Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: ACLU objects to killing of al Qaeda leader
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief ... -to-killing-of-al-qaeda-leader
Published: Sep 30, 2011
Author: Erik Wasson
Post Date: 2011-09-30 12:40:46 by Sebastian
Keywords: None
Views: 120020
Comments: 179
The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the killing of the U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by U.S. forces. Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and the ACLU said President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American without due process of law. The White House confirmed the cleric was killed by a U.S. drone attack. “The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said. “As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.” The ACLU said the government only has the authority to kill Americans when a threat is imminent. “It is a mistake to invest the president — any president — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country,” Jaffer said. Ben Wizner, litigation director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, added: “If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.” Obama’s actions also garnered criticism from GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Sebastian (#0)
discussion of legal issues and past related rulings: http://volokh.com/2011/09/30/anwar-al-aulaqi-apparently-killed-by-drone-in-yemen/
Tagline for sale - inquire within
The ACLU seems to forget that our government doesn't care about the law... They do what they WANT. "Due process of law" is for the little people, dontcha' know.......
DUMMY DwarF: ...I'm eating a meatball... http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24347&Disp=35#C35 They do what they WANT. The ACLU seems to forget that our government doesn't care about the law... Neither does the ACLU. They do what they WANT. So does the ACLU.
It's called first degree murder. I know that a lot of people are out thumping their chests today, but without any evidence to the contrary, the only thing we know for sure is that al-Awlaki was posting political opinions on a website. Posting political opinions on a web site is not against the law. Remember, that is what we do here on LF. Also remember, that the very first thing Obama's Department of Homeland Security did was issue a report about homegrown, "right-wing extremists". Tie these two together, along with Obama's constant demonetization of his opponents, and it points to a very bad place.
Nope, it's called war. Under current U.S. law the President has the authority to attack enemy combatants outside of the U.S., regardless of their citizenship/country of origin. See: http://volokh.com/2011/09/30/anwar-al-aulaqi-apparently-killed-by-drone-in-yemen/ and: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/09/al-awlaki-as-an-operational-leader-located-in-a-place-where-capture-was-not-possible/
Tagline for sale - inquire within
We don't need no steenkin' laws.
I guess my question is who really gives a shit about what the ACLU thinks/says in the first place????
"CHANGE" you can step in..... There are a lot of current U.S. laws that violate the Constitution. That's the problem.
Can you please identify the U.S. law to which you refer?
Where is the Declaration of war? Or if there is no declaration of war, which act are you talking about? That way I can see where you think the authority came from.
They are right in this case. Think about it. The president with the ability to play a video game and kill anyone he wants to. Just because he "declared" them an enemy combatant.
Under current U.S. law There are a lot of current U.S. laws that violate the Constitution. That's the problem. When I woke up this morning, it must have been in the Twilight Zone. I agree with the ACLU on this one. BTW -go65 - weren't you once opposed to the so called war on terror? Or was that just when Bush was prez.?
__________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree with the ACLU on this one. I disagree with all those who found an allegedly "good cause" to ignore the Constitution, whether it was Lincoln, Dubya Bush, or Obama. Some future president becomes the sole arbiter of what is a "good cause." Glenn Greenwald spoke to the issue today. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/30/awlaki/index.html Friday, Sep 30, 2011 06:31 ET The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality By Glenn Greenwald [excerpt] From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.
Well commented as usual nolu....though I'm just skimming around here and not reading everything. Missing for most would be the reason for Lincoln in there. Unless they are capable and actually think about it a bit.
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. (decided to retire the beatdowns on old worthless retread posters that are bozoed)
I'm really hoping after the pig in office takes his sow and their droppings out of the WH that somebody in the next Justice Department considers bringing some serious investigations and that they result in criminal charges being proferred. Wouldn't that be a hoot to watch the drroling leftards howl were that to occur:):):)
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. (decided to retire the beatdowns on old worthless retread posters that are bozoed)
I am primarily considering the suspension of habeas corpus. The authority to suspend was not only claimed, but was delegated to military officers. Secretary of War Stanton was the first to suspend it throughout the union, and Lincoln followed that with his own proclamation. Notably, this was in the Northern states. People were picked up, imprisoned without charge, and denied any legal process. Where such actions are justifiable, the people should decline to prosecute or convict, essentially jury nullification. We should not translate justifiable to lawful. It makes for bad precedent. Litigation against the Bush administration was defended by citing Civil War precedents.
Wouldn't that be a hoot to watch the drroling leftards howl were that to occur:):):) I'm convinced if Perry is elected he will have Obama executed.
There will not even be an attempted prosecution for anything, regardless of what Republican may be elected, just as there has been no prosecution of Bush/Cheney.
There will not even be an attempted prosecution for anything, regardless of what Republican may be elected, just as there has been no prosecution of Bush/Cheney. Perry isn't any of those people. He said that the Fed (Obama) was commiting treason if they printed more money. I think they just did that recently didn't they? So that is the punishment for treason. Or do you think Perry was just kidding? Or maybe he is serious but wouldn't follow through with it?
Obama is now the Federal Reserve too? And here I thought they were a private corporation. You Tea Baggers need to stop this silliness if you ever expect to be taken seriously.
Perry's babble is meaningless political rhetoric. Treason is the one crime defined by the Constitution, and it has been very narrowly defined by the judicial system. The Fed is not Obama, it is an agency. The Fed is not a U.S. citizen. The Fed has not levied war against the United States. U.S. Const., Article 3, Section 3: If candidates for president did what they say during the campaign, GHWB would not have brought any new taxes, Bill Clinton would have delivered a modest middle class tax cut, GWB would have "pa[id] the debt down to a historically low level," and Obama would have rapidly closed Gitmo and be gone from Iraq. They are all full of crap, both parties. Pay more attention to what they do, and less attention to what they say.
I do not make the argument but in El– Shifa, 607 F.3d at 841, the issue of the political question doctrine was raised i.e. "this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion — that 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. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance. The political question doctrine requires courts to engage in a fact-specific analysis of the “particular question” posed by a specific case ......" That would be an opinion of the court in case law, would it not? Does that mean the political question doctrine means the Executive Branch can get away with killing a US citizen without due process and not be held accountable except by the ballot?
BRAVO!
[go65 #5] Under current U.S. law the President has the authority to attack enemy combatants outside of the U.S., regardless of their citizenship/country of origin. [Sebastien #22I do not make the argument but in El– Shifa, 607 F.3d at 841, the issue of the political question doctrine was raised i.e. "this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion — that 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. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance. The political question doctrine requires courts to engage in a fact-specific analysis of the “particular question” posed by a specific case ......" That would be an opinion of the court in case law, would it not? El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836, 841 (D.C. Cir. 2010) I believe el-Shifa would not be an opinion of the court in case law, at least not in the sense of deciding anything about the issue other than that the court could not decide it or render any opinion on it, at least not in the sense you appear to convey. It is the same as the al-Aulaqi case. The court stated it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. It's only "opinion" was that it was asked to answer a non-justiciable political question. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The case was dismissed. The court did not decide the issue of whether the President has the authority to atttack enemy combatants outside the U.S., regardless of their citizenship/country of origin. It decided that the Plaintiff's question was not proper for the court to decide. I would have to question this claim of go65 on a few points. I am unaware of current U.S. law that affirmatively grants such authority as that claimed. I do not know what law was being considered. The use of the term enemy combatants appears imprecise. I believe the more appropriate term would be unlawful combatants. In this context, I would question whether whether al-Aulaqi fits the description of any sort of combatant. The CIA action appears to be the targeted assassination of an American citizen. Assassination appears to be prohibited by EO12333 of 1981 (Reagan), Section 2.11. - - - Doc 1 - Al-Aulaqi v Obama, DCDC 10-1469, COMPLAINT Re Targeted Killing - - - Al-Aulaqi v Obama, USDC DCDC 1-10-cv-01469, Doc 31, OPINION (07dec2010) At 4: "Because these questions of justiciability require dismissal of this case at the outset, the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum." The reference to a non-judicial forum is to a Legislative forum, i.e., Congress. = = = = = el-Shifa OPINION of the Court at 6-7: el-Shifa OPINION of the Court at 27: Straightforward application of our precedent makes clear that the plaintiffs face such an obstacle here. Under the political question doctrine, the foreign target of a military strike cannot challenge in court the wisdom of retaliatory military action taken by the United States. Despite their efforts to characterize the case differently, that is just what the plaintiffs have asked us to do. The district court’s dismissal of their claims is Affirmed. Docket Report - el-Shifa v USA, USCA DC Cir 07-1514, Docketed 31may2007 Termed 08jun2010 - - - el-Shifa v USA, USCA DC Cir 07-5174, OPINION (8jun2010) (political question) - - - Here are some documents that touch on the topic. - - - - - - Military Commissions Act of 2006, S3930 - - - Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat 224; PL 107-40; SJ Res 18sep2001 - - - - - - The WAR POWERS Resolution of 1973 - Text and Records From Congress - - - Page 14, paragraph 2.11: - - -
How about unlawful enemy combatant? certainly fits the bill..especially with his fingerprints on the diaper bomb. I also question Al-Aulaqi's right to claim citizenship in the United States as well as the legal standing for his father to bring the lawsuit.
certainly fits the bill..especially with his fingerprints on the diaper bomb. I also question Al-Aulaqi's right to claim citizenship in the United States as well as the legal standing for his father to bring the lawsuit. I believe that was al-Asiri, not al-Aulaqi. http://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24576&Disp=1 The FBI pulled al-Asiri's fingerprint off that bomb. Authorities also believe he built the bombs that al Qaeda slipped into printers and shipped to the U.S. last year in a nearly catastrophic attack. As far as I know al-Aulaqi was born in the USA, making him a natural born citizen. His citizenship does not appear to be contestable. Dual citizenship does nothing to deprive one of U.S. citizenship. His father was found to lack standing to bring the lawsuit. The subject matter has also been judicially determined to be a non-judicial political question (generally, whether a President has the authority under a claim of national security to assign someone to a kill list, to be killed in the absence of any legal process.) The Executive has claimed the authority. The Judiciary has punted to the Legislature. The Legislature has played see no evil, hear no evil, do nothing. The Executive can continue to do as it pleases as long as neither of the other branches acts on the issue. Unlawful combatant requires foremost that one be a combatant. I fail to see how al-Aulaqi could be a lawful combatant, unlawful combatant, unlawful enemy combatant, or any other invention of combatant. al-Aulaqi was neither indicted nor charged, much less convicted of anything. He gave speeches, but I don't believe talking rises to the level of military combat. I am unaware of al-Aulaqi having engaged in any combat. We killed both a Yemini and a U.S. citizen, in Yemen. It was certainly an international act. The claim of his being a combatant is further diminished as any sort of defense or justification when the kill action is attributed not to our military, but to the CIA. The following is from an international court and addresses how the matter of POW or protected status is seen by the international community. http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mucic/tjug/en/cel-tj981116e.pdf UNITED NATIONS, International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Case No.: IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998 See Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) (Celebici) 16 November 1998, Part III B, Applicable law, pp 97-111, para 236-277, quoted below para 265-277, footnotes omitted. 266. This interpretation of the Convention is fully in accordance with the development of the human rights doctrine which has been increasing in force since the middle of this century. It would be incongruous with the whole concept of human rights, which protect individuals from the excesses of their own governments, to rigidly apply the nationality requirement of article 4, that was apparently inserted to prevent interference in a State’s relations with its own nationals. Furthermore, the nature of the international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina reflects the complexity of many modern conflicts and not, perhaps, the paradigm envisaged in 1949. In order to retain the relevance and effectiveness of the norms of the Geneva Conventions, it is necessary to adopt the approach here taken. As was recently stated by Meron, 267. Article 4(A) of the Third Geneva Convention sets rather stringent requirements for the achievement of prisoner of war status. Once again, this provision was drafted in light of the experience of the Second World War and reflects the conception of an international armed conflict current at that time. Thus, the various categories of persons who may be considered prisoners of war are narrowly framed. 268. In the present case, it does not appear to be contended that the victims of the acts alleged were members of the regular armed forces of one of the parties to the conflict, as defined in subparagraph 1 of the article. Neither, clearly, are sub-paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 applicable. Attention must, therefore, be focused on whether they were members of militias or volunteer corps belonging to a party which: (a) were commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) had a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; (c) carried arms openly; and (d) conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Alternatively, they could have constituted a levée en masse, that is, being inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously took up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, and at all times they carried arms openly and respected the laws and customs of war. 269. The Prosecution seeks to invoke the provisions of Additional Protocol I to interpret and clarify those of article 4(A)(2) and wishes to take a liberal approach to the detailed requirements that the sub-paragraph contains. Even should this be accepted, and despite the discussion above of the need to take a broad and flexible approach to the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, the Trial Chamber finds it difficult, on the evidence presented to it, to conclude that any of the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment satisfied these requirements. While it is apparent that some of the persons detained in the ^elebi}i prison-camp had been in possession of weapons and may be considered to have participated to some degree in ‘hostilities’, this is not sufficient to render them entitled to prisoner of war status. There was clearly a Military Investigating Commission established in Konjic, tasked with categorising the ^elebi}i detainees, but this can be regarded as related to the question of exactly what activities each detainee had been engaged in prior to arrest and whether they posed a particular threat to the security of the Bosnian authorities. Having reached this conclusion, it is not even necessary to discuss the issue of whether the Bosnian Serbs detained in ^elebi}i “belonged” to the forces of one of the parties to the conflict. 270. Similarly, the Trial Chamber is not convinced that the Bosnian Serb detainees constituted a levée en masse. This concept refers to a situation where territory has not yet been occupied, but is being invaded by an external force, and the local inhabitants of areas in the line of this invasion take up arms to resist and defend their homes. It is difficult to fit the circumstances of the present case, as described in Section II above, into this categorisation. The authorities in the Konjic municipality were clearly not an invading force from which the residents of certain towns and villages were compelled to resist and defend themselves. In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians. 271. It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that; [e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view. 272. This position is confirmed by article 50 of Additional Protocol I which regards as civilians all persons who are not combatants as defined in article 4(A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention, and article 43 of the Protocol itself. 273. The Prosecution has further argued that article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention required that, where there was some doubt about the status of the ^elebi}i detainees, they had to be granted the protections of the Convention until that status was determined by a competent tribunal. On this basis, they were “protected persons” and subject to the grave breaches provisions of the Third Convention. While there may, on the basis of this article, have been a duty upon the Bosnian forces controlling the ^elebi}i prison-camp to treat some of the detainees as protected by the Third Geneva Convention until their status was properly determined and thus treat them with appropriate humanity, the Trial Chamber has found that they were not, in fact, prisoners of war. They were, instead, all protected civilians under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Trial Chamber thus bases its consideration of the existence of “grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions” on this latter Convention. (c) Findings 274. On the basis of the above discussion, the Trial Chamber concludes that all of the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment were “persons protected” by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. For the purposes of the application of Article 2 of the Statute, these victims must be regarded as having been in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they were not nationals, being Bosnian Serbs detained during an international armed conflict by a party to that conflict, the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 275. This finding is strengthened by the Trial Chamber’s fundamental conviction that the Security Council, in persistently condemning the widespread violations of international humanitarian law committed throughout the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, indeed, in establishing the International Tribunal to prosecute and punish such violations, did not consider that the protection of the whole corpus of international humanitarian law could be denied to particular groups of individuals on the basis of the provisions of domestic citizenship legislation. The International Tribunal must, therefore, take a broad and principled approach to the application of the basic norms of international humanitarian law, norms which are enunciated in the four Geneva Conventions. In particular, all of those individuals who took no active part in hostilities and yet found themselves engulfed in the horror and violence of war should not be denied the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which constitutes the very basis of the law concerned with such persons. 276. The Trial Chamber does not consider it necessary to discuss at length in the present context the development of the law of the Third Geneva Convention relating to prisoners of war, for even if none of the victims can be viewed as prisoners of war, there is no gap between the Geneva Conventions and they must, therefore, be considered protected civilians, along with the other detainees. This finding does not prejudice the later discussion of whether the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were legitimately entitled to detain all of these civilians. 277. Having decided that Article 2 of the Statute is applicable to the facts of the present case, the Trial Chamber now turns its attention to the application of Article 3, concerning violations of the laws or customs of war. Military Commissions Act of 2006 ‘‘In this chapter: ‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means— ‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or ‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. The obvious legal problem with this is that the definition is pure bullcrap. According to this, an unlawful enemy combatant is whoever some competent tribunal says it is.
Once you read the orginal charter of the ACLU you realize its long held goal is pretty much the same as Al Qaeda's. The destruction of the United States of America. They just employ different tactics. As it says in the charter they will use the US Constitution to destroy the country from within - rough paraphrasing, but its 'in there'.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Do you stay up late **thinking** of stupid things to write, Boof? The ACLU was deemed so "subversive" that its founder was used as a civil liberties consultant as they US rebuilt the world aftr WWII. /twit
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's pretty clear that such a "determination" about this asshole was so made.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
You deny the government did it. You are aiding them. You can be targeted for assassination anytime.
Wha...huh?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Please show the slightest evidence that al-Aulaqi had anything to do with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011." Please show that "appropriate force" permits targeted assassination. While the AUMF related to September 11, 2001 is often cited, that AUMF is directly related to the events of 9/11. Also, the AUMF authorizes the use of military force under specified conditions. The CIA is not military. The non-uniformed CIA operatives would fall under the category of unlawful combatants. U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional. This argument will not be ultimately resolved until Congress directly addresses it, and the judicial branch rules on it. There are problems with the attempt to contort the law to hold as lawful, targeted assassination, absent any due process, based solely on bureaucratic placement on a list. Would it be proper and lawful for Yemen or some other country to declare the Wall Street banksters a terrorist organization, posing a threat to the national security of the world, and initiate attacks upon Wall Street?
