Another one bites the dust...

[bigg cheese]

There is no mention (that I can find) of an exception in which "aid and comfort" (on foreign soil or otherwise) that precludes a trial in which we can assassinate an american citizen. ( I fully recognize the possibility that there may have been a firefight where he was actively shooting at people, but I haven't seen it)

This is the best I could find in short term, and it seems to make a lot of sense.

If you or anyone else has a better legal justification, I'd like to see it (seriously!). I don't like it when our government does unconstitutional things, the repercussions of which could increase "big brother's" reach, and I'd be happy to brush it off.

treason legal definition of treason. treason synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[rambone]

Another CIA Asset bites the dust

Let's not forget that the big bad Al Qaeda boogeyman was also in cahoots with the CIA and was their dinner guest after the towers fell.

This is all a big charade to get Americans accustomed to cheering for assassinations. Seems to be working pretty well.


EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined At The Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 | Fox News

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.

 

[60Driver]

OK here is a Brief ROE primer. This is CJCS Standing ROE PRE 9/11 (only non classified available)

"3. Applicability. ROE apply to US forces during military attacks against
the United States and during all military operations, contingencies, and
terrorist attacks occurring outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. The territorial jurisdiction of the United States includes
the 50 states, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and Northern​

Marianas, US possessions, and US territories"

Yemen outside US - CHECK

"1. Purpose and Scope
a. The purpose of these SROE is to provide implementation guidance
on the application of force for mission accomplishment and the exercise
of the inherent right and obligation of self-defense. In the absence of
superseding guidance, the SROE establish fundamental policies and
procedures governing the actions to be taken by US force commanders in
the event of military attack against the United States and during all
military operations, contingencies, terrorist attacks, or prolonged​

conflicts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,"

Note the word Obligation it is important!

"a. Inherent Right of Self-Defense. A commander has the authority
and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all
appropriate actions to defend that commander's unit and other US forces
in the vicinity from a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent.
Neither these rules, nor the supplemental measures activated to
augment these rules, limit this inherent right and obligation. At all
times, the requirements of necessity and proportionality, as amplified in
these SROE, will form the basis for the judgment of the on-scene
commander (OSC) or individual as to what constitutes an appropriate​

response to a particular hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent."

OK so we have the OBLIGATION to shoot bad guys that commit hostile act or intent against our forces.

"b. National Self-Defense. Defense of the United States, US forces,
and, in certain circumstances, US nationals and their property, and/or
US commercial assets. National self-defense may be exercised in two
ways: first, it may be exercised by designated authority extending
protection against a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent to US
nationals and their property, and/or designated US commercial assets
[in this case, US forces will respond to a hostile act or demonstrated
hostile intent in the same manner they would if the threat were directed
against US forces]; second, it may be exercised by designated authority
declaring a foreign force or terrorist(s) hostile [in this case, individual US
units do not need to observe a hostile act or determine hostile intent​

before engaging that force or terrorist(s)]."

OK now we extend unit self defense to protect the nation, our citizens and property. We also allow forces to be declared "hostile" Al qaeda and associated movements are HOSTILE. Our Bad Guy here is a regional commander in AQ. ROE is met!

"g. Hostile Act. An attack or other use of force against the United
States, US forces, and, in certain circumstances, US nationals, their
property, US commercial assets, and/or other designated non-US forces,
foreign nationals and their property. It is also force used directly to
preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of US forces, including the
recovery of US personnel and vital US Government property (see Glossary
for amplification).​

h. Hostile Intent. The threat of imminent use of force against the
United States, US forces, and in certain circumstances, US nationals,
their property, US commercial assets, and/or other designated non-US
forces, foreign nationals and their property. Also, the threat of force to
preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of US forces, including the
recovery of US personnel or vital USG property (see Glossary for​

amplification)."

OK Mr Awlaki also has commited hosile act and shown hostile intent ROE met x 2 plus original.

"b. Pursuit of Hostile Forces. Self-defense includes the authority to
pursue and engage hostile forces that continue to commit hostile acts or​

exhibit hostile intent."

And finally our Bad Guy CONTINUES to show hostile intent and actions by planning and calling for violent Jihad against us, our friends and a whole lot of other people....SO we get to chase him until he stops or is stopped. Unfortunately in this case for our Bad Guy he got "stopped" by a couple AGM-114's

ROE is tough and evolving in the post 9/11 world. I respect those who want to ensure that due process is served, it is a distincly noble and American trait to seek fair play and justice. That said, this individual gave up his citizenship by becoming an enemy combatant. Aided, planned for, and continued to recruit and influence for Al Qeada. Met the Most restrictive ROE, was engaged and terminated. As our LEO brothers would say "Good Shoot"

 

[bigg cheese]

Actually, bigg cheese, you need to look at the Geneva & Hague conventions on the rules for dealing with "unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield"; nothing needed beyond a summary court martial and a bullet in the head. Taking him out with a Hellfire missile serves the same purpose.

