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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That is just silly. We, and every country that engages in war, target power plants, communications and logistics nodes, command centers and so on. All within the laws of war.

Usually when engaging a hostile state, against an opposing military force (or clearly designated militia) when you have declared war. Not someone who was in a car, posing no threat, in a country that we have not declared war on.

Again, congress passed the AUMF and both they and the executive seem okay with it being used to justify attacks against AQ targets in Yemen and other countries. It is not a war against a nation state, so your point about not having declared war on Yemen is moot. We never were at war with Afghanistan either, just the Taliban and AQ elements. Again, The gov't of Yemen has approved (and supports) strikes there. We have CLEARLY targeted folks in cars or planes before or just hanging out. Ask Rommel (staff car strafed though he lived) or Yamamoto (shot down in transit). Neither of them seemed to have fit your criteria for imminent threat at the time they got attacked. We capped Al Zarqawi in a building but tried earlier when he was in a car escaping from a check point. He was escaping, not an imminent threat. Again, Bin Laden being awoken and killed in the middle of the night was not an imminent threat.

We have not had a declared war since when? And yet ALL of the things I have brought up as legitimate targets have been targeted multiple times in multiple conflicts spanning decades. The courts seem to uphold that the AUMF and funding resolutions are indeed an informal declaration of war.

Again, congress needs to step up and fix this, it is within their power to do so.

Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

You are comparing actions taken against officials from hostile states, who wore uniforms, that we declared war on with individuals in a country that we haven't declared war on. There's a difference there.

But the point is that the US is not at war, as you have accepted, but that it is using military means to execute US citizens without there being any sort of due process. Like I said show me that he was engaged in plotting an attack against the US and I'll support action being taken, per the AUMF

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

All the Administration has to do is show that the individuals that they targeted were killed to prevent future acts of terrorism. I don't think that substantiating your decision to use lethal force is an unreasonable request.

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

That's a bit simplistic.

Yemen supports this activity, so we aren't going to declare war on them in order to carry it out. Then when you factor in the reality that this enemy doesn't wear uniforms or fight in the name of a particular nation we must use different identifying criteria.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

That's a bit simplistic.

Yemen supports this activity, so we aren't going to declare war on them in order to carry it out. Then when you factor in the reality that this enemy doesn't wear uniforms or fight in the name of a particular nation we must use different identifying criteria.

How is it simplistic. He's drawing a comparison between Al Alwaki, and Erwin Rommel. There is no comparison.

 djones520 wrote:
How is it simplistic. He's drawing a comparison between Al Alwaki, and Erwin Rommel. There is no comparison.

The point made was about how they weren't a direct threat at the time they were killed, which was a criteria given for who should be assassinated.

Are we reading the same posts?

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
How is it simplistic. He's drawing a comparison between Al Alwaki, and Erwin Rommel. There is no comparison.

The point made was about how they weren't a direct threat at the time they were killed, which was a criteria given for who should be assassinated.

Are we reading the same posts?

We are, I guess you just don't understand the concept of LOAC (not insulting you here). By the principles of LOAC, targets like Rommel were 100% legal with zero ambiguity.

1. Uniformed Personnel.
2. We Were in a legally declared state of war with personnels nation.
3. Personnel was a military target of significance (like an arms depot, may not be posing a direct threat, but still a legal target due to it's value to the enemy's warfighting capability).

All of those satisfy LOAC principles to attack him. There was none of the grey area's that surround Anwar.

You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

Yeah, but were weren't talking about LOAC before, we were talking about immenent threats at the time of death.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

Yeah, but were weren't talking about LOAC before, we were talking about immenent threats at the time of death.

Monster... go back a read this article: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/528705.page#5649611

I also think that this policy is really poorly explained/justified.. it's why we have these debates.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

Yeah, but were weren't talking about LOAC before, we were talking about immenent threats at the time of death.

Because LOAC isn't something that comes into play when assasinating US citizens. LOAC was in play in targetting Erwin Rommel, and that was Jake who brought that up.

There is differances in the two, which is what I brought up, and you seemingly agree to...

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

You have ben arguing a target must be armed and posing an imminent threat. Every single one of my examples proves that premise is not true. They are all 'apples' for that purpose. You can now go back and change the argument to try to make the reply wrong, but an honest reading of my posts I believe will show I am right in the point I was making.

Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi were uniformed soldiers of some nation we were at war with? Not sure that is accurate... In fact, I am sure it is not.