He met with and, IIRC, harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers and became an integral member of AQ as a spokesman and a plotter and had himself called for "jihad" against the US and acts of terror against us. Please show that "appropriate force" permits targeted assassination. Please show me where "appropriate force" means "Shoot but not kill". Thanks. And we killed Izzy Yamamoto... While the AUMF related to September 11, 2001 is often cited, that AUMF is directly related to the events of 9/11. And the Delcaratio of War on 12/8/41 was directly related to the events of 12/7/41. That said, the resolution, as I highlighted, extends to those who gave aid and comfort to the plotters or were members of the organization. You may also wish to consider that the resolution clearly states that under the USCON a POTUS may take military action to kill terrorists. U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional. The Congress is charged with making the rules for war and the use of the military. Were the B/R effective in restrainiing all acts and orders of the executive in his role as CIC, any use of the military resulting in death would be so violative of 5A. This argument will not be ultimately resolved until Congress directly addresses it, and the judicial branch rules on it. The Congress did when in its 9/18/01 resolution it authorized force against AQ. On the juducial branch ruling - we agree. I'm not the one who will be disappointed were it to be so adjudicated.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
As far as I know, he stood neither indicted nor charged with any criminal act, much less tried or convicted. I know of no assertion that he "harbored" 9/11 hijackers. Even if there were evidence that two people who later became hijackers stayed with him, absent knowledge that he was a co-conspirator with foreknowledge of future criminal plans, it's nothing. In 2000, he met two of the future hijackers at his mosque in San Diego. The FBI investigated and found no cause to detain al-Aulaqi. The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki While in San Diego, he preached at a local mosque, where in 2000 he met two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The FBI questioned him at the time but found no cause to detain him. The U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report says the men 'respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.' They were aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. He then preached at a mosque in Virginia before leaving the U.S. to return to the Middle East where he rose to become one of the CIA's most wanted. After 9/11 al-Awlaki became the public face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and one of the CIA's most wanted men in the world. Counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Yemen has improved in recent weeks, allowing better intelligence-gathering on al-Awlaki's movements, U.S. officials said. The ability to better track him was a key factor in the success of the strike, U.S. officials said. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. Al-Awlaki's death is the latest in a run of high-profile kills for America under President Obama. But the killing raises questions that the death of other al-Qaida leaders, including bin Laden, did not. Al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, who had not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial. - - - Thanks. And we killed Izzy Yamamoto... Please show where AUMF pertains to anything other than military force in combat? How do you translate it to non-military force engaged in assassination? Do you really find the status of American/Yemini citizen Al-Aulaqi comparable to that of Admiral (Japanese Naval General) Yamamoto? - - - [war #33] And the Delcaratio[n] of War on 12/8/41 was directly related to the events of 12/7/41. That said, the resolution, as I highlighted, extends to those who gave aid and comfort to the plotters or were members of the organization. You may also wish to consider that the resolution clearly states that under the USCON a POTUS may take military action to kill terrorists. You cannot possibly equate a general declaration of a state of war existing between two nations with the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Your interpretation of the AUMF makes it an open-ended authorization to kill anybody, anywhere, by the non-military CIA, based solely on the person's name being placed on some assassination or kill list. (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. Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Section 4 of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced— (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hour's to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad. (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months. - - -
[war #33] The Congress is charged with making the rules for war and the use of the military. Were the B/R effective in restrainiing all acts and orders of the executive in his role as CIC, any use of the military resulting in death would be so violative of 5A. Of course, nobody asserted that "the B/R [is] effective in restrainiing all acts and orders of the executive in his role as CIC." The 5th Amendment has no applicability to killing in accordance with the laws of war. If I am wearing my DoD warsuit and kill a uniformed enemy on the field of battle during a declared war, it is a lawful act according to the laws of war. Killing of American civilians, not on a battlefield, not engaged in combat, not charged with any crime, by non-military CIA, in the complete absence of due process, is a different matter. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He is not the commander-in-chief of anything else. The Congress did when in its 9/18/01 resolution it authorized force against AQ. On the juducial branch ruling on it we agree. I'm not the one who will be disappointed were it to be so adjudicated. This is an incorrect assumption. The U.S. Courts have repeatedly ruled that it is a political question that has not been decided. If your interpretation were judicially accepted, the Courts would have had subject matter jurisdiction to rule. I believe it will not be adjudicated while it is a real and present issue. When it is no longer the same real and present issue, the court may rule. At such time, a judicial ruling would find the action to be unlawful. Basically, the judiciary has somewhat of a history of tolerating or finding ways not to comdemn some Executive Department action during some claimed time of necessity, and then properly opining later that it was unlawful. This may be in recognition of the established fact that if it rules against the Executive, and the President decides to flip them off as Lincoln did in the Merryman case, there is not much the judiciary can do but take note of it and bide its time. After the Civil War came the case of Ex parte Milligan which spoke directly to the issue of the so-called Law of Necessity which was invoked repeatedly during the war. THE LAW OF NECESSITY The alleged "LAW OF NECESSITY" as addressed by the Supreme Court in 1866: United States Supreme Court, Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866), pages 118-127: "that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment by a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor be deprived And the sixth guarantees the right of trial by jury, in such manner and with such regulations that, with upright judges, impartial juries, and an able bar, the innocent will be saved and the guilty punished. It is in these words: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." These securities for personal liberty thus embodied were such as wisdom and experience had demonstrated to be necessary for the protection of those accused of crime. And so strong was the sense of the country of their importance, and so jealous were the people that these rights, highly prized, might be denied them by implication, that, when the original Constitution was proposed for adoption, it encountered severe opposition, and, but for the belief that it would be so amended as to embrace them, it would never have been ratified. Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times Have any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution been violated in the case of Milligan?, and, if so, what are they? Every trial involves the exercise of judicial power, and from what source did the military commission that tried him derive their authority? Certainly no part of judicial power of the country was conferred on them, because the Constitution expressly vests it "in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," and it is not pretended that the commission was a court ordained and established by Congress. They cannot justify on the mandate of the President, because he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws, and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction." But it is said that the jurisdiction is complete under the "laws and usages of war." It can serve no useful purpose to inquire what those laws and usages are, whence they originated, where found, and on whom they operate; they can never be applied to citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed. This court has judicial knowledge that, in Indiana, the Federal authority was always unopposed, and its courts always open to hear criminal accusations and redress grievances, and no usage of war could sanction a military trial there for any offence whatever of a citizen in civil life in nowise Why was he not delivered to the Circuit Court of Indiana to be proceeded against according to law? No reason of necessity could be urged against it, because Congress had declared penalties against the offences charged, provided for their punishment, and directed that court to hear and determine them. And soon after this military tribunal was ended, the Circuit Court met, peacefully transacted its business, and adjourned. It needed no bayonets to protect it, and required no military aid to execute its judgments. It was held in a state, eminently distinguished for patriotism, by judges commissioned during the Rebellion, who were provided with juries, upright, intelligent, and selected by a marshal appointed by the President. The government had no right to conclude that Milligan, if guilty, would not receive in that court merited punishment, for its records disclose that it was constantly engaged in the trial of similar offences, and was never interrupted in its administration of criminal justice. If it was dangerous, in the distracted condition of affairs, to leave Milligan unrestrained of his liberty because he "conspired against the government, afforded aid and comfort to rebels, and incited the people to insurrection," the law said arrest him, confine him closely, render him powerless to do further mischief, and then present his case to the grand jury of the district, with proofs of his guilt, and, if indicted, try him according to the course of the common law. If this had been done, the Constitution would have been vindicated, the law of 1863 enforced, and the securities for personal liberty preserved and defended. Another guarantee of freedom was broken when Milligan was denied a trial by jury. The great minds of the country The discipline necessary to the efficiency of the army and navy required other and swifter modes of trial than are furnished by the common law courts, and, in pursuance of the power conferred by the Constitution, Congress has declared the kinds of trial, and the manner in which they shall be conducted, for offences committed while the party is in the military or naval service. Everyone connected with these branches of the public service is amenable to the jurisdiction which Congress has created for their government, and, while thus serving, surrenders his right to be tried by the civil courts. All other persons, citizens of states where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guaranteed the inestimable privilege of trial by jury. This privilege is a vital principle, underlying the whole administration of criminal justice; it is not held by sufferance, and cannot be frittered away on any plea of state or political necessity. When peace prevails, and the authority of the government is undisputed, It is claimed that martial law covers with its broad mantle the proceedings of this military commission. The proposition is this: that, in a time of war, the commander of an armed force (if, in his opinion, the exigencies of the country demand it, and of which he is to judge) has the power, within the lines of his military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies and subject citizens, as well as soldiers to the rule of his will, and, in the exercise of his lawful authority, cannot be restrained except by his superior officer or the President of the United States. If this position is sound to the extent claimed, then, when war exists, foreign or domestic, and the country is subdivided into military departments for mere convenience, the commander of one of them can, if he chooses, within his limits, on the plea of necessity, with the approval of the Executive, substitute military force for and to the exclusion of the laws, and punish all persons as he thinks right and proper, without fixed or certain rules. The statement of this proposition shows its importance, for, if true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by law. Martial law established on such a basis destroys every guarantee of the Constitution, and effectually renders the "military independent of and superior to the civil power" -- the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence. Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln, and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew -- the history of the world told them -- the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued human foresight could not tell, and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus. It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested It will be borne in mind that this is not a question of the power to proclaim martial law when war exists in a community and the courts and civil authorities are overthrown. Nor is it a question what rule a military commander, at the head of his army, can impose on states in rebellion to cripple their resources and quell the insurrection. The jurisdiction claimed is much more extensive. The necessities of the service during the late Rebellion required that the loyal states should be placed within the limits of certain military districts and commanders appointed in them, and it is urged that this, in a military sense, constituted them the theater of military operations, and as, in this case, Indiana had been and was again threatened with invasion by the enemy, the occasion was furnished to establish martial law. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If armies were collected in Indiana, they were to be employed in another locality, where the laws were obstructed and the national authority disputed. On her soil there was no hostile foot; if once invaded, that invasion was at an end, and, with It is difficult to see how the safety for the country required martial law in Indiana. If any of her citizens were plotting treason, the power of arrest could secure them until the government was prepared for their trial, when the courts were open and ready to try them. It was as easy to protect witnesses before a civil as a military tribunal, and as there could be no wish to convict except on sufficient legal evidence, surely an ordained and establish court was better able to judge of this than a military tribunal composed of gentlemen not trained to the profession of the law. It follows from what has been said on this subject that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society, and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration, for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war. Because, during the late Rebellion, it could have been enforced in Virginia, where the national authority was overturned and the courts driven out, it does not follow that it should obtain in Indiana, where that authority was never disputed and justice was always administered. And so, in the case of a foreign invasion, martial rule may become a necessity in one state when, in another, it would be "mere lawless violence." Regarding the Japanese relocation program, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the authorities could restrict movement by curfew order,1 or by regulation excluding them from defined areas,2 but a citizen of Japanese ancestry whose loyalty was conceded could not be detained in a relocation camp.3 1. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). Were a president to determine that such a class of people were to be placed on a kill list and exterminated, it would clearly be a war crime. At what point does a kill list and the resulting kills become a war crime? After the fact, the detention of loyal citizens of Japanese ethnicity is considered shameful. Not to belabor the obvious, but we did not also detain loyal citizens of German or Italian ethnicity. Detention or restriction of resident aliens, still citizens of Germany or Italy, did take place but teir status was quite different than that of an American citizen. They were citizens of a foreign power with whom we were at war.
"that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment by a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor be deprived War isn't a constitutionalists. He says he is but it is just to give him cover as he attacks it. Ever notice he always taxes the position of the elites in DC?
Please cite your authority for claiming that a) the resolution requires that all military actions be "combat" when the resolution clearly states "all necessary and appropriate force" and that command and control structures and personnel would be immune from any type of military strike or that b) a drone attack is not "military force"? And please don't cite wikipedia as being some sort of authority. Thanks. You do know that the Ft. Hood shooter is not being tried in civilian court? You cannot possibly equate a general declaration of a state of war existing between two nations with the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Your interpretation of the AUMF makes it an open-ended authorization to kill anybody, anywhere, by the non-military CIA, based solely on the person's name being placed on some assassination or kill list. AUMF dated 9/18/01 is not a general declaration of a state of war between two nations. It is a resolution which authorized the use of military force against AQ to both retaliate for the 9/11 attack and to thwart future attcks from the same organization. "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." The resolution cannot be interpreted in the narrow sense that you want it to be which would be to allow for force for who the hell knows what. The resolution specifically authorizes preemptive strikes to thwart future acts of terrorism by AQ. The Congress understood this when it required DumbDubv43 to seek a separate resolution to invade Iraq. I doubt that you'd find 5 Congressmen who would agree that the original 9/18/01 resolution did not authorize continued action against AQ anywhere they may be. As for you citation of the War Powers Act, what makes you believe that Obama is not consulting with the Congress?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
The Resolution does not limit the use of force to that which can only be undertaken by the military. If you believe that it does please cite the appropriate section of the resolution which so limits the use of force to that initiated by the military.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Shh...watch and learn for once...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
I am watching. I'm watching nolu chan kick your ass.
You're not learning. He's all over the map. It's the old "discovery" trick...spam information while not addressing the issue...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
He already played his trump card. You can't win. U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional.
Your contention about what the 9/11 commission "discovered" about al-awlaki seems to be incorrect. By 2002, intelligence strongly indicated Al Awlaki had already been brought into Al Qaeda’s inner sanctum—perhaps even personally anointed by Osama Bin Laden himself years before the Sept. 11, 2001 plot was hatched. Analysts speculated that because of Al Awlaki’s cultural understanding of America and his fluent English, he very possibly may have been trusted enough to play a key role in the 9/11 attack. Some counterterrorism experts believe Al Awlaki may have been one of a number of still-unidentified people who facilitated the needs of the 9/11 hijackers while they were in the United States. Anthony Shaffer, a veteran counterterrorism intelligence officer and retired Army lieutenant colonel, told Homeland Security Today in an e-mail interview that “we missed Awlaki and his support for Al Qaeda both before and after 9/11, and the fact is this: This whole episode is indicative that a fifth cell of Al Qaeda—the support cell from the 9/11 attacks that Awlaki was part of—remains active and in place within the United States.” While Shaffer was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 1995 as a senior intelligence officer for operations, he created Task Force Stratus Ivy. This operation provided the full spectrum of intelligence support for the Department of Defense, including the Special Operations Command. Stratus Ivy also supported the controversial counterterrorism project known as Able Danger—a pre-9/11 offensive operation designed to detect, degrade and counter Al Qaeda capabilities. It employed a system that data-mined information from both open source and classified intelligence for linkages. Shaffer claimed DIA failed to properly evaluate evidence uncovered by ABLE DANGER of an impending attack, and that it had identified eventual 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and others as likely having something to do with it. By early 2002, Al Awlaki had emerged on the radar of virtually every intelligence agency, and he apparently knew it, too, counterterrorism officials told Homeland Security Today. That’s when he suddenly left the United States and successfully avoided direct inquiry into his possible role in the 9/11 attacks by a variety of investigating panels and committees. Both the 9/11 Commission and congressional probes judged that Al Awlaki’s dealings with some of the 9/11 hijackers were suspicious. “The [Federal Bureau of Investigation] FBI failed to fully investigate him before he left the country in 2002,” stated a comprehensive timeline of Al Awlaki’s life and terrorist ties that was officially prepared by a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counterterrorism analyst. Shaffer affirmatively believes that “there is evidence that … Awlaki was an Al Qaeda support asset [in the US] before the 9/11 attacks by the fact that he sponsored and helped move two of the 9/11 hijackers,” Shaffer told Homeland Security Today, “and, what is worse, he was probably thought by the US government to be working for them as a double agent.” Continuing, Shaffer said “he not only was approached by the FBI or other US government agencies to be an 'asset,’ he probably accepted recruitment but remained loyal to Al Qaeda,” something Shaffer believes “no one in government or on the Hill are willing to explore … because of the embarrassment.” “I am not sure I could refute any of his points,” a former military intelligence officer told Homeland Security Today, adding, “of course we would try to recruit Awlaki, that’s what ‘we’ do is try to flip people on the inside.”
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Shhhh...you're a ten cent mind in a million dollar world right now...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Yes, just as you know he was on active duty with the U.S. military and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Military Court Martial, as provided for by the Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, and by 10 U.S.C. He is not subject to trial by Military Commission nor to summary execution. Nor was U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi subject to trial by Military Commission, something quite distinct from a trial by Military Court Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 10 USC 948a on Military Commissions, states: (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter. (8) National security.— The term “national security” means the national defense and foreign relations of the United States. (9) Hostilities.— The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war. § 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter. As for you citation of the War Powers Act, what makes you believe that Obama is not consulting with the Congress? America...My Kind Of Place... If the AUMF said the things you want it to say in your words, you would quote the AUMF language saying it. The act is specific in its language: Take note of all the past tense verbs. It is an authorization to use military force, and military force only, for past actions which had been taken in carrying out or aiding the attack on 9/11. It is not an open ended authorization for the CIA to do anything. It is not an open ended authorization for the President or anyone else to allege someone has some link to AQ or whatever, and to go bomb someplace or commit assassination. al-Aulaqi has not been shown to have been a 9/11 conspirator.
The 9/11 connection Are you kidding, Homeland Security Today? http://www.hstoday.us/channels/federalstatelocal/single-article-page/who-was-anwar-al-awlaki.html There's always the 9/11 Commission proceedings to document the 9/11 Commission proceedings. The Commission stated, "We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hazmi and Mihdhar to reach a conclusion." They expressed "suspicion," but suspicion is generally considered falling short of the proof requisite for execution. 9/11 Commission Report at page 221: When interviewed after 9/11, Aulaqi said he did not recognize Hazmi's name but did identify his picture. Although Aulaqi admitted meeting with Hazmi several times, he claimed not to remember any specifics of what they discussed. He described Hazmi as a soft-spoken Saudi student who used to appear at the mosque with a companion but who did not have a large circle of friends.34 Aulaqi left San Diego in mid-2000, and by early 2001 had relocated to Virginia. As we will discuss later, Hazmi eventually showed up at Aulaqi's mosque in Virginia, an appearance that may not have been coincidental. We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hazmi and Mihdhar to reach a conclusion.35 In sum, although the evidence is thin as to specific motivations, our overall impression is that soon after arriving in California, Hazmi and Mihdhar sought out and found a group of young and ideologically like-minded Muslims with roots in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, individuals mainly associated with Mohdar Abdullah and the Rabat mosque. The al Qaeda operatives lived openly in San Diego under their true names, listing Hazmi in the telephone directory. They managed to avoid attracting much attention. 9/11 Commission Report, 229-30: As we mentioned earlier, one of the imams at this mosque was the same Anwar Aulaqi with whom Hazmi had spent time at the Rabat mosque in San Diego. Aulaqi had moved to Virginia in January 2001. He remembers Hazmi from San Diego but has denied having any contact with Hazmi or Hanjour in Virginia74 in January 2001. At the Dar al Hijra mosque, Hazmi and Hanjour met a Jordanian named Eyad al Rababah. Rababah says he had gone to the mosque to speak to the imam, Aulaqi, about finding work. At the conclusion of services, which normally had 400 to 500 attendees, Rababah says he happened to meet Hazmi and Hanjour. They were looking for an apartment; Rababah referred them to a friend who had one to rent. Hazmi and Hanjour moved into the apartment, which was in Alexandria.75 Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah's story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence ofAulaqi's prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver's license scheme.76
Have you looked at the title recently? Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Or try the first line of the Joint Resolution: "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." You want to cherry pick phrases and forget the rest of the resolution.
The WPA does not impose a requirement to consult with Congress. It imposes a requirement to submit written reports. I don't believe there is a 10-year trail of such reports from GWB and Obama. The WPA at Section 8 provides: SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution. (b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date. (c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities. (d) Nothing in this joint resolution— (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as grantmg any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
I am addressing the specific issue. Does the President have the authority to order the execution of an American citizen with no due process, non-military, not engaged in battle, not accused with taking up arms, neither charged nor convicted of any crime? It was claimed the killing of al-Aulaqi was authorized by U.S. law. I question what law. I continue to question what law contains such an authorization. I have provided complete texts of various laws and resolutions.
Yes you have. Big daddy trump card too.
You have NOT made the case that killing al-alwaki was an act of the executive that is inherently civilian in nature. In point of fact, you have conceded that no such judidical opinion exists. I've cited the resolution whcih clearly authorizes the POTUS to use ALL necessary force - which would incluide an order to "apprehend with lethal force".
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Your authority for this statement is what? He had engaged in hostilities aginst the US by encouraging Jihad. He purposefully and materially supported those hostilities AND he was a member of AQ.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law? How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable: 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... Emphasis mine... What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
No. That does not describe al-alwaki, though.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Quite different from how you chracterized it. What is "flight" evidence of?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
What I, in fact, stated: Please show the slightest evidence that al-Aulaqi had anything to do with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011." Please show that "appropriate force" permits targeted assassination. While the AUMF related to September 11, 2001 is often cited, that AUMF is directly related to the events of 9/11. Also, the AUMF authorizes the use of military force under specified conditions. The CIA is not military. The non-uniformed CIA operatives would fall under the category of unlawful combatants. U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional. This argument will not be ultimately resolved until Congress directly addresses it, and the judicial branch rules on it. There are problems with the attempt to contort the law to hold as lawful, targeted assassination, absent any due process, based solely on bureaucratic placement on a list. Would it be proper and lawful for Yemen or some other country to declare the Wall Street banksters a terrorist organization, posing a threat to the national security of the world, and initiate attacks upon Wall Street? The courts have not ruled on the argument described, i.e., whether a President can order the execution of an American citizen, not a member of any uniformed service, not engaged in any combat, without charge or trial, in the complete absence of due process; i.e., may the President ignore the Constitution.
Your authority for this statement is what? He had engaged in hostilities aginst the US by encouraging Jihad. He purposefully and materially supported those hostilities AND he was a member of AQ. I cited, quoted, and provided the complete text of the law. Military commissions only pertain to aliens. al-Aulaqi was a natural born U.S. citizen born in New Mexico, eligible to run for President. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, Section 948c: ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter. Or see Title 10 United States Code 948c (10 U.S.C. 948c) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title10/subtitlea/partii/chapter47a/subchapteri/section948c/ § 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable: 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... Emphasis mine... What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only? When you must cite an authorization to use military force to justify the use of non-military force, you have a problem. The act did not constrain other than military means because it has nothing to do with non-military authority. It neither provides nor constrains what it has nothing to do with. The CIA is not a uniformed force or part of the U.S. Armed forces. CIA operation are constrained inside the United States. I provided the entire text of the resolution. All you had to do is scroll it. I will remove the burden of scrolling. And Section 2, which I assume is part of the resolution: And Section 2(b): (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. Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution is about the use of the United States Armed Forces. Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution: SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
No. That does not describe al-alwaki, though. Does too! I would respond to your specific point but you did not make one.
