Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen - Page 2

the_tyrant · 09-30-11, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.

Now I'm not too sure about the process, but what exactly is the process of removing someone's citizenship?

can Obama sign a form or something before hand "kicking him out" of his american citizenship?

joegrundman · 09-30-11, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.

Careful...now you get into the rights of free speech, and does it pass the "imminent lawless action" test. It's not black and white.

out of curiosity - is the united states legally allowed to assassinate non-us citizens in countries, and of countries, that the us is not at war with?

are there defined limits to this?

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 10:03 AM

Wiki:

Quote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

Skybird · 09-30-11, 10:07 AM

Mookie,

so you want to say that killing a man on basis of intel data (that you question in principle anyway) is not okay if he is American, but is okay if he is not American?

Really...?

That would border a nationality-based pendant to racism. Americans are more valuable than non-Americans, "in dubio pro reo" is valid for Americans only, but not for non-Americans.

Mookie, that guy was a terrorist, and a Muhammdan. The first means he was a murderer and master of terrorising people, the secon means his national identity by his passport had no meaning whatever for him.

Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period.

I hope there will be more successes like this in the future. In an ideal world, all of Awlaki's kind would get identified, targetted and taken out. Highly unlikely, but at least one can dream.

Back to my pizza lab now.

mookiemookie · 09-30-11, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period.

I've got to run, but I agree with you here, to a point. Make no mistake about my argument, this is a good thing. The end results are positive here. The guy was scum and the world is a better place without him in it.

I'm simply saying that the ends don't always justify the means. We have a process for a reason. When the process gets circumvented, it raises issues as to why we have the process in the first place, and were the things the process was set in place to ensure really done right. That's all.

tater · 09-30-11, 10:26 AM

Mookie is right here. Note that anyone who complained about gitmo, rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc under Bush should be enraged beyond bounds as this is far worse than all such non-lethal actions combined.

My passport says that joining a foreign military can terminate my citizenship (it says "foreign state"). I think that clearly since 9-11 we should have made that SOP. John Walker Lindh (sp?) should have had his citizenship terminated, for example so he could be dealt with without legal ramifications. There was no need to inform this scumbag Obama just killed, but to dot all the "i"s they should have officially removed his citizenship with the stroke of a pen before ordering him killed. Note that the requirement of it being a "foreign state" needs to be changed in the modern world of deadly, transnational, non-state actors.

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Mookie is right here. Note that anyone who complained about gitmo, rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc under Bush should be enraged beyond bounds as this is far worse than all such non-lethal actions combined.

And why are they not complaining? Why the much vocalized complaints with Bush 2 years ago concerning Gitmo and water boarding, etc. yet nothing but silence from the same folks concerning this?

Osmium Steele · 09-30-11, 10:52 AM

Somebody call Hell. See what the temperature is down there. Must be getting chilly, because I find myself agreeing with Mookie again.

(BTW: the scariest thing written above is "President Mookie". /shiver)

USC|18|2381 only applies if the person has been convicted of treason.

Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the U.S. As an american citizen, the federal government had no legal basis to order his death, period.

The evidence was voluminous. He could have been tried in abscentia, but that never happened.

For the non-americans here, yes, his being an american citizen vs. non-citizen is very important in U.S. law, as the United States Constitution specifically prohibits the government from acting in this manner, against a citizen, without due process of law.

That being said... ...

Glad he's dead.

MothBalls · 09-30-11, 10:55 AM

I have a problem with this. If you read his profile on Wikipedia, and of course I have no idea if it is correct, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Awlaki, nor do I know if his citizenship was legally revoked or not, it states he had dual citizenship in the US and Yemen.

Regardless of the circumstance, ordering the execution of any citizen without due process goes against everything that this country was founded on and what we stand for. Everyone should be afforded due process and the laws of the land should not be set aside when convenient.

None of us here will ever know all of the facts, the whole story, what intelligence was used, etc. Again, regardless, the bottom line is an American Citizen was executed without due process. That is just wrong.

tater · 09-30-11, 10:59 AM

Note that an American who dies in any attack on an otherwise legit target is not at issue. In this case, however, the American was in fact the primary target.

I'm fine with this POS getting killed, but it is because I think the second he joined the enemy he ceased to be a US citizen. I'd be fine with removing citizenship for anyone joining, or materially supporting any terrorist organization on the US list of such organizations.

The trouble is that our passports as of yet to not state this. Like the very notion of "declared war," and even the Geneva Convention, they depend on the anachronistic concept of a "state." I think that the first thing we should have done post-911, having decided it was "war," would have been to establish new rules for non-state aligned troops. I'd say that operating out of uniform, and violating other "rules of war" renders them in fact "outlaws." Meaning "outside the law," and receiving NO legal rights whatsoever. Legally non-persons.

mookiemookie · 09-30-11, 10:59 AM

Ron Paul makes a very good point:

Quote:

"He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

"I think what would people ... have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ting-al-awlaki

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 11:04 AM

Quote:

But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

Ok, lets haul in POTUS for questioning.

tater · 09-30-11, 11:19 AM

Note that removing citizenship can require a judge, even in absentia. CIA, etc goes to a cleared judge, presents evidence that the target is a bad guy associated with an organization on the State Dept. list, and the judge signs off. The guy is now just an enemy troop awaiting his virgins.

