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 wrote:Can people be tried in absentia?

My coworkers and I kicked this around when the al-Awlaki thing went down. Essentially you can only do this in the US if you were present at the beginning of the trial, like if you appear, it looks like it's going badly and you flee the country - you can still be convicted even if not present.

I know Dog the Bounty Hunter is a rough dude, but I suspect even he wouldn't go into Yemen. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of AQ people there that really need to be sprayed in the face with the mace they use on bears (go with Christ, brah).

Kilkrazy wrote:Can people be tried in absentia?

Not according to rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 43 provides that a defendant shall be present
at the arraignment,
at the time of the plea,
at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict and
at the imposition of sentence.

However, the following exceptions are included in the Rule:
the defendant waives his right to be present if he voluntarily leaves the trial after it has commenced,
if he persists in disruptive conduct after being warned that such conduct will cause him to be removed from the courtroom,
a corporation need not be present, but may be represented by counsel,
in prosecutions for misdemeanors, the court may permit arraignment, plea, trial, and imposition of sentence in the defendant's absence with his written consent, and
the defendant need not be present at a conference or argument upon a question of law or at a reduction of sentence under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Ouze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Can people be tried in absentia?

My coworkers and I kicked this around when the al-Awlaki thing went down. Essentially you can only do this in the US if you were present at the beginning of the trial, like if you appear, it looks like it's going badly and you flee the country - you can still be convicted even if not present.

I know Dog the Bounty Hunter is a rough dude, but I suspect even he wouldn't go into Yemen. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of AQ people there that really need to be sprayed in the face with the mace they use on bears (go with Christ, brah).

Even I may prefer a drone-launched missle to the face if my other option is having to drive in a car with Dog, just saying.

You know I'm kinda surprised we didn't just ask the Israeli's to do it, I mean their good at this kinda thing and it avoids all the fuss.

youbedead wrote:You know I'm kinda surprised we didn't just ask the Israeli's to do it, I mean their good at this kinda thing and it avoids all the fuss.

I think Israeli's killing US citizens might be the thing that finally pushes them over the "Israel cannot do anything wrong" cliff.

Not denying that they would be good at it though. Whatever solution they would have come up with would have been a lot more subtle than the old drone to the face as well.

d-usa wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

So we are now taking away citizenships as well?

Well, surprise surprise, yes you do.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2.taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4.accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7.conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

How's that for a legal argument.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

So we are now taking away citizenships as well?

Well, surprise surprise, yes you do.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2.taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4.accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7.conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

How's that for a legal argument.

Must have missed the part where good old al-Qaeda became a state. Good try though.

Conviction for an act of Treason would require a trial as well, something that didn't happen.

I remember we were talking about this when he was first killed, and it's surprisingly hard to lose your US citizenship, turns out. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Lieberman, iirc, sponsored a bill to expand the last item on Kovnik's list to include citizens suspected of terrorism abroad.

d-usa wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, targeting people we can't capture is worse than going to war, with massive collateral damage?

No, assasinating US citizens without a trial because "following the constitution is hard" is worse than not killing them without a trial.

Did the US citizen in question have a weapon, and had clearly stated the intent of killing americans and american troops? If yes, then I'm pretty sure it's perfectly lawful to engage him. Armed civilians engaged in warfare against a military force no longer count as part of the civil society.

I'm not sure about this, but I'd say that a traitor no longer qualifies as a citizen or even a civilian.

So we are now taking away citizenships as well?

Well, surprise surprise, yes you do.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1.obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2.taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4.accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6.formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7.conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

How's that for a legal argument.

Must have missed the part where good old al-Qaeda became a state. Good try though.

Conviction for an act of Treason would require a trial as well, something that didn't happen.

I have to say I would've thought a military panel to be able to declare someone guilty of treason in absentia. You could still argue that Al-Qaeda was a political subdivision of many states, I guess... (art.2)

Which would then require some proof that the person had sworn such allegiance or oath, but that's surely common practice amongts terrorists... ? And easier to prove then actual treason in front of a court.

High treason should be a reason to revoke citizenship IF the treason was in the name of an enemy of the nation, i.e. AQ.

And, I'll give you the benefit that Americans IN America should be arrested and tried in court. If it's an American in another country, extradition may not be possible and thus would need to be Judge Dredd'd by a marine sniper.