Quite different from how you chracterized it. What is "flight" evidence of? Of course you "forgot" the other part: You might call that sufficient evidence to execute that American citizen with any charge or trial or due process. I dissent. Under this more recent non-process, all of the Gitmo detainees would have been executed. As it is, almost all the supposed worst of the worst were released with ever being charged with anything.
:) Good one. Ever notice war always takes the government position. Never relents on it even when busted. Maybe that is his job. You know to spout off the government line.
I know what "in fact" you stated. I also know, "in fact" that you did not make your case, i.e. killing al-alwaki was an act of the executive that is inherently civilian in nature.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
The 9/11 Commision Report - a report that you yourself have taken to task on its accuracy (rightly, IMHO) - is no better than a re-created snapshot of a specific time. Over time, more information regarding al-awlki's role in 9/11 and AQ took shape. The report is no better than a "what happened" rather than a "why" it did happen. Given JUST the relationship of al-Awlaki to some of the hijackers alone and knowing the relationship between martyrs in waiting and their Imam. I would have been fully satisfied that he was in the thick of it.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Yep. He supports the Goobermint position no matter how obviously wrong; Of course any impartial, thinking observer of the political arena can easily point out how wrong the goob is on any number of issues. But NOT war. OR yukon. It's almost as though both are paid by the same goob source. But maybe they perform their respective statist clapping seal routine for free, eh? War and yukon clearly represent the opposite sides of the same statist coin.
"It's not surprising, then, they [White Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ~ Comrade-in-Chief Barry Hussein 0bama
Awesome post.
"It's not surprising, then, they [White Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ~ Comrade-in-Chief Barry Hussein 0bama
As opposed to representing the same sides [sic] of the sexual identity coin that YOU share with Yukon.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
You asked me a question which I determined would require one of a "yes" or a "no" in response and, after such determination was made, I then answered it. Why were you expecting a point to be made?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
If you stick to humor like this, you're ok in my book.
"It's not surprising, then, they [White Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ~ Comrade-in-Chief Barry Hussein 0bama
In 1801, President Jefferson denied the authority of himself, as president, to take offensive action without the sanction of Congress. On September 20, 2001, President G.W. Bush said to the nation before a joint session of Congress, "we will meet violence with patient justice." Senator Byrd stated in the Senate on October 1, 2001, "First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack." Senator Byrd, on October 20, 2001, read the White House proposed draft of the AUMF nto the record and pointed out how the Senate had rejected that open-ended language and deliberately changed it and narrowed it. Sen. Byrd explained, "the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack." Senators Warner and Wellstone thanked Sen. Byrd for placing the White House proposed legislation directly into the Congressional Record. Senator Warner commented, "The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11—not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11." Senator Wellstone commented, "I thought it was too broad, too open ended. I think Senator LEVIN did say this, but while you were busy on that appropriations bill, Senator LEVIN was one of the key Senators—along with staff—who really did yeomen’s work to try to have that resolution focus on the September 11 attacks. It was entirely different wording." In 2002, President George W. Bush sought authorization to use military force against Iraq. The resulting joint resolution contained the following: Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; And the Congressional Record for October 9, 2002 shows: Of course, if the AUMF of 2001 actually was an open-ended grant of power as some claim, then there would have been no need for President Bush to seek any resolution to invade Iraq, nor for Congress to debate it at great length. In a letter of August 7, 2002 in response to an inquiry by Sen. Byrd, William Van Alstyne of Duke University School of Law rendered his opinion: In a letter of July 31, 2002 in response to an inquire by Sen. Byrd, Laurance H. Tribe of Harvard University Law School rendered his opinion: Excerpts from the Congressional Record re Authorization to Use of Military Force - - - - - Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Congressional Record, H5632-33, 14 Sep 2011, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Rep. DeFazio. He told Congress that he was ‘‘unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.’’ It further noted that it was up to Congress to authorize ‘‘measures of offense also.’’ I believe maintaining this solemn congressional prerogative to send our young men and women into battle is critical to protecting the delicate balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. This balance of power was carefully crafted by our founders in Philadelphia more than 2 centuries ago and has allowed the United States to remain one of the most stable and enduring democracies in the world. There was a time when such a power was threatened. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in response to the military activities of successive Presidents while waging war in rescuing victims, my heart and my soul soar like an eagle, knowing that this country’s promise is yet ahead; and yet the dark days are still engulfing our memories. - - - - - Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Congressional Record, H5861-62, 20 Sep 2011, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Address to The Nation by the President of the United States, President George W. Bush. - - - - - Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Congressional Record, S9949, 20Sep 2001, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Sen. Byrd. I was reassured by the President’s remarks. But as I delved more deeply into the resolution passed by Congress, I began to have some qualms over how broad a grant of authority Congress gave him in our rush to act quickly. Because of the speed with which it was passed, there was little discussion establishing a foundation for the resolution. Because of the paucity of debate, it would be difficult to glean from the record the specific intent of Congress in approving S.J. Res. 23. There were after-the-fact statements made in the Senate, and there was some debate in the House, but there was not the normal level of discussion or the normal level of analysis of the language prior to the vote that we have come to expect in the Senate. And so I think it is important to take a second look at S.J. Res. 23, to examine its strengths and weaknesses, and to put on record the intent of Congress in passing the resolution. I am not sure we are doing that. Just as this is my speech, just as it is one Senator’s observations, those observations might have been worth a little more had we made them before we passed that resolution in such a great hurry. Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack. Let me at this point read into the RECORD the original text of proposed joint resolution submitted to the Senate leadership by the White House on September 12 this year of our Lord, 2001. [...] And here is the resolving clause that was in the proposed legislation submitted by the White House to the Senate leadership— [...] The resolution as passed by the Senate on September 14 is as follows: [...] 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) 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. - - - - - Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Congressional Record, S9951, 20 Sep 2011, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Sen. Warner. The resolution we adopted, as the Senator from West Virginia said, is much narrower in terms of its authority. The draft we began with, that the White House submitted to us, had unprecedented broad authority, far too broad for most of us. It was unlimited by time and by other limits, as to what the President could do in response to these attacks. The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11—not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11, and also, as the Senator from West Virginia said, made specific reference and inclusion by reference to the provisions of the War Powers Act. Those and other changes in the language of the resolution were significant. Our good friend from West Virginia pointed out that there was much greater care and caution—to use his words—in the final resolution we adopted. I hope history proves that those of us who worked so hard on that final resolution indeed used enough care and caution to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and just good common sense. But history will judge that one—and I hope will judge it well—because the differences between the original draft resolution submitted to us and the one we adopted are indeed significant changes, major changes. - - - - - Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Congressional Record, S9954, 20 Sep 2011, Thanking Senator Byrd, Sen. Wellstone. I say to my colleague that up until about 1 o’clock in the morning, I did not think I could support it. I thought it was too broad, too open ended. I think Senator LEVIN did say this, but while you were busy on that appropriations bill, Senator LEVIN was one of the key Senators—along with staff—who really did yeomen’s work to try to have that resolution focus on the September 11 attacks. It was entirely different wording. But I thank you, Senator BYRD, for what you have done today in this Senate Chamber. - - - - - Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Congressional Record, H7189, 10-08-2002, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, The Speaker. [...] Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; - - - - - Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Congressional Record, H7706, 10-09-2002, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Rep. Becerra. - - - - - Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Congressional Record, S10642, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack, Sen. Byrd (quoting a letter from William Van Alstyne). DUKE UNIVERSITY, Senator ROBERT C. BYRD, DEAR SENATOR BYRD: I am writing in response to your letter of July 22 inquiring whether in my opinion, ‘‘the Bush Administration currently has authority, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into imminent or actual hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from Power.’’ You raise the question because, as you say, in your letter, you are ‘‘deeply concerned about comments by the Bush Administration and recent press reports that our nation is coming closer to war with Iraq.’’ I was away from my office at Duke University During the week when your inquiry arrived. Because you understandably asked for a very prompt response, I am foregoing a fuller, more detailed, statement to you just now, the day just following my reading of your letter, on August 6. I shall, however, be pleased to furnish that more elaborate statement on request. Briefly, these are my views: A. The President may not engage our armed forces in ‘‘war with Iraq,’’ except in such measure as Congress, by joint or concurrent resolutions duly passed in both Houses of Congress, declares shall be undertaken by the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief, i.e., in fulfilling that role, the President is solely responsible for the conduct of whatever measures of war Congress shall authorize. It is not for the President, however, to presume to ‘‘authorize himself’’ to embark on war. Whether the President deems it essential to the National interest to use the armed forces of the United States to make war against one of our neighbors, or to make war against nations yet more distant from our shores, it is all the same. The Constitution requires that he not presumed to do so merely on his own assessment and unilateral order. Rather, any armed invasions of or actual attack on another nation by the armed forces of the United States as an act of war requires decision by Congress before it proceeds, not after the President would presume to engage in war (and, having unilaterally commenced hostilities, then would merely confront Congress with a ‘‘take-it-or-leave it’’ fait accomplis). The framers of the Constitution understood the difference vividly— and made provision against vesting any warinitiating power in the Executive.1 [...] 1 It is today, even as it was when Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris, in September, 1789, referring then to the constitutional clauses putting the responsibility and power to embark on war in Congress rather than in the Executive. And thus Jefferson observed: ‘‘We have given, in example, one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.’’ C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 481 n. 1 (1928). (See also Chief Justice Johnson Marshall’s Opinion for the Supreme Court in Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1,28 (1803) (‘‘The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides.’’) Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Congressional Record, S10644, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack, Sen. Byrd (quoting a letter from Laurence H. Tribe). HON. ROBERT C. BYRD [...] My study of the United States Constitution and its history, as a scholar and teacher of American constitutional law over the past thirty years, has suggested to me no authority for the President, acting as the Commander in Chief, to wage a purely preemptive war against another nation without at least consulting with Congress first, and without obtaining from Congress a formal authorization, whether in the form of a declaration of war or, at the least, a joint resolution expressing the assent of both the House and the Senate—with the exception of so exigent an emergency as to admit of no time for such consultation and authorization without mortal and imminent peril to our nation. [...] As many have famously observed, our Constitution is not a suicide pact. But that exception for cases of self-defense cannot be treated so elastically that the exception threatens to swallow the rule. [...] That said, it remains my view, as I wrote in volume one of the 2000 edition of my treatise, ‘‘American Constitutional Law,’’ § 4–6, at page 665, ‘‘although the Constitution does not explicitly say that the President cannot initiate hostilities without first consulting with and gaining the authentic approval of Congress, that conclusion flows naturally, if not quite inescapably, from the array of congressional powers over military affairs and especially the provisions in Article I, § 8, clause 11, vesting in Congress the power to declare war. To permit the President unilaterally to commit the Nation to war would read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress, and to it alone, the authority ‘to declare war.’ ’’ (Footnotes omitted.) Whether with the aid of the War Powers Resolution of 1973—a resolution that some have regarded as a quasi-constitutional articulation of the boundaries between the Presidency and the Congress—or without regard to that much mooted (and arguably question-begging) assertion of congressional power to draw those boundary lines for itself—one would be hard-pressed to defend the proposition that, simply because the President thinks it inconvenient to bring Congress into his deliberations and to await Congress’s assent, he may suddenly proceed, like the kings and emperors of old, unilaterally to unleash the dogs of war. [...] It seems quite clear that S.J. Res. 23 (Pub. L. No. 107–40), the joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, would not furnish the requisite congressional assent to any such strike against Iraq, or even to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into imminent or actual military hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Unless convincing evidence of Iraq’s involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 were to emerge, that joint resolution could not be said to offer even a fig leaf of cover for such a military campaign. To its credit, the Bush Administration does not appear to have suggested the contrary. Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7268-H7301, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7739-H7799, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Cong Rec S10063-S1007, 10-08-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Cong Rec S10164-S10217, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10233-S10342, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
I didn't need the history lesson. Post 53 asked you several questions, not one of which you answered in your history lesson. Here they are again: Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law? How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable: 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... Emphasis mine... What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Thanks for the reply.
Look Mildred!!! NIGGERS!!!! war posted on 2011-10-03 14:29:18 ET
You obviously did need the history lesson and an update of your short term memory loss. Your untenable position, which my history lesson just viscerated, is that the AUMF of 2001 authorized the action in Yemen of CIA and military in killing American citizen al-Aulaqi. No Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorizes the non-military CIA to do anything. The authorization to do stuff does not come from any military authorization. The AUMF of 2001 was deliberately narrowed from the White House proposed language so that it only pertained to the events in 2001. Here they are again: Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law? Did you not read the resolution text? The heading of Section 2 is in bold faced caps in the original. And Section 2(b): (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. Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution is about the use of the United States Armed Forces. Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution: SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution. As the history lesson from the Congressional Record showed, Let me at this point read into the RECORD the original text of proposed joint resolution submitted to the Senate leadership by the White House on September 12 this year of our Lord, 2001. Cong Rec S9951, Sen. Warner: The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11—not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11, and also, as the Senator from West Virginia said, made specific reference and inclusion by reference to the provisions of the War Powers Act. S9954, Sen Wellstone: S10642, Byrd quoting letter of William Van Alstyne, Duke University, School of Law: DUKE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW, Durham, NC., August 7, 2002. Senator ROBERT C. BYRD, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC DEAR SENATOR BYRD: I am writing in response to your letter of July 22 inquiring whether in my opinion, ‘‘the Bush Administration currently has authority, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into imminent or actual hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from Power.’’ You raise the question because, as you say, in your letter, you are ‘‘deeply concerned about comments by the Bush Administration and recent press reports that our nation is coming closer to war with Iraq.’’ I was away from my office at Duke University During the week when your inquiry arrived. Because you understandably asked for a very prompt response, I am foregoing a fuller, more detailed, statement to you just now, the day just following my reading of your letter, on August 6. I shall, however, be pleased to furnish that more elaborate statement on request. Briefly, these are my views: A. The President may not engage our armed forces in ‘‘war with Iraq,’’ except in such measure as Congress, by joint or concurrent resolutions duly passed in both Houses of Congress, declares shall be undertaken by the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief, i.e., in fulfilling that role, the President is solely responsible for the conduct of whatever measures of war Congress shall authorize. It is not for the President, however, to presume to ‘‘authorize himself’’ to embark on war. Whether the President deems it essential to the National interest to use the armed forces of the United States to make war against one of our neighbors, or to make war against nations yet more distant from our shores, it is all the same. The Constitution requires that he not presumed to do so merely on his own assessment and unilateral order. Rather, any armed invasions of or actual attack on another nation by the armed forces of the United States as an act of war requires decision by Congress before it proceeds, not after the President would presume to engage in war (and, having unilaterally commenced hostilities, then would merely confront Congress with a ‘‘take-it-or-leave it’’ fait accomplis). The framers of the Constitution understood the difference vividly— and made provision against vesting any warinitiating power in the Executive. [1] [...] [1] It is today, even as it was when Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris, in September, 1789, referring then to the constitutional clauses putting the responsibility and power to embark on war in Congress rather than in the Executive. And thus Jefferson observed: ‘‘We have given, in example, one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.’’ C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 481 n. 1 (1928). (See also Chief Justice Johnson Marshall’s Opinion for the Supreme Court in Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1,28 (1803) (‘‘The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides.’’) S10644, Byrd quoting ltr of Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard University, Law School: HARVARD UNIVERSITY, LAW SCHOOL, Cambridge, MA, July 31, 2002 HON. ROBERT C. BYRD [...] It seems quite clear that S.J. Res. 23 (Pub. L. No. 107–40), the joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, would not furnish the requisite congressional assent to any such strike against Iraq, or even to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into imminent or actual military hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Unless convincing evidence of Iraq’s involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 were to emerge, that joint resolution could not be said to offer even a fig leaf of cover for such a military campaign. To its credit, the Bush Administration does not appear to have suggested the contrary. Harumph is not an effective rebuttal. 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... As for your nonsense expansion of the AUMF of 2001 to authorize unrelated attacks in Yemen in 2011, it is clear that it would not even authorize attacks on Saddam Hussein in 2002. It would not even offer a fig leaf of cover for military action. If you are to find authority for the action in Yemen, it cannot be found in the AUMF of 2001. "Whereas..." whatever is not a grant of authority to do anything. At S99489, Senator Byrd identified the resolving part. That ain't it. I provided the entire resolution in a scribd reader. As scrolling proved too great an impediment, I provided the entire resolution as an image. I will do it again. For the action in Yemen, not the AUMF of 2001. As that is your claim, and it has failed badly, your attempt to divert from your claim is your to answer with your next attempt to find a viable justification for the 2011 action in Yemen. It was a purposely limited authorization to use military force. The president is not constrained from using non-military assets. An AUMF is irrelevant to the authorization to use, or refrain from using, those assets. Non-military forces are not the subject of an AUMF. The CIA is not a military force. To put you back on topic, your untenable position is that the AUMF of 2001 authorized the action in Yemen of CIA and military in killing American citizen al-Aulaqi. That's dead. The Congressional Record verifies it is an impossible stretch. The WPA bars such a stretch. The legal experts say it is wrong. And the GWB administration, in 2002, alleged a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and still sought another AUMF to go into Iraq, demonstrating that such an interpretation was wrong. This is the nonsense your are defending: (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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's pretty clear that such a "determination" about this asshole was so made. That was just skewered by a history lesson which your are attempting to ignore.
That was just skewered by a history lesson which your [sic] are attempting to ignore. I can cite "speeches" from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship. You and I both **know** that it does in fact so convey. So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one. Thanks.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
The "perpetrators" under your narrow interpretation, perished in the planes. Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..."figments of my imagination" is what I believe you called them...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Can you cite any law which forbids the CIA from acting in a military capacity?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one. Apparently you need another history and law lesson. Congresscritters pass laws. They do not ratify amendments to the Constitution. Acting in their sovereign capacity, the people, not government officials, ratify amendments and breathe life into them. They act based on the black letter text of proposed amendments. The preferred interpretation is in accord with the meaning of the black letter text as understood by the people, upon which they based their ratification. The opinion of a particular Senator, or the entire Congress is not controlling. If the Congress does not like the interpretation by SCOTUS, their only recourse is to propose to the people to change the amendment, because Congress cannot change it or override the SCOTUS interpretation. Congress passes Federal laws, not amendments to the Constitution. But go ahead and humor me and cite the irrelevant speech[es] you say you can cite, but have neither cited nor provided. On the AUMF, I actually posted relevant pages from the Congressional Record on scribd, and linked, cited, and quoted here. Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7268-H7301, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7739-H7799, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Cong Rec S10063-S1007, 10-08-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Cong Rec S10164-S10217, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10233-S10342, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
I need only show that your interpretation is legally impossible. Your interpretation, inferring in what Congress deliberately removed from the White House draft, is directly contrary to the War Powers Act, Section 8(a). AUMF of 2001, Section 2(b): (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. War Powers Resolution, Section 8(a): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
The "perpetrators" under your narrow interpretation, perished in the planes. This text does not appear in my #72 to which you are nominally responding. They are the words of Senator Robert Byrd, and appear in my #69. Just for context, I provide Sen. Byrd's full presentation below. As you seem to need a lesson on the meaning of the word perpetrator, I will provide the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Perhaps not all the agents of the acts perished in planes. If they did, I wonder who the hell we have been chasing after for the past ten years. Congressional Record, S9948-S9954 10-01-2001 Use of Force Authority by the President - - - Congressional Record, S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
AP I, 43.1, AP I, 37. There's that whole uniform thing going on. Without one, your CIA operative is prohibited from taking part in military hostilities. Military combat is not clothing optional. Falsely wearing a military uniform to get combatant POW eligibility status is perfidy. See Vincent-Joël Proulx, If the Hat Fits Wear It, If the Turban Fits, Run for your Life: Reflections on the Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists, Hastings Law Journal, Volume 56, 2004-2005, page 888, discussing the targeted killing, by drone strike, of Mullah Mohammed Omar. At 888:
I believe this claim is a figment of your imagination, but if you believe I said I believed there were no planes on 9/11, you can produce the link and post it. This claim is a figment of your imagination. I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims that you find yourself unable to defend with any substance.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1198379522001/the-plain-truth-about-executive-assassination/
Gotta love that guy. He asks "Who will the President kill next?". You guys agree with the Judge?
