'State Secrets' Cited By White House To Block Targeted Killings Suit...

[Madeline]

Terrorist leaders are not IN our military. The UCMJ does not apply nor does the Law of the US apply UNLESS we capture them alive. Which we are not required to do or even attempt. He is an enemy combatant, subject to being killed by the US in any place he happens to be hiding.

The Courts have zero say in it. UNLESS we capture him alive. Obama has the right and authority to order him killed anywhere we find him. Unless he surrenders or he is captured in a raid. There is NO requirement to launch such a raid. There is no justification for the Courts to try and tell the President not to try and kill an enemy Combatant still under arms.

I dun see a distinction between killing Awlaki (if he's guilty) and killing Pablo Escabar. If someone here does, mebbe you could enlighten me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

White House invokes state secrets privilege to block targeted killings suit - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Pretty interesting and controversial issue. This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture. This policy is now being challenged in court. So how do you feel about this White House targeting an American Citizen for death? I'm interested in hearing what people think about this. Thanks.

has he been shown to support them more than just pep rallies? last time (4 or 5 months ago) that I looked into it extensively, he wasn't actual doing anything but cheer leading for them

if this is still the case then its completely wrong, if he has started helping them with mission planning, acquiring weapons, physical training, etc than I am torn.

I believe Awlaki is implicated in the Ft. Bliss shootings, blu.

He is a KNOWN high level leader of a terrorist group that DECLARED WAR ON US. The legal system does not apply unless we capture him alive or he surrenders. There is no requirement we try to capture him, not one. The President is free to order the Military and the CIA to kill him as an armed enemy combatant. The Courts have no say in this. And Obama told them so. LEGALLY.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Terrorist leaders are not IN our military. The UCMJ does not apply nor does the Law of the US apply UNLESS we capture them alive. Which we are not required to do or even attempt. He is an enemy combatant, subject to being killed by the US in any place he happens to be hiding.

The Courts have zero say in it. UNLESS we capture him alive. Obama has the right and authority to order him killed anywhere we find him. Unless he surrenders or he is captured in a raid. There is NO requirement to launch such a raid. There is no justification for the Courts to try and tell the President not to try and kill an enemy Combatant still under arms.

I dun see a distinction between killing Awlaki (if he's guilty) and killing Pablo Escabar. If someone here does, mebbe you could enlighten me.

Pablo Escabar is not or was not waging a DECLARED WAR on the US Government or her people. He is a criminal. The Courts get him. The President has no authority to order the Military to kill him. The CIA might get way with it though.

 

[JBeukema]

If an American citizen were to become the actual head of al qaeda, would the law demand that we are somehow obliged to "try" him as a criminal (treason, perhaps)? Or, would we be within our lawful rights to target the leader of an international organization waging war on the United States (and against whom we ARE at war)?

Maybe if we stopped training people to attack us...

And what if that same American citizen is not the new "head" of al qaeda but is instead just one of that terrorist organization's more active high-echelon members? Does that change the analysis as to whether or not we are legally entitled to target him?

Depends. Are we a police state or a shining beacon of justice and a better society?

If Adolf fucking Hitler had been a joint citizen of Germany and the United States,* would it have been somehow unlawful to target him for death during WWII?

You can't be a joint citizen unless you're a minor. America doesn't recognize dual citizenship. If he'd been a citizen, then he'd have been charged for his crimes (assuming some lone hand didn't kill him).

 

[JBeukema]

If an American citizen were to become the actual head of al qaeda, would the law demand that we are somehow obliged to "try" him as a criminal (treason, perhaps)? Or, would we be within our lawful rights to target the leader of an international organization waging war on the United States (and against whom we ARE at war)?

And what if that same American citizen is not the new "head" of al qaeda but is instead just one of that terrorist organization's more active high-echelon members? Does that change the analysis as to whether or not we are legally entitled to target him?

If Adolf fucking Hitler had been a joint citizen of Germany and the United States,* would it have been somehow unlawful to target him for death during WWII?


__________
* Anwar Awlaki is a joint citizen of the U.S. (having been born in New Mexico) and Yemen.

You are taking enormous liberties with your definition of war.

The SC has already found that the war on terror didn't apply outside Afghanistan. As in indefinite detentions without trial and unlawful combatant status could not be applied to folks, say, kidnapped in Italy.

They can be if and only if they are captured on the battlefield, which is Afghanistan.

And we were at war with Germany. Declared war.

The SCOTUS does NOT get to define "war" for us.

And we are at war with al qaeda, too. Congress authorized it rather explicitly. When Congress authorizes the use by the Commander in chief of our nation's military might, as Congress did here, then we are at war even if the words used by Congress didn't include a captiojn saying "Declaration of War."