I see no issue with killing off known enemy leaders in order to spare a city or town from complete bombardment. I'm pretty sure those people in the city would agree to just snipe him and not blow their town to gak.

d-usa wrote:

youbedead wrote:You know I'm kinda surprised we didn't just ask the Israeli's to do it, I mean their good at this kinda thing and it avoids all the fuss.

I think Israeli's killing US citizens might be the thing that finally pushes them over the "Israel cannot do anything wrong" cliff.

Not denying that they would be good at it though. Whatever solution they would have come up with would have been a lot more subtle than the old drone to the face as well.

See that's the point no one would have known, he'd just disappear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aerethan wrote:High treason should be a reason to revoke citizenship IF the treason was in the name of an enemy of the nation, i.e. AQ.

And, I'll give you the benefit that Americans IN America should be arrested and tried in court. If it's an American in another country, extradition may not be possible and thus would need to be Judge Dredd'd by a marine sniper.

I see no issue with killing off known enemy leaders in order to spare a city or town from complete bombardment. I'm pretty sure those people in the city would agree to just snipe him and not blow their town to gak.

Except that Treason is one of the few crimes that the constitution explicitly states the requirements for, and Anwar did not mean those requirements, nor was he tried in a court of law meaning he was not convicted of treason

Kilkrazy wrote:Can people be tried in absentia?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16849508

Seems that the U.N. has done it, not sure why the US couldn't amend the constitution to allow for it.

Can you imagine how long that court case would have dragged on for?

Even if he was tried, would there have been any other outcome?

GalacticDefender wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Snore. Beats carpet bombing cities.

Until they target Wienerdogs, then you will regret doing nothing .

True dat. The wiener legions are mean.[u]

Then they came for the wiener dogs, but I was not a wiener dog so I did not speak out.

Fortunately the wiener dogs had been preparing to take over the world for decades and went through them like gak through a goose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Nice seeing that everybody thinks it is peachy that we are killing off citizens without a trial because the president says it is okay.

Citizens in another country trying to kill US soldiers. In classical terms they were what you would call "the enemy" to be killed, and "traitors" if we stopped long enough not to kill them, thus saving them for a more public hanging. So no, no problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Foreign and domestic...domestic include US citizens that baer arms against the US. No different if we were to kill a US citizen in combat fighting with the enemy.

Indeed, we had a minor tiffle a century or so back that had lots of domestic assassination...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:So the foreign guy who got caught in the act if trying to blow up an airplane gets a trial and prison.

The citizen who has done nothing but talk and preach gets assassinated without a trial.

What an awesome country we live in.

if you don't like it, vote Republican. Romney has said anything about mob style hits.

All I want to kill is me brain cells.....legalize it! lol

hotsauceman1 wrote:And who is the one that lead us down this path that eventually led to assasinations? Bush.
There is no innocent party in this debate.

Finally. Its all Bush's fault!
Lincoln killed a lot of US citizens. Eisenhower sent in combat troops to quell free speech rallies around a school. (translation sent in the 82nd to enforce the SCOTUS decision killing separate but equal - YEA REPUBLICANS)

This is nothing new. Hell, Maggie Thatcher used the SAS as her own personal hit squad in the eighties...

I'll leave you with the wise words of Trent Reznor:

" I pushed the button and elected him to office and a

He pushed the button and he dropped the bomb

You pushed the button and could watch it on the television

Those melon-fethers didn't last too long

I'm sick of hearing about the "have's" and "have not's"

Have some personal accountability

The biggest problem with the way that we've been doing things is

The more we let you have the less that I'll be keeping for me"

101st I believe Frazz not the 82nd


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and another thing. I have seen insurgents in their teens we caught fighting us. I also seen teens on the ground lifeless after an engagement.

Could be, aLthough I thought it was the 82nd. My google fu is failing to find which unit was actually, although I did find his speech to the nation. Very cool.

Eisnhower, a titan. We need a new titan, instead of being governed by lesser men.

Closest thing to a Esinhower Titan we have today is Colin Powell. He would do the same thing as Obama authorizing the kill in a drone strike on high profile targets. I would believe both would be against arming a drone with laser marker and having a laser guided missile hit the target. Hellfire missile does get the job done with its smaller kill radius then having a block taking out.

Can people be tried in absentia?