War. You weren't there. That has already been proven on the 911 thread.
You care to chime in on this issue Mike? I am curious as to what your take on it is.
He does that a lot you know. He is too lazy to do any research, and he hates it when he is wrong so he just pretends this is not so and tries to move on.
I don't wish to offer an opinion on this story here at this time. Some interesting points have been raised, so I am still in the middle of taking a new look at the story and the issues around it in terms of international law.
I'm talking about our law. You know the constitution. You already answered the question. You support Obama assassinating people. If you didn't you would condemn it. You know, what you would do if it was Bush or Herman Cain.
Did you hear that war. Slapped down by your fellow liberal. You two are both liberals but I have detected some animosity towards each other here and in the past. You're different types of libearls. War is more pro government. Mike is more pro freedom. That is what I see.
No, I made an error as to whom nolu chan was talking to in the post. I had thought he was refering to someone else. Basically, you asked and I answered I want to do more checking into this issue. That is the point of my answer to you. I support war's viewpoint, but I am careful as ths is an important point. So I am doing some research on this for my own benefit.
..you proved squat...you posted a couple of
YouTube videos of a handful of people when there were 10's of thousands in the
WTC alone. You may as well have posted a video of someone claiming that they saw
Elvis do it. And stop censoring people, Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
First watch your mouth or I will take out the trash. Next. I posted videos of people as the came out of WTC saying the basement was blown up. Garcia or Lopez or whoever the Janitor was said the same thing. You said you were there but you weren't. As proved on the thread you are chickenshit of. As for censoring people. I am now going to censor your post.
So you support the star chamber. Murder of American citizens. Got ya witch.
Apparently, you need to lay off of the 'shrooms. I challenge you to post the statement in which I claimed that Congress RATIFIES amendments. Apparently, you also need a lesson in HOW the USCON is amended. There are two ways, one is a Constitutional convention of the States; the other is that the CONGRESS may PROPOSE amendments to the USCON and submit them to the States for ratificaton by their legislatures. This can me found in the Fifth Article opf the USCON which states, in part: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution... The 14th amendment passed out of the Congress in June of 1866...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
You've posted the floor speech of one of 535 members of the US Congress. Do you have 534 more stating that they share Byrd's opinion as to what was passed on 9/18/01. Senator McCain: “The focus on Al Qaeda and its affiliates was intentional. Al Qaeda is, and has been for the last 10 years, the focus of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed overwhelmingly after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. We are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The President has said so plainly. “In fact, it was just days ago that the Obama Administration used the fact that we are at war with Al Qaeda to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen. That was a decision I fully support. Awlaki had become a leading operational planner for what Administration officials now regard as the branch of Al Qaeda that poses the most significant threat to the United States. Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Go fuck yourself, Stone. It matters not to me if anyone else sees it. You saw it...that's all that counts. Have a nice day...I'll be at True Blue/// /asshole
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
A religious bigot like you IS the trash.
Even were I to agree with you, I'd offer you no support because you try to insult when I don't. I would say someone of your maturity level has zero influence on me.
When Stone grows up he wants to be like all those despots he admires.
When the people are afraid, that's when the greatest long term money is made.~~~~Clark Howard
He has one of those Napoleon complexes apparently.
Gee, its ground hog day.....again.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Thanks. And we killed Izzy Yamamoto... - - - [nc #34] Please show where AUMF pertains to anything other than military force in combat? How do you translate it to non-military force engaged in assassination? Do you really find the status of American/Yemini citizen Al-Aulaqi comparable to that of Admiral (Japanese Naval General) Yamamoto? - - - [war #37] Please cite your authority for claiming that a) the resolution requires that all military actions be "combat" when the resolution clearly states "all necessary and appropriate force" and that command and control structures and personnel would be immune from any type of military strike or that b) a drone attack is not "military force"? And please don't cite wikipedia as being some sort of authority. Thanks. Permit me to give a fuller exploration of your Izzy Yamamoto remark with a quote from competent legal authority. See Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 103-104. As for your CIA led drone strike, see Vincent-Joël Proulx, If the Hat Fits Wear It, If the Turban Fits, Run for your Life: Reflections on the Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists, Hastings Law Journal, Volume 56, 2004-2005, page 888, discussing the targeted killing, by drone strike, of Mullah Mohammed Omar. In this case it is much more than likely that CIA operatives coordinated the targeted killings. Such has been stated to be the fact.
“The focus on Al Qaeda and its affiliates was intentional. Al Qaeda is, and has been for the last 10 years, the focus of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed overwhelmingly after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. We are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The President has said so plainly. “In fact, it was just days ago that the Obama Administration used the fact that we are at war with Al Qaeda to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen. That was a decision I fully support. Awlaki had become a leading operational planner for what Administration officials now regard as the branch of Al Qaeda that poses the most significant threat to the United States. --Senator McCain Floor Speech, October 6, 2011 As for the McCain claim that "[w]e are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates," we are not at war. We are engaged in an armed conflict. McCain's misstatement does not change international law. He's the one who said Iran was training al Qaeda operatives and sang Bomb, bomb, Iran. See Gary D. Solis, U.S. Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2010, paragraph 1.4.1, "The Law of War" or "The Law of Armed Conflict"? at pp. 20-21. See Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, reprinted 2010, pp. 246-247. a) From War to Armed Conflict Before the establishment of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War, 'war' was generally understood as a formally declared, and mutually recognized, state of hostility between sovereign States, which found its expression in the application of armed force. Peace and war were not so much factual situations as they were formalized legal conditions to which either the entire law of peace (jus pacis) or, alternatively, the full law of war (jus in bello) applied. [...] [T]he contemporary concept of 'international armed conflict' no longer requires a declaration of war, nor does its existence depend on the willingness of the parties to recognize a state of war. Certainly, in cases where neither hostilities nor any other infringement of foreign sovereignty have taken place, a formal declaration of war still ipso facto gives rise to the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. In all other cases, the existence of an international armed conflict is simply determined by the actual occurrence of unilateral or mutual hostilities, which must express the belligerent intent of one or both parties to the conflict. In practical terms, the existence of an armed conflict obliges the involved parties to respect IHL 'in all circumstances' —regardless of reciprocity— as soon as, and the latest when, hostilities are initiated as a matter of fact. Even the Defense Authorization Bill that McCain was addressing uses the term armed conflict and not war. The material I quoted, and linked to in its entirety, was contemporaneous with the passage of the resolutions. Your unsourced, unlinked quote is from last week, 10 years after the debate on the resolutions. Most congressmen are whores and what distinguishes them is what streetcorner they work. McCain's streetcorner is the Senate Armed Forces Committee. As for the McCain floor speech, you forgot to mention that the floor debate was on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, not the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001, nor did you provide the context of McCain's remarks. He was pimping the 1,145-page Defense Authorization Act. It is stuck in the Senate committee since May and Senator McCain is upset that he cannot get it brought to the floor with some of the crap that is in it. It would appear from his speech that he identifies the problem as Section 1034 at pages 567-568. Apparently, it is not going to reach the floor with that in it (among other things). Notably, this provision tarting up the bill has nothing whatever to do with funding authorization. H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Subtitle D—Counterterrorism, Section 1034, Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces, pp. 567-568 of 1145, last action as of 10/11/2011 - Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Congress affirms that— (2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associatec1 forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note); (3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who— (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and (4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities. The McCain floor speech in its entirety from the Congressional Record: Cong Rec, S6323-S6324, 06 Oct 2011, McCain, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 Opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: Rep. Van Hollen directly on point shows the crap that McCain wants to insert into the AUMF that was deliberately removed from the GW Bush administration draft of the bill before passage. If the AUMF already did this crap, they would not still be trying to sneak it in the back door. Other congressmen point out additional problems with this $690 BILLION Christmas tree festooned with ornaments, plus a reversal of the repeal of DADT. Whatever one thinks of the repeal of the DADT policy, this provision does not belong in the financial authorization bill, attempting to hold military funding hostage to crap not related to funding. The policy issue is fair game for congress, but not in this bill. Cong. Rec. ER-988, May 27, 2011, Rep. Van Hollen. Section 1034 of this bill gives this President and all future Presidents vastly expanded authority to take America to war without further congressional action. It gives the Executive a virtual blank check by authorizing the President to deploy an unlimited number of troops into a war of unlimited duration based on illdefined standards. The language in 1034 represents a total abdication of congressional responsibility under the Constitution. The President already has broad authority to use military force against al Qaeda and Taliban forces pursuant to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was adopted in 2001. That provision states: 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. This bill replaces the existing AUMF with a new provision that provides the President with vast new war-making authority. Under the umbrella of the war against terrorism, it expands the existing broad authority in at least three ways: DE-LINKS USE OF FORCE FROM 9/11 ATTACKS The original language gave the President the authority to use military force against any entities he determined to be connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001 or any nation, organization or persons he determined harbored such entities. The new language expands the authority to target entities regardless of their connection to the September 11 attacks. PERMITS ATTACKS ON UNDEFINED ‘‘ASSOCIATED FORCES’’ The original language authorized all necessary force against the entities responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but did not provide the authority to wage war against undetermined ‘‘associated forces.’’ The term ‘‘associated forces’’ is totally undefined and would allow any President to apply that term with great elasticity to go to war without congressional approval in any number of situations. ALLOWS USE OF FORCE AGAINST ENTITIES THAT ‘‘SUPPORT’’ THE TALIBAN, AL QAEDA OR ‘‘ASSOCIATED FORCES’’ The original language allowed the use of force against entities that ‘‘harbored’’ the terrorist groups that perpetuated the attacks of 9/11. The new language allows the President to wage war, without additional congressional consent, against any entities that substantially support the Taliban, al Qaeda or ‘‘associated forces.’’ This is a much weaker standard than the existing requirement. Had the Congress included this language in the 2001 AUMF, President Bush could have sent American troops into Iraq without seeking a separate resolution to use force. This language authorizes the Executive to launch military action against an entity that had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 so long as the President determines that a country or organization is substantially supporting the Taliban, al Qaeda or ‘‘associated forces.’’ The Bush administration claimed that the regime of Saddam Hussein was allowing Iraqi territory to be used to train al Qaeda elements. While I believe the Congress made a mistake in voting to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq, at least Congress debated and voted on the decision. With this new provision in place, no such vote would have been required. Under the Constitution, the President of the United States already has relatively broad powers to use military force as Commander in Chief. In addition, the existing Authorization of the Use of Military Force provides the President with additional authority to take military action in a wide array of situations without seeking additional congressional approval or a declaration of war. It is a reckless surrender of congressional responsibility for the Congress to write this new open-ended blank check for the use of military force. Not even the Executive has been brazen enough to request this new broad grant of authority. The language in Section 1034 is sloppy, illconsidered and poorly conceived. No hearings were held to consider its full ramifications. This Congress should be ashamed of itself for its careless and cavalier approach to a question of such grave national significance. I urge the Senate and the President to reject this provision and hope to have an opportunity to vote for a revised Defense Authorization Act that doesn’t undermine the constitutional responsibilities of the Congress. Cong. Rec. ER-988, May 27, 2011, Rep. Inslee. As you know, USFHP has been an extremely popular program within the Military Health System since its introduction in 1981, serving more than 115,000 active duty service members, veterans, and their families 16 states, including more than 11,000 in Washington state. USFHP consistently earns a 90 percent satisfaction rating among its enrollees— by far the highest among military beneficiary programs. In addition to its success and popularity, this program plays an integral component in the Department of Defense (DoD) meeting its commitment to provide health care to those who have served our country in uniform. The provision included in this year’s Defense Authorization bill would terminate health care services under the plan when beneficiaries reach the age of 65 and become eligible to transfer to Medicare. Over one third of all USFHP beneficiaries are currently over 65 and are taking advantage of the USFHP managed care structure. Removing them from the program could undermine the highly effective disease management and prevention aspects of the USFHP, not to mention potentially ending longstanding patient-doctor relationships due to the change in coverage. USFHP is a fully capitated program, providing quality and efficient care to beneficiaries. Even recently, Congress highlighted the effectiveness of USFHP in the 111th DoD authorization bill, while directing DoD to examine opportunities to improve the broader TRICARE Program. Additionally last year the Director of TRICARE Management engaged USFHP to assist in educating the rest of the DoD system about their highly successful prevention and disease management programs. Cong Rec, ER-987, May 24, 2011, Rep. Stark. It does not make sense to waste billions of tax dollars on an already bloated defense department, particularly in our current economic state. This bill is loaded with unnecessary and redundant funding. For example, it calls for the reckless continuation of the V–22 Osprey program, which has killed over 30 Americans in training alone, and whose termination could save us $10–12 billion over the next 10 years. Defense spending currently constitutes almost 60 percent of our discretionary spending. As we are forced to consider cutting important programs that working families depend on, we cannot continue to spend money we do not have—especially on an overly saturated Department of Defense. Americans have voiced their priorities: They want jobs, affordable health care and better education. This Congress must listen. Cong. Rec. ER-987, May 27, 2011, Rep. Blumenauer The bill continues the misguided affront on civil liberties by further stalling the implementation of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ and requires that ‘‘marriage’’ for any regulation or benefit program at DoD means only a legal union between one man and one woman. This is a step backwards and unacceptable. It reverses the House victory from earlier this year that finally eliminated the unnecessary alternate engine for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. Similarly, the bill continues to fund the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) which has also been cited as uneconomical and unwanted by the Secretary of Defense. Embarrassingly, this authorization contains two key provisions that continue to tie the President’s hands by restricting his ability to transfer detainees to the United States for trial in Federal court and to release detainees to countries willing to take them. It is absurd to think that the United States, which currently has thousands of dangerous criminals locked safely behind bars, is incapable of doing the same for terrorists. These provisions continue the Guantanamo quagmire which is ill-advised and a sign of failure at home and to those observing abroad. Cong Rec, ER-957, May 24, 2011, Rep. Quigley. More specifically, I rise in fierce opposition to provisions of this bill which seek to deter and derail the repeal of Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. A repeal, which has been implemented only after the Department of Defense completed a comprehensive review of the issues associated with the repeal. A repeal, which has been implemented only after DOD solicited the views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component Servicemembers. A repeal, which has been implemented only after DOD conducted one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military. Still, we stand here today to consider a measure that demonstrates that this body doesn’t believe that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are right to support the repeal. I believe in our military’s ability to evaluate and make recommendations, and I fully support their plan to implement repeal. Cong Rec, E-1000, May 31, 2011, Rep. Israel. I am very disappointed that H.R. 1540, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, included section 533, which would add a further step on the path to final repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It requires that each of the Armed Forces service chiefs approve repeal. While I believe that the input of the military is critical to a smooth transition to open military service, the current process that is already underway to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell includes significant input from the uniformed military personnel and Defense Department leadership. In fact, under current law, the policy only ends 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff approve a Defense Department report confirming that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not harm military readiness. Section 533 is nothing more than an attempt to delay final repeal.
Apparently, you need to lay off of the 'shrooms. [...] Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs I guess this must be your latest tactic of distraction, linking back to the wrong post. Once again, what you quote is from #76 is not from #77 to which you respond. If this is not intentional, then I am not the one who needs to lay off the 'shrooms. You did not claim Congress passes Amendments. I pointed out that that congress does not, demonstrating the insignificance of your claim that you could (you did not) "cite 'speeches' from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship." It is irrelevant to the issue of AUMF for which I produced actual debate of two resolutions. Also, whatever a Senator may blather about congressional intent regarding a constitutional amendment does not carry much weight as the federal congress is not the body that votes whether to ratify an amendment. Others vote on the black letter text presented to them.
I provided unedited debate sessions from the time they started speaking about the AUMF until they moved on to something else. I did so for both houses. That includes about 300 pages and everybody who spoke at the time. I provided a link to the material I cited and quoted. I'll do it again, only better. You are invited to read "the floor speech of one of the 535 members of the US Congress." This "response" to #78 is sad, attempting to ignore #76. If I do not repeat all of it in each post you claim it was never said at all. Enjoy the reread done with extra effort for the completeness you seek. As you are aware, there was very scant floor debate on the 9/18/2001 Resolution. There was a tremendous amount of floor debate about the Iraq AUMF of 2002. You remember, the one about the guy with WMD who was directly linked to al Qaeda, and whose imminent production of nuclear weapons threated to engulf NYC in a mushroom cloud. That guy. And they needed to pass another AUMF to use the troops there. So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one. Apparently you need another history and law lesson. Congresscritters pass laws. They do not ratify amendments to the Constitution. Acting in their sovereign capacity, the people, not government officials, ratify amendments and breathe life into them. They act based on the black letter text of proposed amendments. The preferred interpretation is in accord with the meaning of the black letter text as understood by the people, upon which they based their ratification. The opinion of a particular Senator, or the entire Congress is not controlling. If the Congress does not like the interpretation by SCOTUS, their only recourse is to propose to the people to change the amendment, because Congress cannot change it or override the SCOTUS interpretation. Congress passes Federal laws, not amendments to the Constitution. But go ahead and humor me and cite the irrelevant speech[es] you say you can cite, but have neither cited nor provided. On the AUMF, I actually posted relevant pages from the Congressional Record on scribd, and linked, cited, and quoted here. Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7268-H7301, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7739-H7799, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Cong Rec S10063-S1007, 10-08-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Cong Rec S10164-S10217, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10233-S10342, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack This is the fuller extent of stuff that I quoted from and linked to. - - - Congressional Record, H5859-H5862, President George W Bush Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Congressional Record, S9948-S9954 10-01-2001 Use of Force Authority by the President - - - Congressional Record, S10063-S10077, 10-08-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack - - - - - - - - - Congressional Record, S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
I believe this claim is a figment of your imagination, but if you believe I said I believed there were no planes on 9/11, you can produce the link and post it. This claim is a figment of your imagination. I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims that you find yourself unable to defend with any substance. *** C R I C K E T S *** Where is the link to the figment of your imagination?
Thanks for that. And I should regard you as an authority to negate what McCain knows or does not know why again? Oh right...you're that guy on the internet... I've read through the floor speeches of both chambers long prior to this discussion. There are several speakers, in both the House and the Senate, who stated that the war would last years and span several nations for the purpose of eradicating the organization that perpetrated 9/11 not just the perps themselves but Al Qaeda's ability to strike again. There were House members and Senate members who stated this. But, since you kindly provided the Congressional record of those floor debates, I am sure that you are well aware of this and that you omission was to save space. Then again, if you are not so familiar, then I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with the floor statements made in the House from the moment Rep Lantos was recognized, made his statement and then yielded time. IN speech after speech, the members of Congress, including IIRC, Ron Paul, did not question the authority of the POTUS to wage a retaliatory action under the War Powers Act alone - oddly invoked if we aren't at war but in an armed conflict...and thank you for your redundant euphemism. It reminds me how dealing with lawyers has made me mistrustful of language.
Look, Sebastian, a COCK!!! Let's suck it!!! Luberator posted on 2011-10-11 12:55:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Oh let's!!! Sebastian posted on 2011-10-11 13:01:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Since we are discussing the resolution that was passed in 2001, providing a copy of the Congressional Record from 2002 when the debate was regarding Iraq and going to war, er, entering into an armed conflict against them, that "information" is extrinsic and thus spurious. We're discussing the authorization to destroy Al Qaeda and their enablers. Maybe you didn't check the date?
