonderful from a military perspective. So why is that "war" and not "assassination?"

It's also worth noting that the lines become very blurry when you're doing things like Predator strikes on mountain compounds. What if you happen to kill an American citizen who was at a meeting of Taliban leadership? Is that to be avoided? Is that "precedent?" Is it "illegal?"

We can point to "legal remedies" but the fact is that they're incongruent with the conduct of a war, and our definitions of "war" become somewhat insufficient and vague when nobody is willing to engage the US in a proper "war" anymore, knowing they'll lose that sort of thing in a week.

I think ultimately what's happening here is we've got a genuine policy decision that needs to be made, our leadership needs to decide what it will do in these situations, and that's what the judge has said.

In this thread we've got people trying to pretend that there is already existing law for what we must do, and that's simply not the case. These are new conditions that require a more nuanced, precise understanding of what constitutes "war" and what makes somebody a "wartime enemy."

This has actually been going on for as long as the "war on terror" has been going on.

It's a particularly ironic twist that Obama, huge fan that he is of the "treat it as law enforcement" stance of the Democrats, is also a huge fan of using Predator drones to kill people off in countries we're currently not at war with.

That alone should give you an idea of how simple this question isn't.

At the end of the day, we just have to decide how it works. What it will come down to is creating a better definion of "war," a better description of what is acceptable in conduct of war, and then we just need to be clear about what we're doing.

"Any person of any nation who allies with or supports Organization X will be considered a combatant and may be killed or captured subject to war guideline WG-12345-2010. This includes person Y and person Z, who are known to have blah blah blah."

To me, that's really the best that you're going to do. Set up the rules, say how they're going to work, and then say who it means you're going to kill.

The precedent may be "scary" but what's even scarier is what we're doing now: operating with no formal rules at all.

I'd rather they set the precedent than they just killed the guy and nobody can say if it was acceptable or not.

Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.

Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.

Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.

Monster Rain wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.

Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.

Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.

Although i thought you were only guilty of treason if you were found guilty by a court

It's not treason anymore though, is it?

He's an enemy combatant, by his own actions.

Gibbsey wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.

Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.

Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.

Although i thought you were only guilty of treason if you were found guilty by a court

Eh, moral treason.

I could give a feth about the legal precedents. If we have him on file encouraging the Ft. Hood shooter, then as far as I'm concerned, that's a confession.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:

Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?

I'm fine with them doing that... For the people that deserve it. For those who don't, we deserve the right to defend our liberties with our trigger fingers.

Commander Endova wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:Here's my beef with this case, and the ACLU in general:

Yeah, those guys are real jerks, with all those defending our liberties, and upholding our rights under the constitution - why don't they knock that garbage off?

I'm fine with them doing that... For the people that deserve it. For those who don't, we deserve the right to defend our liberties with our trigger fingers.

Exactly.

I don't care what else you do. Once you defend NAMBLA you should be rounded up and burned at the stake.

I like you a lot, Monster Rain.

Monster Rain wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:How about... You don't commit fething TREASON against your own country? I think as long as you can manage that one, you can sleep soundly at night.

Yeah, I don't see this ruling becoming a problem for me.

Surely there's more of these guys that we could be killing.

See, this is where i start having issues.

Im as pro-military action as it gets, you guys know me by now. I loathe hippies and I love raining some death down on AQ or whatever, but all you guys (the right leaning Americans basically!) are at odds with me on this simply because you seem to just.. trust?

I mean, have you seen how useless and incompetent our governments are?

Im all for slotting people who deserve it. gak, i think we should have wrapped Abu Hamza in a pigskin, shot him in the head then buried him upside down months ago, but don't you think we need to have real safeguards, LOADS of due process?

If your happy with the prez just "deciding" that an American citizen gets a bullet in the head while he is watching the TV, whats to say that they (intelligence services etc) won't feth it up and you end up slotting the wrong bloke?

Im all for the stabbing and the shooting and the electrodes on the knackers when its absolutely required, but you gung ho American chaps seem a bit too happy with the "Kill em all let God sort em out" stuff for me. One thing i learned from my time in the military is that alot of people are gak at their jobs! And its for that reason i think we need to show some restraint (not too much of course!)

I don't really have a problem with this ruling, and here's why:

1. The suit wasn't even brought by the guy who is being targeted by the government, but rather a family member (his father).

2. The person in question has renounced his citizenship and called for attacks on the US...if that doesn't make him an enemy, I'm not sure how else you could define it.

3. If the person in question truly wanted the protections of the US legal system, there is nothing preventing him from walking into the nearest US Embassy and surrendering himself.

Honestly, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent that an average law-abiding citizen can suddenly be targeted for elimination by the government.

Commander Endova wrote:I like you a lot, Monster Rain.

Aww, gee whiz. I like you too, buddy!

mattyrm wrote:Im all for the stabbing and the shooting and the electrodes on the knackers when its absolutely required, but you gung ho American chaps seem a bit too happy with the "Kill em all let God sort em out" stuff for me. One thing i learned from my time in the military is that alot of people are gak at their jobs! And its for that reason i think we need to show some restraint (not too much of course!)