And how about Che', that hero of the left whom we hunted on two continents until finally trapped and capped? How about Escobar? How about a bunch of Vietnamese tax collectors? How about the Hussein brothers? I can go on...

My point stands, leaders, logistics sites and personnel, trainers, and so on are ALL legitimate targets, armed or not, imminent threat or not. And again, though you seem to ignore it, Congress did pass the AUMF which the courts, the congress, and the executive branch take as a declaration of war.

To fix this you need:

Congress to assert their proper authority and rescind/replace or amend the AUMF and defund operations they feel fall out side of what ever they come up with.

Congress needs to figure out what process is due to US citizens who join organizations which consider themselves at war with the US and commit acts of violence against US interests, both CONUS and OCONUS and then come up with policies that ensure that due process is met.

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

You have ben arguing a target must be armed and posing an imminent threat. Every single one of my examples proves that premise is not true. They are all 'apples' for that purpose. You can now go back and change the argument to try to make the reply wrong, but an honest reading of my posts I believe will show I am right in the point I was making.

I have been arguing that an AMERICAN target... that's the big difference.

Otherwise whenever we have a militia group out there preaching anti-american things, and "training" people to use arms and violence, all we need to do is drop some AGM's on them.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

You have ben arguing a target must be armed and posing an imminent threat. Every single one of my examples proves that premise is not true. They are all 'apples' for that purpose. You can now go back and change the argument to try to make the reply wrong, but an honest reading of my posts I believe will show I am right in the point I was making.

I have been arguing that an AMERICAN target... that's the big difference.

Otherwise whenever we have a militia group out there preaching anti-american things, and "training" people to use arms and violence, all we need to do is drop some AGM's on them.

Let us please not pretend that AQ is just "a militia group out there preaching anti-American things". I would think that the number dead over the past 12 years would be a testament that they have moved far beyond simple rhetoric.

I've deleted some of the flamier stuff here. Everyone please remember Rule One is Be Polite and if you find yourself irked, go browse the war gaming content or maybe take a walk. Thanks.

Maybe it's my non-American-citizen bias talking, but I don't think the US going around assassinating whoever it wants in other countries is fantastic policy no matter which way you slice it, even if they're not American citizens. When you're talking about assassinating people in cafes and weddings, it seems you've moved far from any sensible definition of "war" and are in the realm of police work.

The fact that it's drones that are doing it is really irrelevant to the core issue. It would be the same if it was military planes, for example.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Maybe it's my non-American-citizen bias talking, but I don't think the US going around assassinating whoever it wants in other countries is fantastic policy no matter which way you slice it, even if they're not American citizens. When you're talking about assassinating people in cafes and weddings, it seems you've moved far from any sensible definition of "war" and are in the realm of police work.

The fact that it's drones that are doing it is really irrelevant to the core issue. It would be the same if it was military planes, for example.

It's not assassination. (legal definition)... we have an Executive Order prohibiting sanctioned assassinations. The issue is twofold:
1) Are they truly armed combatant?
2) Furthermore, if they're "actively fighting" (however that's defined), and is the target an american, can the be targeted?

I have no problem with ending these ex-citizens, but I want more transparency in the process.

I'm finding some of the ideas on 'uniformed soldier only' about as backward to the realities of modern conflict as thinking that leaders come together and say "we shall only fight from yon river to thine hill and at the end of the day we shall tally the score and a winner declared in ensuing battle. Holy men may only use blunt weapons on thine field and if a servant doth fall and surrender he must be allowed to leave thine field o' battle." While they are debating the colours and banners, the actual combatants are leaving bombs in Starbucks and absconding with all the scones. We live in an age of little wars, where enemy combatants don't wear uniforms and represent country's interests.

We can't just say 'not in uniform = not combatant'. This doesn't give a free pass, such as having once been a citizen doesn't allow one impunity from being a legitimate target. What it means, to me at least, is that we need more transparency in both the process of selecting these targets and in the reasoning why the specific method was used. I don't need to know the name of the informants, but I do need to know how they got from A to B, and that it was done in a legal way that is reasonable and considered. Once that is in place blow the fethers to hell.

This is completely off topic (but it wasn't important enough to start it's own thread) but did Obama ever use David Bowie's song "changes" for his 2008 campaign?