Look, Sebastian, a COCK!!! Let's suck it!!! Luberator posted on 2011-10-11 12:55:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Oh let's!!! Sebastian posted on 2011-10-11 13:01:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
I believe this claim is a figment of your imagination, but if you believe that you have debunked anything of mine you can produce the link and post it. This claim is a figment of your imagination. [snicker]
Look, Sebastian, a COCK!!! Let's suck it!!! Luberator posted on 2011-10-11 12:55:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Oh let's!!! Sebastian posted on 2011-10-11 13:01:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
You're repeating back to me what I said...why? And if I linked to the wrong post...excuse me...it wasn't done with malice of forethought... I pointed out that that congress does not, demonstrating the insignificance of your claim that you could (you did not) "cite 'speeches' from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship." Is there a cogent thought in there or did you believe that the length of the sentence somehow conveyed its presently missing point? MY point, was that the significance of a single floor speech is nil - especially in light of how the law - or amendment - was subsequently executed or interpreted. It is irrelevant to the issue of AUMF for which I produced actual debate of two resolutions. We are only discussing ONE of those resolutions, btw. Also, whatever a Senator may blather about congressional intent regarding a constitutional amendment does not carry much weight as the federal congress is not the body that votes whether to ratify an amendment. Others vote on the black letter text presented to them. Your point is that the Congress passes out amendments without worry about eh language therein contained? Interesting...
Look, Sebastian, a COCK!!! Let's suck it!!! Luberator posted on 2011-10-11 12:55:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Oh let's!!! Sebastian posted on 2011-10-11 13:01:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Because I cite and quote legal texts of legal authorities and you just babble nonsense. You can make believe you did not see the expert opinions and I can repeat and add to them. See Gary D. Solis, U.S. Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2010, paragraph 1.4.1, "The Law of War" or "The Law of Armed Conflict"? at pp. 20-21. See Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, reprinted 2010, pp. 246-247. a) From War to Armed Conflict Before the establishment of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War, 'war' was generally understood as a formally declared, and mutually recognized, state of hostility between sovereign States, which found its expression in the application of armed force. Peace and war were not so much factual situations as they were formalized legal conditions to which either the entire law of peace (jus pacis) or, alternatively, the full law of war (jus in bello) applied. [...] [T]he contemporary concept of 'international armed conflict' no longer requires a declaration of war, nor does its existence depend on the willingness of the parties to recognize a state of war. Certainly, in cases where neither hostilities nor any other infringement of foreign sovereignty have taken place, a formal declaration of war still ipso facto gives rise to the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. In all other cases, the existence of an international armed conflict is simply determined by the actual occurrence of unilateral or mutual hostilities, which must express the belligerent intent of one or both parties to the conflict. In practical terms, the existence of an armed conflict obliges the involved parties to respect IHL 'in all circumstances' —regardless of reciprocity— as soon as, and the latest when, hostilities are initiated as a matter of fact. See Melzer, Targeted Killing, pp. 224-225. In other cases, the responsible State may claim to operate under the paradigm of hostilities, without it being clear whether the situation does, in fact, amount to an armed conflict. For example, the targeted killing by the United States of suspected al-Qaida leaders with the agreement of the territorial Governments, such as Qaed Senyan al-Harithi in Yemen (2002) and, allegedly, Haitham ai-Yemeni in Pakistan (2005), as well as the unauthorized attempt by the United States to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri in Pakistan (2006) all took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and within the context of its 'war on terrorism'. Since the 'war on terrorism' does not, as a whole, amount to an armed conflict, these targeted killings must be governed by the law enforcement paradigm unless they constitute an integral part of hostilities occurring in separate situations of armed conflict. As will be seen, however, even targeted killings occurring within the conduct of hostilities must be governed by the law enforcement paradigm if they are not directed against legitimate military targets. For instance, based on publicly available facts, it is at least doubtful whether the political leader of Hamas, Khalid Mashal (1997), and the organization's wheelchair-bound and half-blind spirirual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin (2004), could be regarded as legitimate military targets at the time when Israel launched its operations against them. Unless proven otherwise, both operations would therefore have to be examined under the standards imposed by the law enforcement paradigm. In sum, State-sponsored targeted killing frequently takes place in siruations where the operating State is likely ro question or dispute the applicability of law enforcement standards. Therefore, the conclusion that any targeted killing not directed against a legitimate military target must — 'by default' and regardless of temporal or territorial considerations — comply with the law enforcement paradigm is highly significant for the examination of current State practice under international law. See the condemnation by the international community for an extra-judicial Israeli assassination. UN Security Council S2004-240 (03-24-2004) US Veto re Targeted Killing of Ahmed Yassin European Union, 2572nd Council Meeting, External Relations, Brussels, 22 March 2004, Presse Release 7383/04 (Presse 80), page 8 of 24. MIDDLE EAST – Assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin – Council conclusions “The Council condemned the extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and seven other Palestinians by Israeli forces this morning. The European Union has consistently opposed extra-judicial killings. Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is a key element in the fight against terrorism. The European Union has repeatedly condemned the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. The EU recognises Israel's right to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks. Israel is entitled to do this under international law. Israel is not, however, entitled to carry out extra-judicial killings. Furthermore, the assassination which has just been carried out has inflamed the situation. The Council called on all sides to exercise restraint and to refrain from acts of violence, which will only lead to more deaths and will put a peaceful settlement still further from reach. Violence is no substitute for the political negotiations which are necessary for a just and lasting settlement. The Quartet Roadmap remains the basis for reaching such a settlement.” 7383/04 (Presse 80) 8 Even the Defense Authorization Bill that McCain was addressing uses the term armed conflict and not war. Sure you did, and then you had a long and enlightening discussion with your imaginary friends. It is just a shame that you couldn't come up with a single example of your several speakers. Why, I'll just bet half your imaginary friends ran over to the Hague and the other half ran over to Geneva and rewrote all that international law stuff. In speech after speech, which you can't remember, and if you recall correctly, not for example as you falsely claim to recall my denial of jets on 9/11. As for the War Powers Act, I provided you with the full text. If it says somewhere that assassination of American citizens is authorized, and overrides the Constitution and International Law, perhaps you could quote that part. Try the part that says, "Nothing in this joint resolution— (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution." Dealing with lawyers made me distrustful of lawyers. Dealing with bullshitters made me think of them as light entertainment.
Had you bothered to read the Iraq resolution or my posts, or had you been able to comprehend them, as the case may be, you could not have missed the relevant information showing your witless comment to be inane. You seem to have forgotten that members of al Qaeda being in Iraq was one of the specific justifications to going into Iraq. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24551&Disp=69#C69 Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Since you are running, hiding, ducking, diving, diverting and digressing, and in general just bloviating, I need to explain to you that WE are not just discussing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001. WE are discussing your pulling out of your ass the claim that an AUMF authorizes assassination of American citizens without their being charged or indicted or convicted of any crime, and without their having been afforded any due process of law, by virtue solely of a secret committee, whose existence was unauthorized by any law, which acted secretly and with secret evidence. You have yet to attempt to address why GWB, the same president, sought and obtained the AUMF of 2002 to go into Iraq. If all the utter nonsense you claim for the AUMF of 2001 were true, there would have been no need to the AUMF of 2002. Also, there would be no need for the crap in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 if that were already part of the AUMF of 2001 and made the president omnipotent and above the Constitution and all other laws.
I believe this claim is a figment of your imagination, but if you believe I said I believed there were no planes on 9/11, you can produce the link and post it. This claim is a figment of your imagination. I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims that you find yourself unable to defend with any substance. - - - I believe this claim is a figment of your imagination, but if you believe that you have debunked anything of mine you can produce the link and post it. This claim is a figment of your imagination. [snicker] Look, Sebastian, a COCK!!! Let's suck it!!! Luberator posted on 2011-10-11 12:55:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Oh let's!!! Sebastian posted on 2011-10-11 13:01:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply That's the best you can do because you got caught bullshitting again. That's pathetic.
[war #109] Is there a cogent thought in there or did you believe that the length of the sentence somehow conveyed its presently missing point? MY point, was that the significance of a single floor speech is nil - especially in light of how the law - or amendment - was subsequently executed or interpreted. It is irrelevant to the issue of AUMF for which I produced actual debate of two resolutions. We are only discussing ONE of those resolutions, btw. The significance of a floor speech signifying the intended meaning of a piece of legislation may well be used by a court to help determine the intended meaning where the black letter text is not clear. It is of significantly less significance regarding anything in the Constitution. The existence of the AUMF of 2002 is inexplicable if all the miraculous things you allege to be in the AUMF of 2001 are really there. Equally, the desperate grope in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 speaks to the nature of your prevarication and bullshit.
That was a connection that was resoundingly rejected. IIRC, the adminstration originally did not seek an AUMF for Iraq. It believed that by making that connection it could use the AUMF from 9/18/01. Few in Congress were fooled and so a spearate case against Saddam had to be made. So, sure then, bring the 2002 AUMF into play. It underscores the reality that the AUMF of 2001 was FOR AL QAEDA. WE are discussing your pulling out of your ass the claim that an AUMF authorizes assassination of American citizens without their being charged or indicted or convicted of any crime, and without their having been afforded any due process of law, by virtue solely of a secret committee, whose existence was unauthorized by any law, which acted secretly and with secret evidence. Nope. What we are discussing is the targeted killing of an enemy who was actively engaged in fomenting and conspiring in acts of war against the US and for which an AUMF had existed for a decade. He happens to be a US citizen. Assassination is a political act. War is killing the enemy. THAT is what we are discussing. Also, there would be no need for the crap in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 if that were already part of the AUMF of 2001 and made the president omnipotent and above the Constitution and all other laws. If you are referring to the detainee language, the SCOTUS had long ago held that the AUMF of 2001 was not justification for tribunals and that it was settled law that such tribunals had to be established by the COngress and not the Commander in Chief.
Look, Sebastian, a COCK!!! Let's suck it!!! Luberator posted on 2011-10-11 12:55:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Oh let's!!! Sebastian posted on 2011-10-11 13:01:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
What specifically did he do? Isn't that what a court is for. You know innocent until proven guilty. You don't support the presumption of innocence? So go ahead and tell us what specifically he did to warrant assassination? I always ask you when I want the government line.
While I will stipulate that legislative history can be an important tool in judicial interpretation of the meaning of a law, the significance of a single floor speech to that end is hardly an adequate sampling let alone a conclusive one. Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, the world is watching these deliberations and is asking: Is the United States up to the challenge? Are we, as a Nation, blessed for so much of our history with peace and prosperity, capable of mounting a costly and concerted campaign against international terror? Let us today answer those doubts with a resounding affirmation. In committing to this fight, let us not delude ourselves. We are embarking on a long and difficult struggle, like none other in our Nation's history. It will demand resolve. It will demand patience. It will demand sacrifice. It will also demand that we draw upon the strength of each and every American. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex. There are a couple of serious points I would like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign intervention in the affairs of others, the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise, and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it is crucial to understand why we were attacked, which will then tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or 10 countries will not help. [Begin Insert] Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible. ~~~ Why is Paul acknowledging that this war could expand? Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate for this Congress to be granting specific authority to the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against the terrorists that attacked America this week and against those that harbored the terrorists. It is important, I believe, to note that this grant of authority and this purpose of force is to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States. In other words, we are not just engaging in an act of retaliation or revenge, as satisfying as that will be, but we are taking action to prevent this from happening again to save the lives of Americans. The use of force that we authorize today must be used swiftly and surely and smartly. It has been said that this force should be used ferociously. And that is a strong word but an appropriate word under these circumstances. We need to punish the perpetrators of this terrorist activity. We must prevent a recurrence, and we must protect Americans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Speech after speech acknowledges that this AUMF extends beyond getting the specific perps behind 9/11 but destroying that organization to prevent FUTURE acts.
Because I cite and quote legal texts of legal authorities and you just babble nonsense. You cited one goddam speech. The rest is no better than spam. I wade through your stuff - as extrinsic as most of it may be. Byrd's speech is BUT ONE OF 535. McCain was in that same chamber during that same time and during that same "debate". Oddly, you are dismissive of what McCain stated what he believed was the affect of his "AYE" vote. Why is that? The laws of war and international conflict have evolved as rearward looking exercises based upon, as one of your scholars states, a declared state of hostilities between nations. IN point of fact, most international "law" has not been written and when it is, it's nothing more than rules tailored to previously occurring events. Laws are in place for one reason, to maintain order under threat of sanction. There is no current treaty or law which would internally sanction the act of a US Commander In Chief for what you claim is ignnoring international convention. But, what I claim is not allowing a "law" - of which the current applicability is tenuous - to be a near suicide pact should it be followed to the letter. In this case, the law would sanction the Commander in Chief for protecting the National Security of the US against an organization who does not acknowledge the authority of international law and whose stated goal is the death and destruction of the US. What contortion of logic does it take for a POTUS to justify inaction against a legitimate target because international convention so forbade? Since the issue here is malfeasance versus stretching the envelope of international convention, the security of the nation will be paramount. Dealing with lawyers made me distrustful of lawyers. Dealing with bullshitters made me think of them as light entertainment. Hear hear...
You believe that the planes did not bring down the Towers. You dwell in the land of the Moonbat. You dismissed what I saw and heard and shared...that's close enough for me to make that accusation and if it makes me a bullshitter to a aMoonbat...oh well... I PALE in comparison the the silo load of manure that you're peddling...
Not true. He quoted the constitution. He quoted several laws. He already won when he quoted the constitution. You can't argue around the plain meaning of words found in the Bill of Rights. He really smacked you down when he brought up the excellent point about the burden of proof for an assassination being less then the burden of proof for an indictment or arrest warrant. Like he also mentioned. Why was it a capture or kill order? What were they going to capture him for?
You weren't there. That has already been proven on the thread that you got your ass handed to you. Then you ran off with your tail between your legs.
Stone...you posted a couple of videos. They proved one thing...the unreliability of eyewitnesses under duress. But feel free to tap your ruby slippers together and believe whatever mornic thing that you want to believe...your approval/belief/opinions mean about as much to me as...as...as...geez...I can't even fathom anything that insignificant at this point...
I knew I could count on your for the government line. I guess those people were part of a large conspiracy to say the basement was blown up. You weren't there. They were. You weren't. They know. You don't. They observed it. You spin it.
I posted a link to the cause of the explosion. It was the concussive inflammable result of a very large object exploding in all directions 80+ floors above... When the first plane went in...I thought it was a missile...some thought it was a large plane...others thought it was a small plane and others still thought it was a bomb...the people who thought it was a large plane won and I no longer believe that it was a missile... But go ahead and tap tap tap...
He already won when he quoted the constitution. You can't argue around the plain meaning of words found in the Bill of Rights. Let me explain this to you for the intellectual child that you are: Nolo is arguing that this action was not one undertaken by the POTUS as Commander In Chief but as a civilian executive. If this was the indisputable and accepted standard for the prosecution of this war, armed conflict, or whatever other euphemism you can conjure for military action, then he would have a case and the Bill of Rights would be a proper citation for the limits of an executive's available course of action. In point of fact, the action was undertaken by the POTUS in his role as Commander In Chief charged with not only the general powers necessary to the protection, i.e National Security, of the US from acts of war NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE but specifically enabled by the 9/18/01 AUMF that empowered him to stop, destroy or disenable Al Qaeda through all force deemed necessary and appropriate to that end. You've correctly understood, to this point, one element of the discussion: it is based on the USCON. What you fail to grasp is that arguing the powers of the Commander in Chief is a valid constitutional argument as well. The POTUS serves a constitutionally bifurcated role...civilian executive charged with ensuring proper execution of the laws and Commander in Chief charged with commanding the forces necessary and appropriate to ensure the security of the US borders and citizens. Killing an identified enemy who is in command and control most certainly falls within the constitutional parameters of a CIC.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
[war #106 IN speech after speech, the members of Congress, including IIRC, Ron Paul, did not question the authority of the POTUS to wage a retaliatory action under the War Powers Act alone You are bullshitting again. [war #116 In committing to this fight, let us not delude ourselves. We are embarking on a long and difficult struggle, like none other in our Nation's history. It will demand resolve. It will demand patience. It will demand sacrifice. It will also demand that we draw upon the strength of each and every American. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex. There are a couple of serious points I would like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign intervention in the affairs of others, the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise, and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it is crucial to understand why we were attacked, which will then tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or 10 countries will not help. [Begin Insert] Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible. And what you were doing their merits documentation. HJ Res 27, 107 Cong, 1st Sess, To Repeal the War Powers Act, Ron Paul, (03-06-2001) Ron Paul, 11 Sep 2001, Cong Rec H5511-H5512, Expressing Sense of the Senate and House of Representatives Regarding Terrorist Attacks Launched Against United States Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war. Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy. In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilians who are bystanders. That is what happened yesterday. If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing. In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress’ foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient. When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider using its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisals to meet our responsibilities. Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the alter of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat. It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of war in which we find ourselves. We must all pray for peace and ask for God’s guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America, and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), the distinguished dean of the House of Representatives. Ron Paul, 14 Sep 2011, Cong Rec H5640, Authorizing Use of United States Armed Forces Against Those Responsible for Recent Attacks Against the United States The parts war left out are indicated by bold blue font. The remarks of Mr. Lantos did not immediately precede the remarks of Mr. Paul as indicated by war in support of his bullshit. The quoted remarks of Mr. Lantos did not appear on the same page as Mr. Paul, and are indicated here in red. war gave no indication that the remarks of Mr. Lantos did not appear as he portrayed them, nor did he indicate that he had edited the remarks of Mr. Paul. The reader may review what was deleted by war to determine for him or herself whether this was purposefully deceitful or not. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution. This week our Nation lost its innocence but found a new sense of unity and purpose. We now face a severe test, one demanding severe measures. The resolution before us empowers the President to bring to bear the full force of American power abroad in our struggle against the scourge of international words of our Secretary of State, to eradicate terrorism, ‘‘root and branch.’’ The President currently has many powers to deter and prevent international terrorism, including diplomatic pressure, economic measures, military action to stop imminent threats to the people of the United States. Our resolution arms the President with the certain knowledge that he has the full support of the united Congress and the American people in exercising these powers. 1800 In considering this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the historic nature of this occasion cannot be overstated. Precious few times in our 225 years as a Nation have we been faced with such a grave and momentous decision. One need only look at the devastation, the broken bodies, the flood of tears left in the wake of Tuesday’s monstrous terrorist attacks to grasp the awesome responsibility before us. Mr. Speaker, the world is watching these deliberations and is asking: Is the United States up to the challenge? Are we, as a Nation, blessed for so much of our history with peace and prosperity, capable of mounting a costly and concerted campaign against international terror? Let us today answer those doubts with a resounding affirmation. In committing to this fight, let us not delude ourselves. We are embarking on a long and difficult struggle, like none other in our Nation’s history. It will demand resolve. It will demand patience. It will demand sacrifice. It will also demand that we draw upon the strength of each and every American. I am deeply concerned, Mr. Speaker, by reports of violence directed at Arab- Americans and Muslim-Americans, some in my own district. This is not a clash of civilizations or a war between the Western and the Islamic world, as some would have it. It is a struggle for the survival of civilization itself against barbarism. In this struggle, Mr. Speaker, we are not alone. All Americans deeply appreciate the many expressions of sympathy and support from our friends and allies across the globe. We trust that these words will be followed by actions— actions that may prove painful, costly and dangerous. But in the fight against international terrorism, there can be no neutrals. Those who are not with us are against us. Today’s debate is a sign of the unity and vitality of our democracy. All among us are united in our outrage by the tragic events of this week. All among us are united in our commitment to defeat international terrorism. On this we stand undivided and indivisible. If we are to defeat international terrorism, as we must, we must provide our commander in chief with the power this resolution entails. [begin page 5640] In granting the President this power, Congress is not abdicating its prerogatives. We do not weaken our role by approving this measure. By signaling our solidarity with the President and by trusting him with this power, we take our place at his side as full partners in this fight. The President has a solemn responsibility to use this power wisely and to consult with and report to the Congress throughout the long struggle ahead. We in Congress also have an ongoing responsibility: to contribute to these efforts, monitoring the crisis, investigating its causes, gathering expert insights, and doing all in our power to ensure that these terrible events are never repeated. Mr. Speaker, I am an American not by birth but by choice. Following the Second World War, I fled my native Hungary for the United States, the land of the free and the home of the brave. I chose to become a citizen of the Nation that saved my homeland and the entire world from international fascism and, later, from international communism. Today, I proudly reaffirm my allegiance and reenlist in the new struggle to save this Nation and the world from international terrorism. I have never been prouder to serve in the United States Congress than I have during this week. The many words spoken on the floor of this Chamber echo the world over and testify to America’s resilience in the face of adversity. All of my colleagues who join this debate do honor to this institution and to the American people, whom we all serve. But the time for words has passed, Mr. Speaker, and the time for action is upon us. We must now make our rhetoric reality. We must now stand united in word and in deed, and we shall not flinch in the face of terror. Let us go forth, certain in our knowledge that should we cast this courageous vote. We shall prevail. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the learned gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), but would like to first congratulate the distinguished minority leader of this committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS), for his usual superb remarks. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex. The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of mark and reprisal in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we are offered, and doing nothing is unthinkable. There are a couple of serious points I would like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign intervention in the affairs of others, the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise, and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it is crucial to understand why we were attacked, which will then tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or 10 countries will not help. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible. Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap. Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations. We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander- in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation. Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HOEFFEL). - - - - - - Paul, Potential for War, Cong Rec H232-H236, 02-08-2001
Enough with the spamming.