Yes. Part of the issue with this guy whose name I still don't remember off the top of my head is that the procedure for putting someone on the assassination list secret. Maybe there was a careful review of his situation before he was put on it, maybe there wasn't. Maybe there was some kind of trial, maybe there wasn't. We don't really know.

But of course its not the first time the US government has killed US citizens before...

Not it is "it only applies if you behave yourself". We don't suspend the constitution for people that assasinate presidents. We didn't suspend the constitutional rights for McVeigh after he blew up the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City. Your constitutional rights are your constitutional rights, even if you hate the USA.

SO you would have resolved the Civil War by trying every member of the Confederate Army before battle? Wonder how that would have worked out for the jolly old Union.

Must have missed the part where good old al-Qaeda became a state. Good try though.

Part of the ongoing problem with Al-Qaeda and organizations like them is that they defy most laws about warfare because those laws were directly worded to deal with war between nation states. This falls into a gray zone where no law exists to deal with it. But honestly, once you've openly admitting to engaging in organized (or even disorganized) violence against your own state, from overseas, with the help of a foreign fighting force, is it really that different from a practical stand point? Taking arms against a state is taking arms against a state and if capture isn't a practical option...

Except that Treason is one of the few crimes that the constitution explicitly states the requirements for, and Anwar did not mean those requirements, nor was he tried in a court of law meaning he was not convicted of treason

At what point do we really need to just admit this guy didn't need a trail? Is it after he plots with an anti-American extremist organization to kill US citizens or after he freely and openly admits to plotting with an anti-American extremist organization to kill US citizens on camera, or after its aired on TV and the internt?

I can understand people debating the legality of the US assassinating US citizens without trial, but come on. If a man walks in front of a TV and spouts off all the things he's done, do we really need to be that concerned? Maybe its just me

I will admit that he didn't need a trial the moment he formally renounced his citizenship, which he never did. If the constitution doesn't apply just tear the thing up and quit pretending we care about our own laws. We can't have it both ways, if we don't play by our rules then why should anybody else.

d-usa wrote:If the constitution doesn't apply just tear the thing up and quit pretending we care about our own laws.

The Constitution doesn't establish a criteria for losing Citizenship or dealing with citizens who take up arms against the state in warfare. Generally 'kill um' has been a fairly practical way of dealing with the problem since the Whiskey Rebellion.

We can't have it both ways,

Countries have it both ways all the time. I believe its called politics

if we don't play by our rules then why should anybody else.

Why should anyone play by our rules even if we play by them? Furthermore why should we care when they'd never play by our rules in the first place?

Why should anyone play by our rules even if we play by them? Furthermore why should we care when they'd never play by our rules in the first place?

" When if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat."
-former governor Ventura.

I actually like Obama more now..

I think politicians should kill gak loads more people frankly.

feth the fething fethers.

Ill have a months wages that every person who gets slotted deserves it.

Ouze wrote:I don't really have a good answer for what to do about an Anwar al-Alwlaki type situation, but I don't think what we chose to do was the right thing either. The POTUS is not a king and American citizens have a right to due process that he cannot sign away.

I have an idea, maybe if some guy is talking about how bad we are, we could try to persuade people he's full of crap by talking too?

I have a co-worker at work who keeps telling people I am violent, prone to anger, and am out to get him. He wanted me fired. Of course, this is false. So I waited until he was leaving the building alone and I shot him. Problem solved right? Now its obvious that he was just telling lies about me.

Edit: I have no problem killing off enemy combatants in a combat zone through any means necessary. That's part of war. The problem comes when you're not technically in a war, but just doing cloak and dagger type stuff. It also becomes much more problematic when the target is an American citizen during a time of "Not War".

We are in very dangerous waters here.

sebster wrote:There's this really weird assumption in this thread that the alternatives are between sniping one guy and bombing a whole city... umm, before drones the US wasn't carpet bombing cities because there was this one guy they wanted to get rid of - cities were carpet bombed because they were at war with whole countries.

Back then you'd just plant a car bomb, or disappear a guy out of his room in the middle of the night... now you fire a predator drone at some guy.

The issue is how much this is being done now, and that's really a function of two things - the US flipping the hell out over a terrorist group doing something on their homesoil, and the fact that it's a whole lot easier and safer to launch a missile from a drone than it is to get a team on the ground for an abduction mission/bomb planting.

Actually that's an interesting point. This kind of assassination has been taking place for as long as there have been nation states, but the methodology and how they are carried out has changed.