I have read a good deal on those conventions, but no matter what they say, they cannot preclude the constitution. Remember, international law seeks to reduce if not ban outright, guns for the general public, and if we agree to an international law, our participation will be unconstitutional.

 

[CarmelHP]

I want documentation stating that it is OK for us to assassinate US Citizens (engaged in whatever) only if they are on foreign soil. I understood the rest of what he said, but part of his argument hinged on the foreign soil part.

I gave you a cite to his case. In spite of apparent deliberate obtuseness, here's the Court's analysis:

"Here, plaintiff asks this Court to do exactly what the D.C. Circuit forbid in El-Shifa --assess the merits of the President's (alleged) decision to launch an attack on a foreign target. Although the "foreign target" happens to be a U.S. citizen, the same reasons that counseled against judicial resolution of the plaintiffs' claims in El-Shifa apply with equal force here. Just as
in El-Shifa, any judicial determination as to the propriety of a military attack on Anwar Al-Aulaqi would "'require this court to elucidate the . . . standards that are to guide a President when he evaluates the veracity of military intelligence.'" Id. at 846 (quoting El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1346, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Indeed, that is just what plaintiff has asked this Court to do. See Compl., Prayer for Relief (d) (requesting that the Court order the defendants to "disclose the criteria used in determining whether the government will carry out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen"). But there are no judicially manageable standards by which courts can endeavor to assess the President's interpretation of military intelligence and his resulting decision -- based on that intelligence -- whether to use military force against a terrorist target overseas. See El-Shifa, 378 F.3d at 1367 n. 6 (expressing the view that "it would be difficult, if not extraordinary, for the federal courts to discover and announce the threshold standard by which the United States government evaluates intelligence in making a decision to commit military force in an effort to thwart an imminent terrorist attack on Americans"). Nor are there judicially manageable standards by which courts may determine the nature and magnitude of the national security threat posed by a particular individual. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has expressly held that the question whether an organization's alleged "terrorist activity" threatens "the national security of the United States" is "nonjusticiable." People's Mohahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S. Dep't of State, 182 F.3d 17, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Given that courts may not undertake to assess whether a particular organization's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security, it would seem axiomatic that courts must also decline to assess whether a particular individual's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security. But absent such a judicial determination as to the nature and extent of the alleged national security threat that Anwar Al-Aulaqi poses to the United States, this Court cannot possibly determine whether the government's alleged use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Aulaqi would be "justified or well-founded." See El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 844. Thus, the second Baker factor -- a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards" for resolving the dispute -- strongly counsels against judicial review of plaintiff's claims. The type of relief that plaintiff seeks only underscores the impropriety of judicial review here. Plaintiff requests both a declaration setting forth the standard under which the United States can select individuals for targeted killing as well as an injunction prohibiting defendants from intentionally killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi unless he meets that standard -- i.e., unless he "presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat." Compl., Prayer for Relief (a), (c). Yet plaintiff concedes that the "'imminence' requirement" of his proffered legal standard would render any "real-time judicial review" of targeting decisions "infeasible," Pl.'s Opp. at 17, 30, and he therefore urges this Court to issue his requested preliminary injunction and then enforce the injunction "through an after-the-fact contempt motion or an after-the-fact damages action." Id. at 17-18. But as the D.C. Circuit has explained,"t is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 844. Such military determinations are textually committed to the political branches. See Schneider, 412 F.3d at 194-95 (explaining that "Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution . . . is
richly laden with the delegation of foreign policy and national security powers to Congress,"while "Article II likewise provides allocation of foreign relations and national security powers to the President, the unitary chief executive" and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy). Moreover, any post hoc judicial assessment as to the propriety of the Executive's decision to employ military force abroad "would be anathema to . . . separation of powers" principles. See El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 845."

 

[CarmelHP]

I have read a good deal on those conventions, but no matter what they say, they cannot preclude the constitution. Remember, international law seeks to reduce if not ban outright, guns for the general public, and if we agree to an international law, our participation will be unconstitutional.

Right, the Constitution places those decisions on treating accused foreign located terrorists in the hands of Congress and the President.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There is no mention (that I can find) of an exception in which "aid and comfort" (on foreign soil or otherwise) that precludes a trial in which we can assassinate an american citizen. ( I fully recognize the possibility that there may have been a firefight where he was actively shooting at people, but I haven't seen it)

This is the best I could find in short term, and it seems to make a lot of sense.