------------------------------------- When war stops making up facts, I'll stop documenting it. If you don't like it, don't read it. You are always welcome to put me on bozo.
Absolute, total bullshit. I argued that the CIA operatives in charge were civilians. They are not members of the uniformed armed forces. If they are to be considered armed forces, then they committed a war crime as they participated out of military uniform and without displaying any distinctive insignia of the U.S. Armed Forces, which they are not entitled to wear. If they wore the uniform or insignia, then they committed the offense of perfidy. I have not made any argument about what status Obama acted in. However, to clarify, Obama is Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces (The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States) (U.S. Const. Art. 2, Sec 2, Cl 1.) He is NOT the Commander-in-Chief of the United States or its citizenry. He is not Commander-in-Chief of the CIA. His authority as C-in-C is the same as if the nation had chosen to have the senior general be the C-in-C, and he was it. If the hypothetical military general could not do something as C-in-C, neither can Obama in his capacity as C-in-C. Laws evolve and the boundaries of the Laws of War cannot remain static in their application when enemies do not remain static in how they wage war. Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. If the Laws of War have not evolved to your satisfaction, does that mean they may be ignored by the United States, while an American judge participates at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which "has jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity?" These trials are ongoing. "The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014." Under the Laws of War, when one party to a conflict abandons conformance to the Laws of War, an opposing party may equally abandon the same. Under this standard, it would be lawful for al-Qaeda to commit the target killing of President Obama. It may be analgous to the option, under the Laws of War, available to the Confederacy after the Union's failed Dahlgren Raid. Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, February 2010, page 540. Elision as in source. Boldface added. - - - Thanks. And we killed Izzy Yamamoto... - - - [nc #34] Please show where AUMF pertains to anything other than military force in combat? How do you translate it to non-military force engaged in assassination? Do you really find the status of American/Yemini citizen Al-Aulaqi comparable to that of Admiral (Japanese Naval General) Yamamoto? - - - [war #37] Please cite your authority for claiming that a) the resolution requires that all military actions be "combat" when the resolution clearly states "all necessary and appropriate force" and that command and control structures and personnel would be immune from any type of military strike or that b) a drone attack is not "military force"? And please don't cite wikipedia as being some sort of authority. Thanks. Permit me to give a fuller exploration of your Izzy Yamamoto remark with a quote from competent legal authority. See Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 103-104. As for your CIA led drone strike, see Vincent-Joël Proulx, If the Hat Fits Wear It, If the Turban Fits, Run for your Life: Reflections on the Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists, Hastings Law Journal, Volume 56, 2004-2005, page 888, discussing the targeted killing, by drone strike, of Mullah Mohammed Omar. In this case it is much more than likely that CIA operatives coordinated the targeted killings. Such has been stated to be the fact.
He isn't spamming. He is documenting. Crossing his T's and dotting his I's. He is thorough.
Stop making believe you can either read my mind or accurately recall a damn thing I have written but you cannot cite or quote. You dwell in the land of the Bullshitter. I believe in the Laws of Physics. I do not know what the cause of the building coming down was. When someone rationally explains, within the Laws of Physics, how gravity alone can cause a 110-story vertical collapse, with pulverization or powderization occurring on the way down, and complete the process in less than 10 seconds, I will have something to believe. Regarding 7WTC, it has been proven and admitted that it fell a considerable distance at gravitational acceleration. This is impossible unless there was no resistance from below. The events are not satisfactorily explained. What I really said. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24854&Disp=2#C2 That was the disproved government conspiracy theory. It is the so-called conspiracy theorists who were proven correct. This disproved pancake theory was officially declared dead. The pancake theory failed to survive the expert critics who pointed out why it was physically impossible. It would be impossible to collapse the building in ten seconds. There would be no pulverizing in mid-air on the way down. The law of conservation of momentum would have to be repealed. And, of course, to cause a vertical fall, hundreds of connectors on each floor would need to fail simultaneously. And, of course, the near free fall speed required the lower floor to enter downward motion before the upper floor reached it. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (NIST NCSTAR throughout this document refers to one of the 43 volumes that comprise NIST’s final report on the WTC Towers issued in October 2005. All sections of the report listed in this document are available at http://wtc.nist.gov.) [...] 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers. Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower. NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns— consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. [...]
You have provided none. I am dismissive of McCain's comment ten years later while addressing funding for his own partisan purposes because it is directly contrary to law, and I quoted several legal authorities to that effect. You pull your claims out of your butt and when challenged to support them, you cannot or will not. We participate in the execution or incarceration of people based precisely on the laws you deny to exist. They exist, but nobody can enforce them against our C-in-C, so we ignore them while we invoke them against the smaller and less powerful. Remember, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. The US is engaged in an authorized military action against Al Qaeda. That is indisuputable. It would, therefore, stand the laws and resolutions regarding armed conflict to disregard any member of an enemy organization who has direct knowledge of its terrorist operations and who also encourages those same operations to be regarded as a civilian rather than some form of combatant. It not only strains credulity of the laws of war but of common sense as well. Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs Unfortunately, your version of the Laws of War cannot be quoted from legal authority but only pulled out of your butt by the steaming pantload. Laws evolve and the boundaries of the Laws of War cannot remain static in their application when enemies do not remain static in how they wage war. Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. If the Laws of War have not evolved to your satisfaction, does that mean they may be ignored by the United States, while an American judge participates at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which "has jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity?" These trials are ongoing. "The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014." Under the Laws of War, when one party to a conflict abandons conformance to the Laws of War, an opposing party may equally abandon the same. Under this standard, it would be lawful for al-Qaeda to commit the target killing of President Obama. It may be analgous to the option, under the Laws of War, available to the Confederacy after the Union's failed Dahlgren Raid. Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, February 2010, page 540. Elision as in source. Boldface added.
You stating that I am "making up facts" does not make it so. Frankly, you ARE spamming, You throw a line or two in with little to absolutely no cogent reference to anything that I have posted and then provide "authority" with absolutely no cross referencing to how it is supposed to fit into the discussion. I went one round with you previously on Lincoln and his blockade which you claimed violated a treaty with Mexico. You did the same thing., i.e. you did one or all of a) ignored the counter argument, b) dismissed it as a "pantload" and/or provided voluminous materials most of which were extrinsic to the discussion. Sound familiar? You've done the same here. You've not made the case in any way, shape or recognizable form that this targeted killing of a high value military target was extra-legal. You've not made the case in any way, shape or recognizable form that the ongoing war against Al Qaeda violates the AUMF of 9/18/01. Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99 Did you actually READ the entire section from which you culled this one snippet? My guess is that apparently you did not... Read page 542.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Can I change your name to "The Government Line"? You still haven't answered what specifically the guy did and the documentation. Why is that? Because you are full of shit that is why.
Chuckles...always the chihuahua behind the bulldog, Stone...good boy. Now...SIT...
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
You already are, sometimes I cruise around with out my filter activated to see what the nuts are saying. And, ya, I already don't read it. Too many words, dude.
------------------------------------- You haven't answered that. Also about 20 other things above you fail to address. All you do is say the President can kill him because he is a terrorist. In this nation you are supposed to be_____________Until proven guilty? If you can't fill in the blank I have real doubts if you are even American.
Maybe you should take the time to read a little deeper. I'm sure he takes more time typing it up and sourcing it then it would take you to read.
Too much effort. I'm not really all that interested. I'm more interested in how different people argue or present their case, and determining the likely truth from that. You can pick out a bullshitter from his presentation, rather than sifting thru a ton of information.
------------------------------------- Lets give you a test then and see if you pass. Is war a bullshitter? Or just full of shit? Or dead on accurate?
Sure I have. Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki when, in fact, the opposite was true. The commmision, in fact, found a lot of smoke around him if no fire. Nolo culled a passage from a work on targeted killing and presented one statement - wholly out out of context to the work - that made it seem that the writer was making the case that such killings might be justified if they meet certain criteria. A point found clearly on page 542 of his work cited. Nolo tries to make the case that any military action undertaken by agents and officers of the CIA violate various rules and protocols of war to which the US is a signatory. He does so without offering any anecdotal US law or dicta which is an effective estoppel of the CIA in acting in a military capacity. INstead, he presents one side of the argument - the laws and protocols of war - without identifying an US law that may exist that contravenes those laws and protocols. IN other words, he avers that the CIA cannot engage in military actions without citing any US LAW so forbiding. He fails to acknowledge that the enemy that the US is fighting engages in such actions as well and in like manner. He expects the US to be bound to the letter of those rules and protocols in this fight while the enemy has free reign to not do so and given the nature of the enemy as "out of uniform" any action against them must be the act of not the Commander in Chief but of the civilian executive bound by the limits of the Bill of Rights. Nolo fails to acknowledge that the Constitutional powers of the POTUS which charge him with ensuring the safety of US border and citizens give him broad latitude in dispatching recognized combatants. He fails to recognize that the AUMF of 9/18/01 was directed against Al Qaeda. He relies on one floor speech as being the heart and soul of that authorization. I cited floor speech after floor speech as well as the recent words of Senator McCain which state QUITE CLEARLY that the intent of the AUMF is to eradicate Al qaeda. You believe that because Nolo provides voluminous materials that he must be correct. Most of his "information" is extrinsic, spurious or taken wholly out of context. So, yes, Stone, I HAVE answered it. This was a military undertaking not a civilian law enforcement matter.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
lol, probably neither you nor war will like the answer too much. War's not a bullshitter. Sometimes he's full of shit, sometimes he's dead on accurate. I think BeAChooser beat him in debate and I think ImStillRight beat him too. But lately war beats pretty much everyone. Like a rented mule. lol, how'd you like that war?!!
------------------------------------- Feint praise indeed.
"Would you just go suck a c*ck and get it over with already?" war posted on 2011-10-12 11:14:27 ET
lol, how'd you like that war?!! Mike Lange is in the Hockey Hall of Fame for a reason, Biff!!! I disagree about BAC. I usually had him scrambling like the Little Dutch Boy who ran out of fingers. I knew I had him when he started screaming "KOOK!!! KOOK!!! KOOK!!!" IMSR did best me a couple of time prior to 2006...after 2006 he got pretty cold. He was a pretty good guy who just up and disappeared. Hope all is well with him and his.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
To you Jethro, anything more than two sentences is "spamming." Put down your SpongeBob coloring book. Mr. Chan is busy backing up his assertions in what is called a forum "debate." Nothing you'd understand.
"Would you just go suck a c*ck and get it over with already?" war posted on 2011-10-12 11:14:27 ET
Ya, he was a good guy. I hope he's ok too. And you can't really blame BAC if he got trigger happy yelling KOOK, he was swarmed by the kooks.
------------------------------------- It's the internet fuckhead. I'm not here to praise anyone, and I doubt war's looking for it. Unlike you. And everyone's full of shit at some point. Except you, who's always full of shit. Now why don't you go suck a cock and get it over with?
------------------------------------- You didn't know that I use the internet for self-validation? /sarc
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
My guess is that apparently you did not... Read page 542. Your post responds to my #127 to Biff, the total text of which is, "When war stops making up facts, I'll stop documenting it. If you don't like it, don't read it. You are always welcome to put me on bozo." If there is something you like on page 542, quote it. Use any page, I have the book. I have all the books I am quoting from.
I have correctly characterized that page in my post. Feel free to dispute that characterization.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
[war #140] "Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki when, in fact, the opposite was true. The commmision, in fact, found a lot of smoke around him if no fire." I did not cite the 9/11 Commission as exonerating al-Aulaqi. There has never been anything to exonerate him for in America. He has never been charged with anything. I quoted the relevant material showing that they failed to conclude guilt of anything, much less anything to justify an execution without trial. [war #33] "He met with and, IIRC, harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers and became an integral member of AQ as a spokesman and a plotter and had himself called for "jihad" against the US and acts of terror against us." [nc #34] "As far as I know, he stood neither indicted nor charged with any criminal act, much less tried or convicted. I know of no assertion that he "harbored" 9/11 hijackers. Even if there were evidence that two people who later became hijackers stayed with him, absent knowledge that he was a co-conspirator with foreknowledge of future criminal plans, it's nothing. In 2000, he met two of the future hijackers at his mosque in San Diego. The FBI investigated and found no cause to detain al-Aulaqi. The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader. " I provided the cites, links and quotes to show that what war asserted as fact, is what he now admits was smoke. My sources were Wikipedia and the Daily Mail. I quoted the Daily Mail "The U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report says the men 'respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.'" war's alleged "facts" in support of al-Aulaqi's execution were not facts. At #43, war falsely claimed, "Your contention about what the 9/11 commission "discovered" about al-awlaki seems to be incorrect." [nc #34] The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader. [Daily Mail, nc #34] The U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report says the men 'respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.' That is the only thing there attributed to the 9/11 Report. He could have quoted what I said, and responded to that, but he preferred to make up bullshit. Now he is just making up different bullshit.
[war #140 Nolo tries to make the case that any military action undertaken by agents and officers of the CIA violate various rules and protocols of war to which the US is a signatory. He does so without offering any anecdotal US law or dicta which is an effective estoppel of the CIA in acting in a military capacity. INstead, he presents one side of the argument - the laws and protocols of war - without identifying an US law that may exist that contravenes those laws and protocols. IN other words, he avers that the CIA cannot engage in military actions without citing any US LAW so forbiding. This legal bullshit spewed by war is such bullshit that I will rebut it with the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice. war makes a bullshit claim that can he can never quote, as typical of his bullshit claims, namely, Neither the U.S., nor anyone else, gets an exemption from international law which has been adopted as general custom and practice. The targeting nation does not need to sign anything to come under the constraints of international law as they would be applied to action against a target. Israeli Supreme Court, PCATI v Israel, HCJ 769/02, (2006) (Judgment provided below in full), at paragraph 19: And from paragraph 20: Customary, entrenched international law applies to all sovereign states, whether they signed something or not. Quite obviously war does not have a clue what he is talking about, but he has uncontrollable diarrhea of the mouth. I provided a perfectly good expert legal opinion, and cited and quoted the applicable international laws of very long standing which make the matter of CIA involvement problematic, and I explained why. I can't help it if war is stuck on stupid. The CIA is a civilian agency. The agents are not armed forces. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24727&Disp=43#C43 The US is engaged in an authorized military action against Al Qaeda. That is indisuputable. It would, therefore, stand the laws and resolutions regarding armed conflict to disregard any member of an enemy organization who has direct knowledge of its terrorist operations and who also encourages those same operations to be regarded as a civilian rather than some form of combatant. It not only strains credulity of the laws of war but of common sense as well. Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs - - - - - Not even the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, could buy that nonsense. See PCATI v. Israel HCJ 796/02 (13 Dec 2006), provided infra. The discussion here is about the nature and effect of International law, the Laws of War, and not any domestic law. Regardless of one's opinion regarding the merits of International law, I am not arguing its merit, but arguing that war's assertions about what it contains are twisted nonsense. First, I must address the issue of unlawful combatant. In International Law, such a classification does not exist. "As IHL does not prohibit civilian direct participation in hostilities, the expression 'unlawful combatant' belongs to the realm of domestic law only, and should not be used in a discussion of IHL." 1 [IHL is International Humanitarian Law] Who is a civilian? "A civilian is any person not belonging to one of the categories referred to Geneva Convention III as eligible for POW status upon capture."2 "Furthermore, in view of the mutually exclusive conception of the terms 'civilian' and 'combatant', the term 'unprivileged combatant' should be used exclusively for persons who are not civilians." 3 According to Geneva Convention, Addition Protocol I, Article 50(1), "a civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol." All persons in the cited provisions are armed forces entitled to POW status upon capture, or are POWs. The definitions are seamless. Armed Forces are defined, and civilians are defined as anyone not classified as armed forces. There can be no third category in International Law, encompassing non-combatants who are unlawful combatants. "Civilians, on the other hand, benefit from immunity against attack unless they are engaged in DPH. Of course, immunity from direct attack does not mean immunity from arrest and penal process."4 [DPH = Direct Participation in Hostilities] Which brings me to my question previously asked, but not answered. Under International Law, he may be classified as Armed Forces or Civilian. Civilians are those who do not enjoy POW status upon capture. The domestically invented category of unlawful combatant does not exist in International Law. As shown below, the Israeli High Court of Justice found "the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law." Talking of the legal definition, The Israeli court stated, "That definition is 'negative' in nature. It defines the concept of 'civilian' as the opposite of 'combatant'. It thus views unlawful combatants – who, as we have seen, are not 'combatants' – as civilians. The U.S. denies that any of al Qaeda or Taliban or the equivalent are entitled to POW status. If they are not entitled to POW status upon capture, International Law only permits them to be categorized as civilians. "The striking feature of the Protocol's definitions is that they follow a 'negative approach'. They do not tell us who or what the protected persons and objects are. They tell us who or what the rotected persons and objects are not. The negative character of the definitions 'is justified by the fact that the concepts of the civilian population and of the armed forces are only conceived in opposition to each other'. The benefit accruing from this approach is that there is no undistributed middle between the categories of combatants or military objectives and civilians or civilian objects.5 "The basic rule on direct participation in hostilities is clear: civilians are protected against direct attack 'unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities', first used in Article 3, GC I to IV." Protocol II of 1977 states, "Art 13. Protection of the civilian population … 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." "Terrorists: These practical problems may provoke ill-considered simplifications, such as asserting that the targeted person was a known or suspected 'terrorist' — a judicially undefined notion that is strictly irrelevant for the lawfulness of targeting under the paradigm of hostilities."6 Antonio Cassese, Expert Opinion, offered in Israel HCJ, PCATI v Israel, HCJ 769-02, pp. 19-20 of 20. Emphasis as in original. According to the fundamental distinction of international humanitarian law between combatants and civilians, only the fonner may constitute lawful objects of attack. However, if civilians take a direct part in hostilities, they may be targeted while they are actually engaging in combat, or while carrying arms openly during a military deployment preceding an attack in which they participate, or (exceptionally) if they are manifestly concealing on their own body the explosives they intend to use against enemy civilians or combatants and do not comply with a summons to show that they are innocent civilians not carrying arms. Both principles of international humanitarian law and military manuals lead to the conclusion that civilians may not be attacked while planning or preparing an attack or after committing it. In such cases, if suspected of directly engaging in military operations, they may be arrested. It has to be proved by judicial means, that is, through a proper trial, that they intended to commit an hostile act or had done so. In other words, suspected persons may be arrested in order to ascertain their responsibility, as is the case for other combatants who do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population, namely spies, saboteurs and irregular fighters. Such civilians unlawfully participating in armed hostilities may be tried and punished for war crimes. To hold that killing civilians suspected of terrorism, while they are not engaged in military action, is internationally lawful, would involve a blatant departure from the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. It would entail the undermining of the very foundation of that body of law, namely the distinction between combatants and civilians. Under current international humanitarian law and international criminal law attacking civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities may amount to a war crime. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf Targeted Killings case, Public Committee against Torture et al. v. The Government of Israel et al., Supreme Court of Israel Sitting as the High Court of Justice, 2006, Judgment issued December 13, 2006. At 16 et seq: Combatants At 17: "[A]s we have seen, the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law; they are not entitled to the status of prisoners of war; they can be put on trial for their membership in terrorist organizations and for their operations against the army." At 18: "That definition is "negative" in nature. It defines the concept of "civilian" as the opposite of "combatant". It thus views unlawful combatants – who, as we have seen, are not "combatants" – as civilians. Does that mean that the unlawful combatants are entitled to the same protection to which civilians who are not unlawful combatantsare entitled? The answer is, no. Customary international law regarding armedconflicts determines that a civilian taking a direct part in the hostilities does not, atsuch time, enjoy the protection granted to a civilian who is not taking a direct part inthe hostilities (see §51(3) of The First Protocol). The result is that an unlawfulcombatant is not a combatant, rather a "civilian". However, he is a civilian who is notprotected from attack as long as he is taking a direct part in the hostilities. Indeed, aperson's status as unlawful combatant is not merely an issue of the internal state penallaw. It is an issue for international law dealing with armed conflicts (see Jinks). It ismanifest in the fact that civilians who are unlawful combatants are legitimate targetsfor attack, and thus surely do not enjoy the rights of civilians who are not unlawfulcombatants, provided that they are taking a direct part in the hostilities at such time. Nor, as we have seen, do they enjoy the rights granted to combatants. Thus, for example, the law of prisoners of war does not apply to them." At 19 et seq: A Third Category: Unlawful combatants? At 20: "It is difficult for us to see how a third category can be recognized in the framework of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. It does not appear to us that we were presented with data sufficient to allow us to say, at the present time, that such athird category has been recognized in customary international law." At 22: "The basic approach is thus as follows: a civilian – that is, a person who doesnot fall into the category of combatant – must refrain from directly participating inhostilities (see FLECK, at p. 210). A civilian who violates that law and commits actsof combat does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct partin hostilities he does not enjoy – during that time – the protection granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject,without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war. True, his status is that of a civilian, and he does not lose that status while he is directly participating in hostilities. However, he is a civilian performing the functionof a combatant. As long as he performs that function, he is subject to the risks whichthat function entails and ceases to enjoy the protection granted to a civilian from attack...." At 23: "Civilians lose the protection against military attack, granted to them by customary international law dealing with international armed conflict (as adopted in The First Protocol, §51(3)), if "they take a direct part in hostilities". That provision differentiates between civilians taking a direct part in hostilities (from whom theprotection from attack is removed) and civilians taking an indirect part in hostilities (who continue to enjoy protection from attack). What is that differentiation? Asimilar provision appears in Common Article 3 of The Geneva Conventions, whichuses the wording "active part in hostilities". The judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda determined that these two terms are of identicalcontent (see The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, case no. ICTR-96-4-T (1998))." At 27: "In our opinion, the "direct" character of the part taken should not be narrowed merely to the personcommitting the physical act of attack. Those who have sent him, as well, take "a direct part". The same goes for the person who decided upon the act, and the person who planned it. It is not to be said about them that they are taking an indirect part in the hostilities. Their contribution is direct (and active)(see Schmitt, at p. 529)." At 27 et seq: The Third Part" "For Such Time" At 28: The burden of proof on the attacking army is heavy (see Kretzmer, at p. 203; GROSS at p. 606). In the case of doubt, careful verification is needed before an attack is made. At 40: "The result of that examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does notexist regarding those civilians "for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities" (§51(3) of The First Protocol). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no other less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians nearby are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportionate. That proportionality is determined according to a values based test, intended to balance between the military advantage and the civilian damage. As we have seen, we cannot determine that a preventative strike is always legal, just as we cannot determine that it is always illegal. All depends upon the question whether the standards of customary international law regarding international armed conflict allowthat preventative strike or not." At 40: 61. The State of Israel is fighting against severe terrorism, which plagues it from the area. The means at Israel's disposal are limited. The State determined that preventative strikes upon terrorists in the area which cause their deaths are a necessary means from the military standpoint. These strikes at times cause harm and even death to innocent civilians. These preventative strikes, with all the military importance they entail, must be made within the framework of the law. The saying "when the cannons roar, the muses are silent" is well known. A similar idea was expressed by Cicero, who said: "during war, the laws are silent" ( silent enim legisinter arma). Those sayings are regrettable. They reflect neither the existing law nor the desirable law (see Re. Application Under s.83.28 of the Criminal Code [2004] 2S.C.R. 248, 260). It is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws (see HCJ 168/91 Murkus v. The Minister of Defense , 45(1) PD 467, 470, hereinafter Murkus). Every struggle of the state – against terrorism or any other enemy – is conducted according to rules and law. There is always law which the state must comply with. There are no "black holes" (see JOHAN STEYN, DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW: SELECTED SPEECHES AND JUDGMENTS 195 (2004)). In this case, the law was determined by customary international law regarding conflicts of an international character. Indeed, the State's struggle against terrorism is not conducted "outside" of the law. It is conducted "inside" the law, with tools that the law places at the disposal of democratic states. - - - - - - - - - - 1 Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2008, reprinted 2010, p. 331. 2 Gary D. Solis, United States Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, 2010, page 542. 3 Melzer, supra at 1, p. 332, citing Israel, HCJ, PCATI v. Israel, §§ 26, 39. 4 ICRC/Asser, Report, Expert Meeting, Direct Participation in Hostilities, 2004, p. 17. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/2004-07-report-dph-2004-icrc.pdf 5 Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 123. 6 Melzer, supra at 1, p. 402.