I'm not saying "kill em all" though. I'm saying that if you go as far as this guy has gone to turn on your own country in the name of savages like AQ I really don't have a problem with the government going after them.

I agree with you that we shouldn't go too crazy but again, in cases like these, we shouldn't mess around.

See, this is where i start having issues.

Im as pro-military action as it gets, you guys know me by now. I loathe hippies and I love raining some death down on AQ or whatever, but all you guys (the right leaning Americans basically!) are at odds with me on this simply because you seem to just.. trust?

The only people I trust are myself and my own judgment, and those who have earned my trust. But that doeasn't mean I live my life thinking everyone and everything is out to get me. I'm not that paranoid, or that self important. I'm pretty sure it would be hard for the president, sitting in front of his TV, to decide I should get plugged, considering he has know idea I even exist.

I mean, have you seen how useless and incompetent our governments are?

Im all for slotting people who deserve it. gak, i think we should have wrapped Abu Hamza in a pigskin, shot him in the head then buried him upside down months ago, but don't you think we need to have real safeguards, LOADS of due process?

If your happy with the prez just "deciding" that an American citizen gets a bullet in the head while he is watching the TV, whats to say that they (intelligence services etc) won't feth it up and you end up slotting the wrong bloke?

Due process? Well, that's a complicated issue. I'm all in favor of you know, being sure the accused actually DID the crime we're accusing him of. That's great and all. My problem is letting known terrorists go because someone fethed up the proceedings. Hell, I'm fine with that, so long as we can legally keep an F/O team on them 24/7 ready to make the pink mist if he so much as neglects to pick up his dog's poop.

I also think the government needs to be just as accountable as it's people. If you preform an illegal search and seizure, and it bears fruit, then by golly, you just did your job Mr. Policeman! If you invade that persons privacy for no reason? Then handing over your badge and gun should be the least of your problems.

Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)

Im all for the stabbing and the shooting and the electrodes on the knackers when its absolutely required, but you gung ho American chaps seem a bit too happy with the "Kill em all let God sort em out" stuff for me. One thing i learned from my time in the military is that alot of people are gak at their jobs! And its for that reason i think we need to show some restraint (not too much of course!)

Hey, I met those kinds of people too, when I was in. I know what you mean. That said, I'm not going to leave any sort of sorting or decision making to an entity I deny the existence of.

Commander Endova wrote:I also think the government needs to be just as accountable as it's people. If you preform an illegal search and seizure, and it bears fruit, then by golly, you just did your job Mr. Policeman!

You must be using a different meaning of the word of "accountable" then I am familiar with. In your version, being "accountable" appears to mean "there is no consequence to your lawbreaking if you wear a badge". Interesting.

Commander Endova wrote:Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)

Ah, in 2010, when being a "real 'Murkikan" means openly advocating treason and insurrection in the name of the constitution. What times we live in, where military coups are considered "patriotism". I had always considered the remedy for a lawless executive to be Article 2, Section 4, but I suppose I'm just being quaint, now.

Frazzled wrote:He renounced his citizenship.

Grakmar wrote: Just because he hold US citizenship (even ignoring that he renounced)

Ruckdog wrote:The person in question has renounced his citizenship and called for attacks on the US...

I repeat - [needs citation]. I can't find a single source that indicates he has, in fact, renounced his citizenship. I bet you guys can't either, because he never has done so. If he had done so, we wouldn't have stuff like this impending. Renoucing your US citizenship if you are a natual born citizen is impossible by a third party, and difficult for a first party; You can't just say it and have it be true, any more then I can say Christina Hendricks is coming around my place in 30 minutes for some nookie, and have it be true. There is a process you must follow.

Although I know we're almost certainly on an irrevocable descent into Wikiality, lets try and hold off - as long as we can - on a future where things that are untrue become true if you repeat them enough.

Ouze wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:I also think the government needs to be just as accountable as it's people. If you preform an illegal search and seizure, and it bears fruit, then by golly, you just did your job Mr. Policeman!

You must be using a different meaning of the word of "accountable" then I am familiar with. In your version, being "accountable" appears to mean "there is no consequence to your lawbreaking if you wear a badge". Interesting.

Hardly. There should be no consequence for doing your job, for putting people who deserve it in jail. The consequences for for a policeman breaking the laws should be more severe than they already are.

Commander Endova wrote:Also, if a president starts arbitrarily deciding people should die? Well, he needs to be accountable for that, too. (That's where the second amendment, and Soldiers/LEO's with a conscience come together for a nice little revolt.)

Ah, in 2010, when being a "real 'Murkikan" means openly advocating treason and insurrection in the name of the constitution. What times we live in, where military coups are considered "patriotism". I had always considered the remedy for a lawless executive to be Article 2, Section 4, but I suppose I'm just being quaint, now.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

What on earth does this comment have to do with the FACT that this case establishes junior legal precedence for the specific targeting of US citizens abroad by ONLY the elected officials of the US?


Are you fething high? The entire point of this thread is that the guy IS a US citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 39) in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen

Yes, he is a US citizen. Understand the damn debate before you open your mouth about shooting a hellfire misslle up the ass of yet another cave dwelling arab terrorist.