Simple solution, well within what the spirit of what is on my passport is (just correcting for non-state entities), and solves the hairy legal issues.

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 11:22 AM

Quote:

The guy is now just an enemy troop awaiting his virgins.

Osmium Steele · 09-30-11, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegrundman

out of curiosity - is the united states legally allowed to assassinate non-us citizens in countries, and of countries, that the us is not at war with?

are there defined limits to this?

To my knowledge, there is no current statute/ordinance/law etc. prohibiting the federal government from such action. Such a law would be idiocy in the extreme.

Pres. Gerald Ford signed an executive order prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state, but iirc, George W. Bush recinded that order.

09-30-11, 10:07 AM	#19
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,698 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Mookie, so you want to say that killing a man on basis of intel data (that you question in principle anyway) is not okay if he is American, but is okay if he is not American? Really...? That would border a nationality-based pendant to racism. Americans are more valuable than non-Americans, "in dubio pro reo" is valid for Americans only, but not for non-Americans. Mookie, that guy was a terrorist, and a Muhammdan. The first means he was a murderer and master of terrorising people, the secon means his national identity by his passport had no meaning whatever for him. Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period. I hope there will be more successes like this in the future. In an ideal world, all of Awlaki's kind would get identified, targetted and taken out. Highly unlikely, but at least one can dream. Back to my pizza lab now. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-30-11, 10:26 AM	#21
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Mookie is right here. Note that anyone who complained about gitmo, rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc under Bush should be enraged beyond bounds as this is far worse than all such non-lethal actions combined. My passport says that joining a foreign military can terminate my citizenship (it says "foreign state"). I think that clearly since 9-11 we should have made that SOP. John Walker Lindh (sp?) should have had his citizenship terminated, for example so he could be dealt with without legal ramifications. There was no need to inform this scumbag Obama just killed, but to dot all the "i"s they should have officially removed his citizenship with the stroke of a pen before ordering him killed. Note that the requirement of it being a "foreign state" needs to be changed in the modern world of deadly, transnational, non-state actors. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

09-30-11, 10:52 AM	#23
Osmium Steele Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Upper midwest USA Posts: 1,101 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	Somebody call Hell. See what the temperature is down there. Must be getting chilly, because I find myself agreeing with Mookie again. (BTW: the scariest thing written above is "President Mookie". /shiver) USC\|18\|2381 only applies if the person has been convicted of treason. Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the U.S. As an american citizen, the federal government had no legal basis to order his death, period. The evidence was voluminous. He could have been tried in abscentia, but that never happened. For the non-americans here, yes, his being an american citizen vs. non-citizen is very important in U.S. law, as the United States Constitution specifically prohibits the government from acting in this manner, against a citizen, without due process of law. That being said... ... Glad he's dead. __________________ In the month of July of the year 1348, between the feasts of St. Benedict and of St. Swithin, a strange thing came upon England... My U297 build thread

09-30-11, 10:59 AM	#25
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Note that an American who dies in any attack on an otherwise legit target is not at issue. In this case, however, the American was in fact the primary target. I'm fine with this POS getting killed, but it is because I think the second he joined the enemy he ceased to be a US citizen. I'd be fine with removing citizenship for anyone joining, or materially supporting any terrorist organization on the US list of such organizations. The trouble is that our passports as of yet to not state this. Like the very notion of "declared war," and even the Geneva Convention, they depend on the anachronistic concept of a "state." I think that the first thing we should have done post-911, having decided it was "war," would have been to establish new rules for non-state aligned troops. I'd say that operating out of uniform, and violating other "rules of war" renders them in fact "outlaws." Meaning "outside the law," and receiving NO legal rights whatsoever. Legally non-persons. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

09-30-11, 11:19 AM	#28
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Note that removing citizenship can require a judge, even in absentia. CIA, etc goes to a cleared judge, presents evidence that the target is a bad guy associated with an organization on the State Dept. list, and the judge signs off. The guy is now just an enemy troop awaiting his virgins. Simple solution, well within what the spirit of what is on my passport is (just correcting for non-state entities), and solves the hairy legal issues. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

09-30-11, 10:55 AM	#24
MothBalls Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,012 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	I have a problem with this. If you read his profile on Wikipedia, and of course I have no idea if it is correct, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Awlaki, nor do I know if his citizenship was legally revoked or not, it states he had dual citizenship in the US and Yemen. Regardless of the circumstance, ordering the execution of any citizen without due process goes against everything that this country was founded on and what we stand for. Everyone should be afforded due process and the laws of the land should not be set aside when convenient. None of us here will ever know all of the facts, the whole story, what intelligence was used, etc. Again, regardless, the bottom line is an American Citizen was executed without due process. That is just wrong.