Prosecutor v Delalic, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, IT-96-21 (16 Nov 1998), pp. 99-101, paragraphs 264-272. Dalalic prosecutor Teresa McHenry is the current Chief of the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section of the United States Department of Justice. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has "jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity" Note para 271. In international law, there is no such thing as an unlawful combatant who resides outside the law. Those not eligible for POW status upon capture are, by definition, civilians. 264. The law must be applied to the reality of the situation before us and thus, to reiterate, the relevant facts are as follows: - Upon the dissolution of the SFRY, an international armed conflict between, at least, the FRY and its forces and the authorities of the independent State of Bosnia and Herzegovina took place; - A segment of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Bosnian Serbs, declared their independence from that State and purported to establish their own Republic which would form part of the FRY; - The FRY armed and equipped the Bosnian Serb population and created its army, the VRS; - In the course of military operations in the Konjic municipality, being part of this international armed conflict, the Bosnian government forces detained Bosnian Serb men and women in the Celebici prison-camp. 265. Without yet entering the discussion of whether or not their detention was unlawful, it is clear that the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment were arrested and detained mainly on the basis of their Serb identity. As such, and insofar as they were not protected by any of the other Geneva Conventions, they must be considered to have been "protected persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as they were clearly regarded by the Bosnian authorities as belonging to the opposing party in an armed conflict and as posing a threat to the Bosnian State. 266. This interpretation of the Convention is fully in accordance with the development of the human rights doctrine which has been increasing in force since the middle of this century. It would be incongruous with the whole concept of human rights, which protect individuals from the excesses of their own governments, to rigidly apply the nationality requirement of article 4, that was apparently inserted to prevent interference in a State's relations with its own nationals. Furthermore, the nature of the international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina reflects the complexity of many modern conflicts and not, perhaps, the paradigm envisaged in 1949. In order to retain the relevance and effectiveness of the norms of the Geneva Conventions, it is necessary to adopt the approach here taken. As was recently stated by Meron, ____________________ 293 Commentary, p. 46 Case No.: IT-96-21T (ii) Were the Victims Prisoners of War? 267. Article 4(A) of the Third Geneva Convention sets rather stringent requirements for the achievement of prisoner of war status. Once again, this provision was drafted in light of the experience of the Second World War and reflects the conception of an international armed conflict current at that time. Thus, the various categories of persons who may be considered prisoners of war are narrowly framed. 268. In the present case, it does not appear to be contended that the victims of the acts alleged were members of the regular armed forces of one of the parties to the conflict, as defined in sub-paragraph 1 of the article. Neither, clearly, are sub-paragraphs 3, 4 or 5 applicable. Attention must, therefore, be focused on whether they were members of militias or volunteer corps belonging to a party which: (a) were commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) had a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance; (c) carried arms openly; and (d) conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Alternatively, they could have constituted a levée en masse, that is, being inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously took up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, and at all times they carried arms openly and respected the laws and customs of war. 269. The Prosecution seeks to invoke the provisions of Additional Protocol I295 to interpret and clarify those of article 4(A)(2) and wishes to take a liberal approach to the detailed requirements that the sub-paragraph contains. Even should this be accepted, and despite the discussion above of the need to take a broad and flexible approach to the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, the Trial Chamber finds it difficult, on the evidence presented to it, to conclude that any of the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment satisfied these requirements. While it is apparent that some of the persons detained in the Celebici prison-camp had been in possession of weapons and may be considered to have participated to some degree in 'hostilities', this is not sufficient to render them entitled to prisoner of war status. There was clearly a Military Investigating Commission established in Konjic, tasked with categorising the Celebici detainees, but this can be regarded as related to the question of exactly what activities each detainee had been engaged in prior to arrest ____________________ 295 1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Victims of International Armed Conflicts (hereafter "Additional Protocol I"). Case No.: IT-96-21T and whether they posed a particular threat to the security of the Bosnian authorities. Having reached this conclusion, it is not even necessary to discuss the issue of whether the Bosnian Serbs detained in Celebici "belonged" to the forces of one of the parties to the conflict. 270. Similarly, the Trial Chamber is not convinced that the Bosnian Serb detainees constituted a levée en masse. This concept refers to a situation where territory has not yet been occupied, but is being invaded by an external force, and the local inhabitants of areas in the line of this invasion take up arms to resist and defend their homes. It is difficult to fit the circumstances of the present case, as described in Section II above, into this categorisation. The authorities in the Konjic municipality were clearly not an invading force from which the residents of certain towns and villages were compelled to resist and defend themselves. In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians. 271. It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that; 272. This position is confirmed by article 50 of Additional Protocol I which regards as civilians all persons who are not combatants as defined in article 4(A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Geneva Convention, and article 43 of the Protocol itself. ____________________ 296 Commentary, p. 51. Case No.: IT-96-21T
So you think that the 911 commission was a court?
[A K A Stone] So you think that the 911 commission was a court? There were no charges. Had it been a court, there would have been an dismissal based on a finding of insufficient evidence. "We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hamzi and Mihidar to reach a conclusion." That does not seem to justify a death sentence. The only appearances of the name Aulaqi in the 9/11 Report are on pages 221 and 229. The last sentence on 229 carries over to 230. It is difficult to see where it contains anything to justify an execution. - - -
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter? Does a murder investigation stop at the finding of the body?
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Now you're just flailing. Why should I care about a decision from the Israeli Supreme Court as I sit at my desk in NYC? Can you cite any decision from the US Supreme Court that binds the Commander in Chief of the United States of America to the decision of a court of another sovereign?
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
The AUMF that authorized the Commander in Chief to turn Al-Alwaki into bits of pink is dated 2001.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Hey slow boy. You still never answered what he did.
I have answered it several times on this thread. IN fact, yesterday I wrote a response to you that bottled the essence of the argument. Thanks for admitting you do not read.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
When two laws are in conflict, one constitutionally based e.g. powers of the Commander in Chief versus the other which is based upon a treaty, which one takes precedent?
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
Here is your answer. This amendment came after any powers that the commander in chief had. So it would have amended any conflicts that you can make up and imagine. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Acts of war are not covered by the criminal code in the US. Again, had you read my response you'd understand the argument. Nolo believes that anyone allegedly out of uniform is a civilian even if he commits or conspires to commit acts of war.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
What acts of war? We have no declared war.
We declared war the moment that the Congress authorized military action and DumbDubv43 signed it into law on 9/18/01. That's what war is...military action. That said, there need not be a declared war for an act of war to be committed. It's not a necessary condition. If China bombed us we our immediate reaction would not be to arrest them.
Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer]
You have offered nothing more. Lawful executions required proof of guilt. The government never produced evidence to obtain an arrest warrant.
Why should I care about a decision from the Israeli Supreme Court as I sit at my desk in NYC? Can you cite any decision from the US Supreme Court that binds the Commander in Chief of the United States of America to the decision of a court of another sovereign? You should care about the Israeli decision because it accurately reflects the content and effect of International Law, just as does the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hamdan. You may recall that all of the GWB military tribunals were annihilated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and one of the bases was that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied and that the GWB nonsense was in violation of said Common Article 3 (as well as the U.S. constitution). U.S. Supreme Court held thatHamdan was entitled to the protection of Geneva Convention Common Article 3 and that it is not a conflict of an international character. It further found, "Even assuming that Hamden [sic - Hamdan] is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity, the Executive nevertheless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment." In 2006, the Bush administration "agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials." All enemy combatants, upon capture, are entitled to POW status. The Al Qaeda fighters are not classified as enemy combatants.
The citer of that proposition is brown up to his eyeballs.
How do you classify Aulaqi under international law? There are only two choices. Unlawful combatant is not either of them. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdan eliminates enemy combatant.
The powers of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is that of the senior military authority. He is not endowed with any special powers that a military officer would not have if he were to be in the position. The military is not exempt from the Constitution. Congress is expressly provided authority to make rules for the governing of the land and naval forces. The President is not Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
That's because they are not U.S. civilian crimes. They are covered by US military law under the UCMJ, applicable to U.S. military personnel.
As full of shit as ever. A civilian who takes part in hostilities does not become a a member of the armed forces thereby. He becomes an unprivileged Civilian for the duration of the time he takes an active and direct part in hostilities. If captured, he does not become a prisoner of war. Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war. Were they to be classified as combatants, they would be entitled to POW status. A POW cannot be tried for his hostile acts except for war crimes. Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law, Oxford monographs in International Law, Oxfor University Press, 2008, reprinted 2010, page 331. Gary D. Solis, United States Military Academy, The Law of Armed Conflict, 2010, page 542. Are you claiming Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are entitled to POW status upon capture? Under applicable international law, civilians are anyone who is not so entitled. Melzer, supra at 1, p. 332, citing Israel, HCJ, PCATI v. Israel, §§ 26, 39. Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 50(1). All persons in the cited provisions are armed forces entitled to POW status upon capture, or are already POWs. Melzer, supra at 1, p. 332-33.
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter? Does a murder investigation stop at the finding of the body? Stay Thirsty My Friends...[some guy in a commercial who claims to not always drink beer but who is always seen drinking beer] It was just yesterday, 10/13/2011, that you spewed the following bullshit: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24551&Disp=140#C140 Sure I have. Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki when, in fact, the opposite was true. The commmision, in fact, found a lot of smoke around him if no fire. [...] war posted on 2011-10-13 8:33:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply If the 9/11 Report did the opposite of exonerating Aulaqi, what did it do? Is the opposite of exonerate finding smoke? Where did I say it exonerated Aulaqi? In your typical dirtbag manner, you can never source your crap to something actually said. As justification for Aulaqi's extra-judicial execution, you continue to produce nothing but smoke.
Again, you are referring to the status of persons IN CUSTODY and NOT persons who are actively engaged in either direct acts of war or conspiring to commit acts of war. Al-awlki was NOT in custody.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
You stated quite clearly that the 9/11 report - a report you have expressed extreme skepticism about in the past - cited Al-awlki merely as a spiritual leader of some of the hijackers.
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
Chuckles. Are you incapable of following a conversation from memory? Or are you just venting now because you've been weighed, measured, and found to be flailing about?
[RENT THIS SPACE INSIDE BOOFER'S HEAD]
It is legally impossible for the United States to be in a state of war with AQ, AQAP, the Taliban, or any group of irregular fighters.
Neither are you, and that is surprising. You are not posting from a mental ward, are you?
Once again you are a lying dirtbag. You can't help it. It is in your nature. What I really said. What you claim as I "cited AlAwlki merely as a spiritual leader of the hijackers." You just can't help yourself. As far as I know, he stood neither indicted nor charged with any criminal act, much less tried or convicted. I know of no assertion that he "harbored" 9/11 hijackers. Even if there were evidence that two people who later became hijackers stayed with him, absent knowledge that he was a co-conspirator with foreknowledge of future criminal plans, it's nothing. In 2000, he met two of the future hijackers at his mosque in San Diego. The FBI investigated and found no cause to detain al-Aulaqi. The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki While in San Diego, he preached at a local mosque, where in 2000 he met two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The FBI questioned him at the time but found no cause to detain him. The U.S. government's 9/11 Commission report says the men 'respected al-Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.' They were aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. He then preached at a mosque in Virginia before leaving the U.S. to return to the Middle East where he rose to become one of the CIA's most wanted. After 9/11 al-Awlaki became the public face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and one of the CIA's most wanted men in the world. Counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Yemen has improved in recent weeks, allowing better intelligence-gathering on al-Awlaki's movements, U.S. officials said. The ability to better track him was a key factor in the success of the strike, U.S. officials said. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. Al-Awlaki's death is the latest in a run of high-profile kills for America under President Obama. But the killing raises questions that the death of other al-Qaida leaders, including bin Laden, did not. Al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, who had not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial. - - - [...]
I cannot follow your make believe conversations. They exist only with your imaginary friends in your spider infested brain.
#2. To: Sebastian (#0)
President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American without due process of law.
Capitalist Eric: Foreplay before the president's staff? 
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
The ACLU seems to forget that our government doesn't care about the law...
#4. To: Sebastian (#0)
(Edited)
President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American without due process of law.
That government is best which governs not at all -- Henry David Thoreau
#5. To: jwpegler (#4)
It's called first degree murder.
#6. To: Sebastian (#0)
“The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said
#7. To: Sebastian (#0)
The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the killing of the U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by U.S. forces.
My dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than the self appointed Messiah!!!
#8. To: go65 (#5)
Under current U.S. law
That government is best which governs not at all -- Henry David Thoreau
#9. To: go65, jwpegler (#5)
(Edited)
Under current U.S. law the President has the authority to attack enemy combatants outside of the U.S., regardless of their citizenship/country of origin.
#10. To: go65 (#5)
Nope, it's called war.
#11. To: CZ82 (#7)
I guess my question is who really gives a shit about what the ACLU thinks/says in the first place????
#12. To: jwpegler, go65 (#8)
ABC NEWS: [Ron Paul] added that the United States is in 130 countries and has 900 bases around the world, and added that “we’re broke.”. He was booed at a Tea-Party debate.
Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Statist and all ships at sea. Your demonization of the Tea Party has worked - you need no longer fear it! Carry on!!
#13. To: Get Outta Dodge!, jwpegler, go65, A K A Stone (#12)
When I woke up this morning, it must have been in the Twilight Zone.
What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.
#14. To: nolu chan (#13)
I disagree with all those who found an allegedly "good cause" to ignore the Constitution, whether it was Lincoln, Dubya Bush, or Obama.
#15. To: jwpegler (#8)
#16. To: e_type_jag (#14)
Missing for most would be the reason for Lincoln in there.
#17. To: e_type_jag (#15)
I'm really hoping after the pig in office takes his sow and their droppings out of the WH that somebody in the next Justice Department considers bringing some serious investigations and that they result in criminal charges being proferred.
#18. To: A K A Stone, e_type_jag (#17)
I'm convinced if Perry is elected he will have Obama executed.
#19. To: nolu chan (#18)
I'm convinced if Perry is elected he will have Obama executed.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Perry isn't any of those people. He said that the Fed (Obama) was commiting treason if they printed more money. I think they just did that recently didn't they? So that is the punishment for treason. Or do you think Perry was just kidding? Or maybe he is serious but wouldn't follow through with it?
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Perry isn't any of those people. He said that the Fed (Obama) was commiting treason if they printed more money. I think they just did that recently didn't they? So that is the punishment for treason. Or do you think Perry was just kidding? Or maybe he is serious but wouldn't follow through with it?
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.
#22. To: nolu chan (#9)
Can you please identify the U.S. law to which you refer?
#23. To: nolu chan, all (#21)
They are all full of crap, both parties. Pay more attention to what they do, and less attention to what they say.
#24. To: Sebastian, go65 (#22)
Under current U.S. law the President has the authority to attack enemy combatants outside of the U.S., regardless of their citizenship/country of origin.