I realize that many of you liberals like to quibble about such matters, but that's really just too freaking bad. Congress has already spoken.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

Come to think of it, in fact, the Congressional Resolution may be the definitive answer to the question posed in the OP.

I love vaguely worded laws that write blank checks.

I think you were involved. Congrats, now you have no rights.

Fucking brilliant...

 

[JBeukema]

Al qaeda is an actual organization

NO, it isn't. Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida

 

[Liability]

You are taking enormous liberties with your definition of war.

The SC has already found that the war on terror didn't apply outside Afghanistan. As in indefinite detentions without trial and unlawful combatant status could not be applied to folks, say, kidnapped in Italy.

They can be if and only if they are captured on the battlefield, which is Afghanistan.

And we were at war with Germany. Declared war.

The SCOTUS does NOT get to define "war" for us.

And we are at war with al qaeda, too. Congress authorized it rather explicitly. When Congress authorizes the use by the Commander in chief of our nation's military might, as Congress did here, then we are at war even if the words used by Congress didn't include a captiojn saying "Declaration of War."

I realize that many of you liberals like to quibble about such matters, but that's really just too freaking bad. Congress has already spoken.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

Come to think of it, in fact, the Congressional Resolution may be the definitive answer to the question posed in the OP.

I love vaguely worded laws that write blank checks.

I think you were involved. Congrats, now you have no rights.

Fucking brilliant...

There is, of course, nothing vague in the wording of that relatively brief Resolution. It didn't write any blank checks, either, dipshit. it authorized war and despite your idiotic propensity for undue micro-management of such matters, war doesn't call for much "management" from Congress.

And, despite your hyperbole and sissified wailing, it has cost none of us any of our rights, you douche.

Were you dropped on your head repeatedly at birth? Were you mistaken for a fucking basketball?

 

[Madeline]

I wanna live in JB's world, where all threats to our national security can be safely ignored until we convene a trial.

 

[Liability]

If an American citizen were to become the actual head of al qaeda, would the law demand that we are somehow obliged to "try" him as a criminal (treason, perhaps)? Or, would we be within our lawful rights to target the leader of an international organization waging war on the United States (and against whom we ARE at war)?

Maybe if we stopped training people to attack us...

Maybe we didn't train anybody to attack us. You fucking moron.

And what if that same American citizen is not the new "head" of al qaeda but is instead just one of that terrorist organization's more active high-echelon members? Does that change the analysis as to whether or not we are legally entitled to target him?

Depends. Are we a police state or a shining beacon of justice and a better society?

No. It "depends" on no such dichotomy. We are a nation at war, fucktard. As such, we have a right to kill the fuckers who are at war with us. We had every right to try to kill Hitler and we have every right to try to kill Osama bin Laden, too. Your permission not required. Your contrary opinion not relevant.

If Adolf fucking Hitler had been a joint citizen of Germany and the United States,* would it have been somehow unlawful to target him for death during WWII?

You can't be a joint citizen unless you're a minor. America doesn't recognize dual citizenship. If he'd been a citizen, then he'd have been charged for his crimes (assuming some lone hand didn't kill him).

You are wrong on a variety of levels. First off, if a person is born in the US, the US recognizes his US citizenship. If that same person is born of Yemeni parents (at least his dad is a Yemeni citizen) then Yemen can recognize his Yemeni citizenship. DUAL citizenship. And America does recognize some dual citizenship, too, stupid. And no. Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes. You don't know diddly dick about how the Justice system works.

 

[Madeline]

Liability wrote in part:

Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes.

I agree, but there has to be a credible need to avoid due process. There just isn't one in Awlaki's case. I support the power, just not this particular application.

 

[Liability]

Liability wrote in part:

Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes.

I agree, but there has to be a credible need to avoid due process. There just isn't one in Awlaki's case. I support the power, just not this particular application.

One can be charged in absentia. One cannot be then tried in absentia unless one has been arrested and then fled the jurisdiction.

One need not be "charged" at all, however (in absentia or otherwise) if the conduct that might lead to criminal charges is also conduct which constitutes acts of war. We prosecute for alleged violations of the criminal war. We fight the enemy. "Due process" is a very valid concern of the former. Due process has nothing to do with fighting the enemy in time of war.

Whether or not it would be proper in Awlaki's case may be open to some debate. But to the extent we have not seen whatever military intel implicates him -- or to what degree -- we are not in a position to know whether he is properly subject to the criminal justice system or to treatment merely as an illegal enemy combatant.

If the U.S. had ordered a clandestine military/intelligence "hit" on Adolf Hitler during WWII, is there any actual legal basis to maintain that the judicial system could have or should have had any say in the matter?

 

[Madeline]

We completely agree then, Liability. Unicorns are for children, not the POTUS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Liability wrote in part:

Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes.