If you or anyone else has a better legal justification, I'd like to see it (seriously!). I don't like it when our government does unconstitutional things, the repercussions of which could increase "big brother's" reach, and I'd be happy to brush it off.

treason legal definition of treason. treason synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

The Constitution names the President Commander in Chief. Check. It allows Congress to declare war. Check. What else do you expect of the Constitution in this case?

Let's not forget that the big bad Al Qaeda boogeyman was also in cahoots with the CIA and was their dinner guest after the towers fell.

This is all a big charade to get Americans accustomed to cheering for assassinations. Seems to be working pretty well.


EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined At The Pentagon Just Months After 9/11 | Fox News

So the CIA "made" these guys. So what? They are waging war against us, and for that they should die. Or stop. Their choice.

How's that complaint going?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I have read a good deal on those conventions, but no matter what they say, they cannot preclude the constitution. Remember, international law seeks to reduce if not ban outright, guns for the general public, and if we agree to an international law, our participation will be unconstitutional.

Those are the rules of war most Nations have agreed to play by; they're the ones WE'VE agreed to play by. This guy renounced any constitutional protections he had when he advocated terroristic revolution against the United States and its citizens while living (he thought) untouchably in another country. He (and you) found out differently.

 

[bigg cheese]

That said, this individual gave up his citizenship by becoming an enemy combatant.

Currently (unless I'm shown differently), citizenship can be renounced only by giving to another state. Al Qaeda is not a state.

I gave you a cite to his case. In spite of apparent deliberate obtuseness, here's the Court's analysis:

I read it -- no offense intended, but thank you for insulting me

All I see here is "well the president said we can't, so, uh, we can't."

Right, the Constitution places those decisions on treating accused foreign located terrorists in the hands of Congress and the President.

accused? He wasn't accused of anything. No charges were ever brought.

I have no personal doubt that he's a really bad guy and deserved to be killed, but there is a special status for American Citizens, and it exists for a reason -- to give EXTRA, above and beyond, superfluous even, protection so that we don't kill our own without due process. Enemy combatant? Yes. So the ROE says we can and should kill them if they represent a thread. Fine, but there is no mention of Citizens on foreign soil.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He declared himself a pirate outside the bounds of the law.

Those that fly the Jolly Roger die dancing at the end of a rope or get shot in the head.

 

[rambone]

He was not entitled to any "due process", whatsoever.......

If the government says so, neither are you.

To be "eligible" for assassination, you must renounce your citizenship at a minimum by swearing allegiance to another state. Is Al qaeda a state?

Al Qaeda is a worldwide organization that springs up anywhere the U.S. government needs it to in order to fulfill its objectives. The CIA created the group and the U.S. has given them billions of our tax dollars. And now they and their al-CIA-da leader will pave the way for assassinations on-demand in the future of the U.S.S.A.

We all just need to accept that anyone in the world can be labeled a traitor and killed if the CIA wants you dead.

No, it due process does NOT require that in his circumstances, his father brought brought a suit to have him taken off the "targeted killing" list and as the judge in that case said in dismissing the suit, "there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches’ and judicially unreviewable,...this case squarely presents such a circumstance.”

Sounds like another activist judge has turned the constitution on its head and given the President more unreviewable extra-constitutional powers.

His actions resulted in loss of citizenship based on the following:
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);

Why does this red text apply to this case?

If you're not a Paulite are you an Obamatard? How many times do you have to be told?

Childish name-calling as usual. I guess you aren't used to a standard Republican who doesn't get a hard-on over breaking the constitution.

He was engaged in war against the United States. As such he was a viable military target. He was treated as such.

What was the act of war?

Actually, bigg cheese, you need to look at the Geneva & Hague conventions on the rules for dealing with "unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield"; nothing needed beyond a summary court martial and a bullet in the head.

What combat did he engage in?

 

[bigg cheese]

He declared himself a pirate outside the bounds of the law.

Those that fly the Jolly Roger die dancing at the end of a rope or get shot in the head.

Source?

 

[rambone]

"g. Hostile Act. An attack or other use of force against the United

States, US forces, and, in certain circumstances, US nationals, their
property, US commercial assets, and/or other designated non-US forces,
foreign nationals and their property. It is also force used directly to
preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of US forces, including the
recovery of US personnel and vital US Government property (see Glossary
for amplification).​

h. Hostile Intent. The threat of imminent use of force against the
United States, US forces, and in certain circumstances, US nationals,
their property, US commercial assets, and/or other designated non-US
forces, foreign nationals and their property. Also, the threat of force to
preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of US forces, including the
recovery of US personnel or vital USG property (see Glossary for​

amplification)."