Sheesh...turning into military verses non military. Awalaki had a hand in turning Hassan at Ft Hood to kill his fellow soldiers....on the internet. Does that not make him a legal target? Insurgents cross the border into Afghanistan and back again. Sometime attacking coalition forces or terrorizing the civilians. Once back across the border into Pakistan no longer makes them a target?. If an insurgent that involves himself into a firefight with Coalition forces in Afghanistan and drops his weapon and ammo and makes out like a local can we still apprehend him as a combatant? If a suicide bomber makes for the main ECP at Sharana in Afghanistan and trips that results in him setting the vest off. The ones who were holding cell phones at a distance are not to be rounded up due to the fact they might not be the back up trigger? What about the ones that are funding for explosives to make their way into Afghanistan to be used against Coalition Forces from Pakistan. Are they not as guilty? Is both sides implementing ways to kill Coalition forces/Insurgents/Terrorist organizations members from a distance pretty much in the "WTH lets get them regardless" column. Me personally. I do not care as long as we opt them out. Their are a few on here who seen their work up close, in your face, and grit your teeth. I despise the Insurgents (includes Taliban and AQ) who works outside conventional laws and seem justified because of a religion instead of morals and common sense. I've serious major hate for the insurgents and those that support them. Difference between some of us and some of you all. We been to the rodeo quite a few times

 Ahtman wrote:
I have no problem with ending these ex-citizens, but I want more transparency in the process.

They are still citizens until at least one of the steps detailed earlier in the thread occur;
- Renunciation in a US Consulate/Embassy
- Convicted for an act of treason (note; convicted)
- Holding a policy level position in a foreign government
- Serving in your native country's armed forces as an officer or NCO (most likely to affect immigrants)
- lying to USCIS during naturalisation
- refusal to testify before Congress concerning your subversive activities

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm finding some of the ideas on 'uniformed soldier only' about as backward to the realities of modern conflict as thinking that leaders come together and say "we shall only fight from yon river to thine hill and at the end of the day we shall tally the score and a winner declared in ensuing battle. Holy men may only use blunt weapons on thine field and if a servant doth fall and surrender he must be allowed to leave thine field o' battle." While they are debating the colours and banners, the actual combatants are leaving bombs in Starbucks and absconding with all the scones. We live in an age of little wars, where enemy combatants don't wear uniforms and represent country's interests.

That is why I suggested earlier that the Geneva Conventions be updated to make them more relevant and suitable to the realities of modern warfare.

 Ahtman wrote:
We can't just say 'not in uniform = not combatant'. This doesn't give a free pass, such as having once been a citizen doesn't allow one impunity from being a legitimate target. What it means, to me at least, is that we need more transparency in both the process of selecting these targets and in the reasoning why the specific method was used. I don't need to know the name of the informants, but I do need to know how they got from A to B, and that it was done in a legal way that is reasonable and considered. Once that is in place blow the fethers to hell.

I'd much rather it was demonstrated that the person targeted was actually a threat.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I have no problem with ending these ex-citizens, but I want more transparency in the process.

They are still citizens until at least one of the steps detailed earlier in the thread occur;
- Renunciation in a US Consulate/Embassy
- Convicted for an act of treason (note; convicted)
- Holding a policy level position in a foreign government
- Serving in your native country's armed forces as an officer or NCO (most likely to affect immigrants)
- lying to USCIS during naturalisation
- refusal to testify before Congress concerning your subversive activities

Pretending that they are somehow ex-citizens is just an intellectual cop out for justifying the killing of citizens without any constitutional protection.

We gave a trial to McVeigh for attacking the federal Government and killing 100+ people with his bomb.

We gave trials to the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, we didn't just turn around and kill them.

The Fort Hood shooter is currently waiting on a trial instead of just being killed because he is now an ex-citizen for attacking US soldiers.

We are not simply killing the one guy captured alive from the Boston attacks.

So we are cool with following the constitution when it comes to actually killing other Americans.

But if you talk about killing Americans, or tell others to kill Americans, then you are clear for killing because you are so far away...

 Ahtman wrote:
That is your interpretation of it, and one I'm not sure I agree with. Most of it is fairly straightforward, but there are parts that are open to interpretation, most in what constitutes renunciation. Terrorists turncoats are not going to give written notices to consulate/embassies, they will give mail bombs to them. The idea of an enemy combatant following bureaucratic process is ludicrous.

If you look at the sources that I provided (including from State Department) I would respectfully submit that it is slightly more than just my own interpretation.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I very seriously doubt this gets much coverage except on libertarian web sites and a bit on Fox. It will not swallow up his speech.