I watched a documentary recently that was about the classic spy movie, 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy', and was interviewing a lot of ex-intelligence types. They said that since the end of the cold war, with budget cut backs and a change of culture within the espionage field, the amount of covert operations going on have dropped significantly. Back when the US-Ruskie operations were going on, intelligence agencies on both sides would spend literally years infiltrating agents, trying to turn people on the other side (using all means) a real game of cat and mouse as each agency tried to outwit the other and gain dominance. It's something that makes fascinating reading nowadays in any case! But the point being that it was covert - you would never hear about the files that had gone missing, the guy who has died of a heart attack in his bed in suspicious circumstances etc.

But, apparently since the end of the Cold War, and the change of the international pecking order and extension of power, the CIA and US government just hasn't bothered with that kind of time consuming and costly covert exercise. Think someone might be planning a terrorist act, or otherwise acting against your interest? Send in the drones. I wouldn't compare it to 'carpet bombing a city to get one person', and it's startling the number of people who think that was the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan, but it is impossible to deny that there are not a great deal more civilian deaths as a result of these drone strikes. And mistakes because of poor intelligence, if some Pakistani reports are to be believed.

A couple of interesting conclusions that can be determined from the increase of Drone attacks, and the more visible nature of these assassination missions
1) The change in the nature of world power, and the focus of that power. Now more than ever it is in the middle east. The previous 'counter-weight', that created the bi-lateral balance between the US and USSR has gone, and while Russia and to an extent China are major players, in terms of reach of power, no one even comes close to the US.
2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.

Edit: I have no problem killing off enemy combatants in a combat zone through any means necessary. That's part of war. The problem comes when you're not technically in a war, but just doing cloak and dagger type stuff. It also becomes much more problematic when the target is an American citizen during a time of "Not War".

We are in very dangerous waters here.

Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since. As rhetorical as the "War on Terror" is the idea that war is something that only occurs between opposed states is not only antiquated as an idea, but historically false.

What we are in is very ambiguous waters, but world globalization and all, the current laws that are used to resolve societies ills are likely to become increasingly ineffective, beyond just the matter of how to deal with aggressive foreign non-state enemy forces.

2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.

I like what is said here. Also I think you're right about Bush. Unless I'm just being forgetful or am missing some obscure conflict, he is the only US President to engage in military action on the soil of two different states (and all in his first term too).

LordofHats wrote:

Edit: I have no problem killing off enemy combatants in a combat zone through any means necessary. That's part of war. The problem comes when you're not technically in a war, but just doing cloak and dagger type stuff. It also becomes much more problematic when the target is an American citizen during a time of "Not War".

We are in very dangerous waters here.

Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since. As rhetorical as the "War on Terror" is the idea that war is something that only occurs between opposed states is not only antiquated as an idea, but historically false.

What we are in is very ambiguous waters, but world globalization and all, the current laws that are used to resolve societies ills are likely to become increasingly ineffective, beyond just the matter of how to deal with aggressive foreign non-state enemy forces.

2) American doesn't give a feth about what anyone else thinks, they are absolutely brazen about it - and why should they be otherwise? Pakistan can complain all they want, but what are they going to do except throw their arms in the air and call the US nasty names? Since the fall of the USSR, as one political commentator put it, the US is the hammer and everyone else is a nail. Obama has been positively passive compared to his predecessor, with Bush managing two separate major military operations and invasions of foreign soil within his tenure, I believe a first for any US president.

I like what is said here. Also I think you're right about Bush. Unless I'm just being forgetful or am missing some obscure conflict, he is the only US President to engage in military action on the soil of two different states (and all in his first term too).

Truman fought the Japanese, the North Koreans and the Chinese in three separate countries (not counting the Phillipines, etc.) after he was elevated to President on the death of Roosevelt.

Oh right Truman got reelected. I was being forgetful

LordofHats wrote:[SO you would have resolved the Civil War by trying every member of the Confederate Army before battle? Wonder how that would have worked out for the jolly old Union.

Yes, because someone actually suggested this. Perhaps lets try arguing what was actually said instead of erecting enormous strawmen and then whaling on them.

LordofHats wrote:Were you at Fort Bragg on September 11, 2001? We were at war and we have been ever since.

No, I was in New York. Not too sure why that's relevant, since we have a civilian-led military.