I agree, but there has to be a credible need to avoid due process. There just isn't one in Awlaki's case. I support the power, just not this particular application.

You prove once again you are a flaming DUMB ASS. He is a major WARTIME leader in a group AT WAR with us. He has no rights UNLESS he surrenders. We have NO OBLIGATION to try and capture him alive. His citizenship is irrelevant unless he surrenders.

 

[Madeline]

Liability wrote in part:

Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes.

I agree, but there has to be a credible need to avoid due process. There just isn't one in Awlaki's case. I support the power, just not this particular application.

You prove once again you are a flaming DUMB ASS. He is a major WARTIME leader in a group AT WAR with us. He has no rights UNLESS he surrenders. We have NO OBLIGATION to try and capture him alive. His citizenship is irrelevant unless he surrenders.

I did not say we should capture him for trial RGS. (Though be hard to kill him if we never capture him, but that's not my point.) IMO, trial in absentia would be adequate due process, as would a few other alternatives I could think of.

We need Awlaki dead, without a doubt. But do we need him dead today?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree, but there has to be a credible need to avoid due process. There just isn't one in Awlaki's case. I support the power, just not this particular application.

You prove once again you are a flaming DUMB ASS. He is a major WARTIME leader in a group AT WAR with us. He has no rights UNLESS he surrenders. We have NO OBLIGATION to try and capture him alive. His citizenship is irrelevant unless he surrenders.

I did not say we should capture him for trial RGS. (Though be hard to kill him if we never capture him, but that's not my point.) IMO, trial in absentia would be adequate due process, as would a few other alternatives I could think of.

We need Awlaki dead, without a doubt. But do we need him dead today?

Do you READ responses to you? We can not try him in ANY manner unless we hold him at least long enough to charge him. Are you advocating we violate the law to TRY him and not follow the law that allows us to kill him as an enemy combatant?

 

[Madeline]

You prove once again you are a flaming DUMB ASS. He is a major WARTIME leader in a group AT WAR with us. He has no rights UNLESS he surrenders. We have NO OBLIGATION to try and capture him alive. His citizenship is irrelevant unless he surrenders.

I did not say we should capture him for trial RGS. (Though be hard to kill him if we never capture him, but that's not my point.) IMO, trial in absentia would be adequate due process, as would a few other alternatives I could think of.

We need Awlaki dead, without a doubt. But do we need him dead today?

Do you READ responses to you? We can not try him in ANY manner unless we hold him at least long enough to charge him. Are you advocating we violate the law to TRY him and not follow the law that allows us to kill him as an enemy combatant?

I'm saying I don't think he has to be charged in person. It could be done via publication, IMO. And I don't think a traditional criminal trial is our only choice.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ill say the same thing I said when Bush was in office. Some dirty shit is necessary in this dangerous world we live in.

The left might have hoped Obama would stop stuff like this, I think Obama is smart enough that once he was confronted with all the intel, do decide some of this is necessary.

 

[Trajan]

Ill say the same thing I said when Bush was in office. Some dirty shit is necessary in this dangerous world we live in.

The left might have hoped Obama would stop stuff like this, I think Obama is smart enough that once he was confronted with all the intel, do decide some of this is necessary.

In others words, another mugged liberal woke up.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ill say the same thing I said when Bush was in office. Some dirty shit is necessary in this dangerous world we live in.

The left might have hoped Obama would stop stuff like this, I think Obama is smart enough that once he was confronted with all the intel, do decide some of this is necessary.

In others words, another mugged liberal woke up.

You are calling me a liberal? lol Please

 

[Liability]

I did not say we should capture him for trial RGS. (Though be hard to kill him if we never capture him, but that's not my point.) IMO, trial in absentia would be adequate due process, as would a few other alternatives I could think of.

We need Awlaki dead, without a doubt. But do we need him dead today?

Do you READ responses to you? We can not try him in ANY manner unless we hold him at least long enough to charge him. Are you advocating we violate the law to TRY him and not follow the law that allows us to kill him as an enemy combatant?

I'm saying I don't think he has to be charged in person. It could be done via publication, IMO. And I don't think a traditional criminal trial is our only choice.

No. There is a little verbal ambiguity going on here. One CAN be charged with a crime in absentia. For example, Osama bin Laden was never in our hands, yet he was charged with a terrorist act involving an incident prior to 9/11. The charge came in the form of an Indictment.

But since that diseased prick was never in our hands, he could not be tried in absentia. HAD he ever been arrested and brought before a Court of Law to answer to that Indictment, he could later be tried in absentia even if he escaped to some mountain cave in Afghanistan before trial.

If one has never been brought before the Court at all, one cannot be tried in absentia. Not by "publication" and not by any other means.