In which we now pretend mainstream media such as the NY times will not cover a story, in a thread in which the OP's article is from the NY times.

Clearly liberal bias has once again buried this story to protect Obama! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

In which we pretend that an article or two = much coverage. Don't be stupid. Unless you are implying this will get the type of coverage that the IRS scandal or the Oklahoma Tornadoes get, my point stands and is accurate. It will get some, but not much coverage except by the types of sites I mentioned.

Well, I might be stupid as you say, but even I know how to use a search function. The NY times has covered Anwar al-Awlaki alone over 1500 times, NBC has run 1400 articles. Hell, the NYT even have a whole topic just devoted to him. My point about the ludicrousness of pretending only right-wing news sites will cover a story when the OP's link is to the NY Times stands.

I know a fun game conservatives like to play is "The media's not covering this story because of biaaaaaaaaaaaaaassss!" but that is a stance that is generally divorced from reality. But he, if you guys have fun playing it, have a good time. Dress up like batman or whatever, games where you pretend things are supposed to be fun.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that they are somehow ex-citizens is just an intellectual cop out for justifying the killing of citizens without any constitutional protection.

We gave a trial to McVeigh for attacking the federal Government and killing 100+ people with his bomb.

We gave trials to the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, we didn't just turn around and kill them.

The Fort Hood shooter is currently waiting on a trial instead of just being killed because he is now an ex-citizen for attacking US soldiers.

We are not simply killing the one guy captured alive from the Boston attacks.

So we are cool with following the constitution when it comes to actually killing other Americans.

But if you talk about killing Americans, or tell others to kill Americans, then you are clear for killing because you are so far away...

But surely we can trust Mister Holder that they're only going after bad guys, right?

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that they are somehow ex-citizens is just an intellectual cop out for justifying the killing of citizens without any constitutional protection.

It isn't a cop out to argue that one can perform actions that amount to a declaration of renouncing one's citizenship. I also didn't say that just bombing was the sole criteria, nor did I state that it should be easy to come to that conclusion. In fact I have argued we need a clearer process with more transparency to go forward with things like this. While I am troubled by the use of drones as any reasonable person, I'm not going to shed a tear over an AQ agent that actively recruited people to kill Americans/British, was a propaganda arm of AQ that argued for the killing of Americans/British, and gave comfort and aid to AQ. If joining AQ and actively seeking the death of ourt citizens and military men, regardless of ideology, isn't saying you don't want to be an American, I'm not quite sure what it. Until he was killed by a drone I never saw a single story or post that questioned the terrorist nature of Awalaki; now he is some martyr that just had differing opinions than others.

Your examples are also Americans inside America, and not part of foreign organizations that we actually are constantly in combat with, either through the CIA or the military. At no point at any time did I advocate execution for every person that has done something bad, and I haven't even called for the killing of all Americans found to be overseas and taking part in anti-American activities. Pretending all actions by these people are essentially the same is naive and disingenuous.

And again, I said they were ex-citizens because they are are dead.

 Ahtman wrote:
Until he was killed by a drone I never saw a single story or post that questioned the terrorist nature of Awalaki; now he is some martyr that just had differing opinions than others.

There were tons of stories because, and it looks like you don't know this - someone leaked he was put on a US kill list prior to his being killed (like, a year and a half prior). His father challenged it in court, and the court ruled he had no standing.

The executive branch stating it had the authority to issue an execution order for a US citizen with no meaningful oversight was a huge deal before they actually did it because, among other things, it appeared to violate the executive order proscription against assassinations.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If you look at the sources that I provided (including from State Department) I would respectfully submit that it is slightly more than just my own interpretation.

That was poor phrasing on my part. Note I did not say you were wrong, just that I am not sure that it is that simple. The law never is, and there have been good arguments about what constitutes renouncement of citizenship, some of which have some merit. I think some of the problem is that much of these were written when the idea of non-state actors for war/wars wasn't really a consideration. Just as some things have changed with the internet, we also need to look at some others in regards to how conflicts are actually engaged in.

I don't know how many more times I can say it, but we need more oversight into the process if it is something we are going to do. I do have ethical and moral questions about the way Awalaki was killed, but I also can't change that he is dead, but I can change how we treat these in the future, and I don;t think acting as if we can never take out a terrorist just because he once was an American, or still has an American passport is a reasonable position. I may not like the way Awalaki was killed, but I won't magically transform an donkey-cave into a hero over it either.