OK Mr Awlaki also has commited hosile act and shown hostile intent ROE met x 2 plus original.

What was his hostile act?

The Constitution names the President Commander in Chief. Check. It allows Congress to declare war. Check. What else do you expect of the Constitution in this case?

Has war been declared on Yemen? Or do we just define a warzone as anything beneath a U.S. drone?

This guy renounced any constitutional protections he had when he advocated terroristic revolution against the United States and its citizens while living (he thought) untouchably in another country. He (and you) found out differently.

So all it takes is advocating? Words are now grounds for an extra-judicial CIA assassination. It doesn't matter if he actually engaged in combat or if he resisted in anyway.

The precedent has been set. Now Americans can all cheer at the CIA's assassination tally like we're in a damn hockey game.

 

[bigg cheese]

At least I hope it was like the first hockey game I took my wife to -- first guy to "catch" a puck gets a free pizza. The guy just a couple of seats over had to eat a puck first.

 

[rambone]

With Death of Anwar al-Awlaki, Has U.S. Launched New Era of Killing U.S. Citizens Without Charge?

In response to news of al-Awlaki’s death, constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald and others argue the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process has now has become a reality. "One of the bizarre aspects of it is that media and government reports try to sell al-Awlaki as some grand terrorist mastermind … describing him as the new bin Laden. The United States government needs a terrorist mastermind to replace Osama bin Laden to justify this type of endless war … For a while, al-Awlaki was going to serve that function," Greenwald says. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process … then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets."

 

[femurphy77]

R.I.P.

 

[CarmelHP]

Currently (unless I'm shown differently), citizenship can be renounced only by giving to another state. Al Qaeda is not a state.
[/COLOR][/FONT]



I read it -- no offense intended, but thank you for insulting me

All I see here is "well the president said we can't, so, uh, we can't."



accused? He wasn't accused of anything. No charges were ever brought.

I have no personal doubt that he's a really bad guy and deserved to be killed, but there is a special status for American Citizens, and it exists for a reason -- to give EXTRA, above and beyond, superfluous even, protection so that we don't kill our own without due process. Enemy combatant? Yes. So the ROE says we can and should kill them if they represent a thread. Fine, but there is no mention of Citizens on foreign soil.

No, THERE IS NO SPECIAL STATUS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS when there are on foreign soil and engaged in acts that the President has determined to be acts of war against the United States. There was no insult, it's the truth, you obviously did not read the case, or even the snipet I provided, if that's what you took away from it, not even close to the actual analysis. The Court went through his citizenship and said if he wants Constitutional protections in a U.S. Court then he should turn himself in for trial, otherwise, he gets what he bargained for. He had said he would never turn himself in and called for the U.S. to try to find him. Guess what? He got what he suggested? It's obvious you weren't interested in any actual legal analysis, just to argue and maintain this obtuse rhetorical stance.

 

[60Driver]

He declared himself a pirate outside the bounds of the law.

Those that fly the Jolly Roger die dancing at the end of a rope or get shot in the head.

Temporary thread jack: Kirk not all who fly the "Roger" are bad guys...

Back on topic, Clearly trying to adapt our laws, values and ideals to a new type of conflict and enemy is a VERY difficult process. The debate is healthy and will result in actions and policy that is just and noble. Unfortunately the nature of this conflict is rapidly evolving and those that would see us destroyed operate in the "seems" our body of laws and policys create. Bottom line is this individual was a direct threat to our nation, our way of life and us. He was not arbitrarily declared hostile, he was a BAD MAN. Time Critical actionable intelligence was obtained and we removed a threat. Our laws literally can not keep up with the nature of the threat, so we A. wait for the legislation and its evaluation, and accept the risk that many more innocent civillians, armed forces and friendlies die. OR B. Make the best call we can based on our principles and protect what is dear to us.

I vote B, but understand why many favor A. problem with A is that we will pay for it in our own blood.

 

[rambone]

No, THERE IS NO SPECIAL STATUS FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS when there are on foreign soil and engaged in acts that the President has determined to be acts of war against the United States.

Do you find that troubling, or should we trust that the Executive Branch will always do the right thing without oversight or checks and balances?

I personally do not have that trust.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sounds like another activist judge has turned the constitution on its head and given the President more unreviewable extra-constitutional powers.

Another that did not even read the case before criticizing it. Are you now just phoning this crap in?