You might not like his stance, but you damn sure need to follow the legal system of the country you live in. Esp in the US where our personal rights are being stripped away slowly but surely in the face of an incredibly powerful central government.

All you NRA loving hippie killers in this thread seem more keen to jump on folks you don't agree with than protect the rights and freedoms that Palin, Beck, and the rest of the drooling lunatic asylum that is conservative politics constantly incite your fears over.

I know the conversation has veered of course, but it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent, but this is almost certainly going to be appealed, and the decision by the circuit court of SCOTUS will become precedent. So don't worry to much about precedent.

As always, i'm suprised that the same people that point out how obviously bad a person is seem to have no confidence in the governments ability to prove that to a tribunal. I mean, if a person really is a traitor and a threat and all that jazz, then run it by a court, get the authorization, and move forward. Federal judges tend to be pretty smart.

It also doesn't seem like the father was suing for wrongful death damages. he was simply suing to stop the attack, which isn't just a standing issue, or a soveriegn immunity issue, it's also a mootness issue (it's long done).

Polonius wrote:I know the conversation has veered of course

It wasn't originally about the legal status of citrus fruits in regards to leash laws?

Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent

What?

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

What on earth does this comment have to do with the FACT that this case establishes junior legal precedence for the specific targeting of US citizens abroad by ONLY the elected officials of the US?


Are you fething high? The entire point of this thread is that the guy IS a US citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 39) in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen

Yes, he is a US citizen. Understand the damn debate before you open your mouth about shooting a hellfire misslle up the ass of yet another cave dwelling arab terrorist.

You might not like his stance, but you damn sure need to follow the legal system of the country you live in. Esp in the US where our personal rights are being stripped away slowly but surely in the face of an incredibly powerful central government.

All you NRA loving hippie killers in this thread seem more keen to jump on folks you don't agree with than protect the rights and freedoms that Palin, Beck, and the rest of the drooling lunatic asylum that is conservative politics constantly incite your fears over.

1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:I know the conversation has veered of course

It wasn't originally about the legal status of citrus fruits in regards to leash laws?

Silly rabbit, it was about the legal status of leash laws in regards to citus fruits. Learn to read posts!

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent

What?

Trial court decisions aren't considered very valuable precedent in any other court, unless the facts are nearly identical. The idea is that the trial court made a decision based on those facts, not on an overall decision of law. Appeals courts decided general issues of law.

Edit: Polonius beat me to it

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

What on earth does this comment have to do with the FACT that this case establishes junior legal precedence for the specific targeting of US citizens abroad by ONLY the elected officials of the US?


Are you fething high? The entire point of this thread is that the guy IS a US citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 39) in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Yemen

Yes, he is a US citizen. Understand the damn debate before you open your mouth about shooting a hellfire misslle up the ass of yet another cave dwelling arab terrorist.

You might not like his stance, but you damn sure need to follow the legal system of the country you live in. Esp in the US where our personal rights are being stripped away slowly but surely in the face of an incredibly powerful central government.

All you NRA loving hippie killers in this thread seem more keen to jump on folks you don't agree with than protect the rights and freedoms that Palin, Beck, and the rest of the drooling lunatic asylum that is conservative politics constantly incite your fears over.

1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:I know the conversation has veered of course

It wasn't originally about the legal status of citrus fruits in regards to leash laws?

Silly rabbit, it was about the legal status of leash laws in regards to citus fruits. Learn to read posts!

The United States requires that an expatriating individual visit a U.S. Embassy to expatriate except in times of war under special circumstances.[6] During the procedure the individual must complete a number of documents, explain the reason for renouncing citizenship, and demonstrate proof of foreign residence, or failing that, evidence that they intend to enter the United States as an alien with documentation to that effect.[7]

Doesn't work that way brosky.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html Boosh.

Frazzled wrote:
1. Accusing a poster of being high is flaming. You might not do that, especially if that poster is a mod...
2. He renounced his citizenship. Therefore he is not a US citizen.

Never said you were, just asked. Difference between question and accusation....but point taken none the less.

Please refer to the link I posted.....he IS a US citizen whether you like it or not. I also never said that proper legal process has not been followed regarding this individual, simply that the case in question establishes a deeply disturbing legal precedent for elected officials to bypass the judicial branch when it comes to the targeting of US citizens outside of US borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing

You missed the 'except in times of war' halfway thorugh the first sentence. Its ok. I'll let you borrow my glasses next time.

Polonius wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Polonius wrote:it's worth remembering that this was a trial court decision. It's not precedent for anything: I mean, technically trial courts make precedent

What?

Trial court decisions aren't considered very valuable precedent in any other court, unless the facts are nearly identical. The idea is that the trial court made a decision based on those facts, not on an overall decision of law. Appeals courts decided general issues of law.

Very true, but the precedent is now on the books and can be referenced in future cases. More to the point, it establishes a legal precedent (however junior) that the elected officials can legally bypass any form of the judicial branch in order to target US citizens that are not currently on US soil.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[29] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing

Again, I'm forced to reference the epic case of Lee vs. Grant. If you are a citizen fighting for the enemy, this has never been an issue.