The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), concluding that sovereign immunity barred all of the plaintiffs’ claims. See El-Shifa, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 270–73. The court also noted that the complaint “likely present[ed] a nonjusticiable political question.” Id. at 276. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter the judgment with respect to their claims for equitable relief, which the district court denied. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, No. 01-731, 2007 WL 950082 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2007). The plaintiffs appealed, challenging only the dismissal of their claims alleging a violation of the law of nations and defamation. The plaintiffs have abandoned any request for monetary relief, but still seek a declaration that the government’s failure to compensate them for the destruction of the plant violated customary international law, a declaration that statements government officials made about them were defamatory, and an injunction requiring the government to retract those statements. A divided panel of this court affirmed the district court, holding that these claims are barred by the political question doctrine. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 559 F.3d 578 (D.C. Cir. 2009). We vacated the panel’s judgment and ordered rehearing en banc. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 330 F. App’x 200 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Our concurring colleagues charge the court with “sub silentio expand[ing] executive power.” Concurring Op. of Judge Ginsburg at 3 (quoting Concurring Op. of Judge Kavanaugh at 11). To the contrary, it is they who would work a sub silentio expansion. By asserting the authority to decide questions the Constitution reserves to Congress and the Executive, some would expand judicial power at the expense of the democratically elected branches. And by stretching beyond all precedent the limited category of claims so frivolous as not to involve a federal question, all would permit courts to decide the merits of disputes under the guise of a jurisdictional holding while sidestepping obstacles that are truly jurisdictional.
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.
#25. To: nolu chan (#24)
The use of the term enemy combatants appears imprecise. I believe the more appropriate term would be unlawful combatants. In this context, I would question whether whether al-Aulaqi fits the description of any sort of combatant.
#26. To: Thunderbird (#25)
How about unlawful enemy combatant?
certainly fits the bill..especially with his fingerprints on the diaper bomb.
Ibrahim al-Asiri is the bomb-maker linked to the bomb hidden in the underwear of a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.
I also question Al-Aulaqi's right to claim citizenship in the United States as well as the legal standing for his father to bring the lawsuit.
How about unlawful enemy combatant?
265. Without yet entering the discussion of whether or not their detention was unlawful, it is clear that the victims of the acts alleged in the Indictment were arrested and detained mainly on the basis of their Serb identity. As such, and insofar as they were not protected by any of the other Geneva Conventions, they must be considered to have been “protected persons” within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as they were clearly regarded by the Bosnian authorities as belonging to the opposing party in an armed conflict and as posing a threat to the Bosnian State.
[i]n interpreting the law, our goal should be to avoid paralyzing the legal process as much as possible and, in the case of humanitarian conventions, to enable them to serve their protective goals.
(ii) Were the Victims Prisoners of War?
‘‘§ 948a. Definitions
#27. To: Sebastian (#0)
#28. To: Badeye (#27)
Once you read the orginal charter of the ACLU you realize its long held goal is pretty much the same as Al Qaeda's.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#29. To: nolu chan (#24)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#30. To: war (#29)
aided the terrorist attacks
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#32. To: war (#29)
(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.
#33. To: nolu chan (#32)
(Edited)
Please show the slightest evidence that al-Aulaqi had anything to do with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011."
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#34. To: war (#33)
[war #33] He met with and, IIRC, harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers and became an integral member of AQ as a spokesman and a plotter and had himself called for "jihad" against the US and acts of terror against us.
Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers, alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
Born in New Mexico in 1971 to Yemeni parents al-Awlaki left the U.S. as a child as his family returned to Yemen. He then came back to America in 1991 as a mosque preacher where he conducted his university studies. He was not seen by his congregations as radical.
[war #33] Please show me where "appropriate force" means "Shoot but not kill".
[nc #32] While the AUMF related to September 11, 2001 is often cited, that AUMF is directly related to the events of 9/11.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has dedared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces
REPORTING
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
#35. To: war (#33)
[nc #32] U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional.
This argument will not be ultimately resolved until Congress directly addresses it, and the judicial branch rules on it.
No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole
people, for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and, if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people. If there was law to justify this military trial, it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings. The decision of this question does not depend on argument or judicial precedents, numerous and highly illustrative as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the struggle to preserve liberty and to relieve those in civil life from military trials. The founders of our government were familiar with the history of that struggle, and secured in a written constitution every right which the people had wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that Constitution and the laws authorized by it, this question must be determined. The provisions of that instrument on the administration of criminal justice are too plain and direct to leave room for misconstruction or doubt of their true meaning. Those applicable to this case are found in that clause of the original Constitution which says "That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury," and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of the amendments. The fourth proclaims the right to be secure in person and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, and directs that a judicial warrant shall not issue "without proof of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation." The fifth declares
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
connected with the military service. Congress could grant no such power, and, to the honor of our national legislature be it said, it has never been provoked by the state of the country even to attempt its exercise. One of the plainest constitutional provisions was therefore infringed when Milligan was tried by a court not ordained and established by Congress and not composed of judges appointed during good behavior.
have differed on the correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitution, and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but, until recently, no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed, but if ideas can be expressed in words and language has any meaning, this right -- one of the most valuable in a free country -- is preserved to everyone accused of crime who is not attached to the army or navy or militia in actual service. The sixth amendment affirms that, "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury," language broad enough to embrace all persons and cases; but the fifth, recognizing the necessity of an indictment or presentment before anyone can be held to answer for high crimes, "excepts cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger," and the framers of the Constitution doubtless meant to limit the right of trial by jury in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth.
there is no difficulty of preserving the safeguards of liberty, for the ordinary modes of trial are never neglected, and no one wishes it otherwise; but if society is disturbed by civil commotion -- if the passions of men are aroused and the restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded -- these safeguards need, and should receive, the watchful care of those intrusted with the guardianship of the Constitution and laws. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution.
together; the antagonism is irreconcilable, and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish.
in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it was easy, by the use of direct words, to have accomplished it. The illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.
it, all pretext for martial law. Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.
2. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
3. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944).
#36. To: nolu chan, war (#35)
people, for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and, if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people. If there was law to justify this military trial, it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings. The decision of this question does not depend on argument or judicial precedents, numerous and highly illustrative as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the struggle to preserve liberty and to relieve those in civil life from military trials. The founders of our government were familiar with the history of that struggle, and secured in a written constitution every right which the people had wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that Constitution and the laws authorized by it, this question must be determined. The provisions of that instrument on the administration of criminal justice are too plain and direct to leave room for misconstruction or doubt of their true meaning. Those applicable to this case are found in that clause of the original Constitution which says "That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury," and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of the amendments. The fourth proclaims the right to be secure in person and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, and directs that a judicial warrant shall not issue "without proof of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation." The fifth declares
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
Please show where AUMF pertains to anything other than military force in combat?
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#38. To: nolu chan (#35)
The 5th Amendment has no applicability to killing in accordance with the laws of war. If I am wearing my DoD warsuit and kill a uniformed enemy on the field of battle during a declared war, it is a lawful act according to the laws of war. Killing of American civilians, not on a battlefield, not engaged in combat, not charged with any crime, by non-military CIA, in the complete absence of due process, is a different matter.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#39. To: A K A Stone (#36)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#40. To: war, nolu chan (#39)
Shh...watch and learn for once...
#41. To: A K A Stone (#40)
(Edited)
I am watching.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#42. To: war (#41)
#43. To: nolu chan (#34)
As far as I know, he stood neither indicted nor charged with any criminal act, much less tried or convicted. I know of no assertion that he "harbored" 9/11 hijackers. Even if there were evidence that two people who later became hijackers stayed with him, absent knowledge that he was a co-conspirator with foreknowledge of future criminal plans, it's nothing. In 2000, he met two of the future hijackers at his mosque in San Diego. The FBI investigated and found no cause to detain al-Aulaqi. The 9/11 commission found they respected al-Aulaqi as a religious leader.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#45. To: war (#37)
You do know that the Ft. Hood shooter is not being tried in civilian court?
(7) Unprivileged enemy belligerent.— The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
2010 US Code
Title 10 Armed Forces
Subtitle A —General Military Law (§§ 101—2925)
PART II —PERSONNEL (§§ 501—1801_to_1805)
CHAPTER 47A —MILITARY COMMISSIONS (§§ 948a—950t)
SUBCHAPTER I —GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 948a—948d)
The resolution cannot be interpreted in the narrow sense that you want it to be which would be to allow for force for who the hell knows what. The resolution specifically authorizes preemptive strikes to thwart future acts of terrorism by AQ. The Congress understood this when it required DumbDubv43 to seek a separate resolution to invade Iraq. I doubt that you'd find 5 Congressmen who would agree that the original 9/18/01 resolution did not authorize continued action against AQ anywhere they may be.
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.
#46. To: war (#43)
Your contention about what the 9/11 commission "discovered" about al-awlaki seems to be incorrect.
Another potentially significant San Diego contact for Hazmi and Mihdhar was Anwar Aulaqi, an imam at the Rabat mosque. Born in New Mexico and thus a U.S. citizen, Aulaqi grew up inYemen and studied in the United States on a Yemeni government scholarship. We do not know how or when Hazmi and Mihdhar first met Aulaqi. The operatives may even have met or at least talked to him the same day they first moved to San Diego. Hazmi and Mihdhar reportedly respected Aulaqi as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.33
By the time Atta and Shehhi returned to Virginia Beach from their travels in Georgia, Hazmi and Hanjour had also arrived in Virginia, in Falls Church. They made their way to a large mosque there, the Dar al Hijra mosque, sometime in early April.73
#47. To: war (#38)
The Resolution does not limit the use of force to that which can only be undertaken by the military. If you believe that it does please cite the appropriate section of the resolution which so limits the use of force to that initiated by the military.
#48. To: war (#37)
As for you citation of the War Powers Act, what makes you believe that Obama is not consulting with the Congress?
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
#49. To: war, A K A Stone (#41)
He's all over the map. It's the old "discovery" trick...spam information while not addressing the issue...
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
I have provided complete texts of various laws and resolutions.
#51. To: nolu chan (#49)
I am addressing the specific issue.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#52. To: nolu chan (#45)
Nor was U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi subject to trial by Military Commission, something quite distinct from a trial by Military Court Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#53. To: nolu chan (#47)
Have you looked at the title recently? Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#54. To: nolu chan (#49)
Does the President have the authority to order the execution of an American citizen with no due process, non-military, not engaged in battle, not accused with taking up arms, neither charged nor convicted of any crime?
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#55. To: nolu chan (#46)
Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah's story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence ofAulaqi's prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver's license scheme.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#56. To: war (#51)
You have NOT made the case that killing al-alwaki was an act of the executive that is inherently civilian in nature. In point of fact, you have conceded that no such judidical opinion exists.
#32. To: war (#29)
(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.
#57. To: war (#52)
Nor was U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi subject to trial by Military Commission, something quite distinct from a trial by Military Court Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
2010 US Code
Title 10 Armed Forces
Subtitle A —General Military Law (§§ 101—2925)
PART II —PERSONNEL (§§ 501—1801_to_1805)
CHAPTER 47A —MILITARY COMMISSIONS (§§ 948a—950t)
SUBCHAPTER I —GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 948a—948d)
#58. To: war (#53)
Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law?
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
#59. To: war (#54)
Does the President have the authority to order the execution of an American citizen with no due process, non-military, not engaged in battle, not accused with taking up arms, neither charged nor convicted of any crime?
#60. To: war (#55)
Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah's story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence of Aulaqi's prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver's license scheme.
We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hazmi and Mihdhar to reach a conclusion.
#61. To: nolu chan (#58)
. All you had to do is scroll it. I will remove the burden of scrolling.
#62. To: nolu chan (#56)
What I, in fact, stated:
#63. To: nolu chan (#60)
(Edited)
We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hazmi and Mihdhar to reach a conclusion.
#64. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, war aka yukon (#61)
Ever notice war always takes the government position. Never relents on it even when busted. Maybe that is his job. You know to spout off the government line.
#65. To: nolu chan (#59)
#66. To: Liberator (#64)
War and yukon clearly represent the opposite sides of the same statist coin.
#67. To: nolu chan (#59)
I would respond to your specific point but you did not make one.
#68. To: war (#66)
As opposed to representing the same sides [sic] of the sexual identity coin that YOU share with Yukon.
#69. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#53)
What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
A. The President may not engage our armed forces in ‘‘war with Iraq,’’ except in such measure as Congress, by joint or concurrent resolutions duly passed in both Houses of Congress, declares shall be undertaken by the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief, i.e., in fulfilling that role, the President is solely responsible for the conduct of whatever measures of war Congress shall authorize. It is not for the President, however, to presume to ‘‘authorize himself’’ to embark on war.
It seems quite clear that S.J. Res. 23 (Pub. L. No. 107–40), the joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, would not furnish the requisite congressional assent to any such strike against Iraq, or even to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into imminent or actual military hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Unless convincing evidence of Iraq’s involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 were to emerge, that joint resolution could not be said to offer even a fig leaf of cover for such a military campaign. To its credit, the Bush Administration does not appear to have suggested the contrary.
In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect against possible attacks by the Barbary pirates.
Fellow citizens, we will meet violence with patient justice assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.
I supported the resolution granting the President the authority to use military force against the perpetrators of this terrible attack, and I applauded his address to Congress and to the Nation. I note that the President wisely drew lines of discrimination, specifying that the punishment must be directed against those who are guilty of this crime, so that we cannot be accused of broadening our response to those who were not involved in the September 11 attack. Our resolve and our ferocity of response must carefully discriminate against the guilty, and surely if we do so, all men of reason, all nations of conscience, will support and applaud us.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored, committed, or aided in the planning or commission of the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.
Section 1. Short Title.
First, on the second action we took, giving the President authority to respond to the attacks of September 11, the Senator did us a great service by laying out the version of that resolution with which we started and the version with which we ended. I made the same effort that day we voted on it, but I do not believe I actually put the drafts in the RECORD. I made reference to them, but I think that perhaps this is the first time the actual draft we began with is in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I think that is a very important service.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before Senator BYRD leaves the Chamber, I also want to thank him for his service to the Senate and the country. I am annoyed with myself for not having thought that we should have as a part of the RECORD the difference between the language that came from the White House and the resolution that we passed. It is so important that that be part of the RECORD.
The text of House Joint Resolution is as follows:
Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SCHOOL OF LAW,
Durham, NC., August 7, 2002.
Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
LAW SCHOOL,
Cambridge, MA, July 31, 2002.
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
#70. To: nolu chan (#69)
(Edited)
#71. To: nolu chan (#24)
I believe el-Shifa would not be an opinion of the court in case law, at least not in the sense of deciding anything about the issue other than that the court could not decide it or render any opinion on it, at least not in the sense you appear to convey.
#72. To: war (#70)
I didn't need the history lesson.
Post 53 asked you several questions, not one of which you answered in your history lesson.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack.
The resolution we adopted, as the Senator from West Virginia said, is much narrower in terms of its authority. The draft we began with, that the White House submitted to us, had unprecedented broad authority, far too broad for most of us. It was unlimited by time and by other limits, as to what the President could do in response to these attacks.
I say to my colleague that up until about 1 o’clock in the morning, I did not think I could support it. I thought it was too broad, too open ended. I think Senator LEVIN did say this, but while you were busy on that appropriations bill, Senator LEVIN was one of the key Senators—along with staff—who really did yeomen’s work to try to have that resolution focus on the September 11 attacks. It was entirely different wording.
Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable:
What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"?
Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
#29. To: nolu chan (#24)
#73. To: nolu chan (#72)
Your untenable position, which my history lesson just viscerated, is that the AUMF of 2001 authorized the action in Yemen of CIA and military in killing American citizen al-Aulaqi.
#74. To: nolu chan (#72)
Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack.
#75. To: nolu chan (#72)
No Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorizes the non-military CIA to do anything.
#76. To: war (#73)
I can cite "speeches" from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship. You and I both **know** that it does in fact so convey.
#77. To: war (#73)
So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
#78. To: war (#74)
Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack.
Perpetrator. Generally, this term denotes the person who actually commits a crime or delict, or by whose immediate agency it occurs.
#79. To: war (#75)
Can you cite any law which forbids the CIA from acting in a military capacity?
Moreover, the fact that CIA operatives are most likely to coordinate targeted killings using the drone is also problematic. Since these operatives themselves do not conform to the laws of war, by failing to wear distinctive insignia and by not carrying arms openly, they may be subject to prosecution for war crimes.
#80. To: war (#74)
Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..."figments of my imagination" is what I believe you called them...
#81. To: A K A Stone (#42)
U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional.
#82. To: nolu chan, cz82, war (#81)
#83. To: nolu chan (#80)
Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..
#84. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
#85. To: nolu chan (#80)
"I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims that you find yourself unable to defend with any substance."
#86. To: A K A Stone (#84)
#87. To: Ferret Mike (#86)
international law.
#88. To: Ferret Mike, war (#85)
He does that a lot you know. He is too lazy to do any research, and he hates it when he is wrong so he just pretends this is not so and tries to move on.
#89. To: A K A Stone, war (#88)
#90. To: A K A Stone (#83)
(Edited)
War. You weren't there. That has already been proven on the 911
thread.
#91. To: war (#90)
#92. To: Ferret Mike (#89)
support war's viewpoint,
#93. To: nolu chan (#77)
Apparently you need another history and law lesson. Congresscritters pass laws. They do not ratify amendments to the Constitution.
#94. To: nolu chan (#78)
#95. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz (#91)
#96. To: A K A Stone (#91)
"First watch your mouth or I will take out the trash."
#97. To: A K A Stone (#92)
"So you support the star chamber. Murder of American citizens. Got ya witch."
#98. To: war, A K A Stone (#90)
And stop censoring people,
#99. To: war (#90)
And stop censoring people,
#100. To: Sebastian (#0)
#101. To: war (#37)
[war #33] Please show me where "appropriate force" means "Shoot but not kill".
To give a more pointed edge to the legal position, it may be useful to compare two prominent instances of targeting enemy individuals in the course of World War II. In 1943, the US targeted the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Fleet, Admiral Yamamoto, whose plane was ambushed (subsequent to the successful breaking of the Japanese communication codes) and shot down over Bougainville.635 This was a faultless targeted killing. In contrast, the ambush of the car of SS General Heydrich in 1942 amounted to an exercise in unlawful combatancy. Heydrich — as a military officer — was a lawful target, just like Yamamoto. Still, the act constituted unlawful combatancy, since Heydrich was killed by members of the Free Czechoslovak army (parachuted from London) who were not wearing uniforms (see supra 99)636
Moreover, the fact that CIA operatives are most likely to coordinate targeted killings using the drone is also problematic. Since these operatives themselves do not conform to the laws of war, by failing to wear distinctive insignia and by not carrying arms openly, they may be subject to prosecution for war crimes.
#102. To: war (#94)
[war #94] Senator McCain:
What is "war"? Wars on drugs, on poverty, and on illiteracy are laudable political constructs but are not literally wars, of course. A state of war has wide-ranging repercussions in contracts, insurance, constitutional issues, neutrality, and governmental wartime emergency powers, not to mention the life and death issues played out on the battlefield. The "War on Terrorism" is not a war in the sense of Geneva Convention common Article 2 … not all armed conflicts are wars, but all wars are armed conflicts."
1.1. International Armed Conflict
SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conf1ict with al-Qaeda) the Taliban) and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, this will be the first time that I have voted against a Defense Authorization Act and I do so with great reluctance. But I also do so with confidence that it is the right decision.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my concern over a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that would limit the access of certain military retirees to the TRICARE Uniformed Services Family Health Plan (USFHP).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act.
The bill authorizes $690.1 billion for defense programs in FY12. This level of defense spending is almost as much as the rest of the world combined—most of which is done by friendly allies such as NATO (approximately $350 billion). It also includes an additional $118.9 billion in specific funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a plan for a full redeployment from the region. I am disappointed that amendments to require a rapid and thoughtful withdrawal from Afghanistan were not approved. For me, this is reason enough not to support this legislation.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, last year, the House of Representatives approved historic legislation that repealed the Defense Department policy known as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ For too long, this discriminatory policy forced many patriotic Americans who wanted to serve their nation to decide against military service, lie about their sexual orientation, or leave the military against their will. It was shameful that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was allowed to continue for so many years, and it gave me tremendous pride to support the policy’s repeal last year.
#103. To: war (#93)
#93. To: nolu chan (#77)
Apparently you need another history and law lesson. Congresscritters pass laws. They do not ratify amendments to the Constitution.
#104. To: war (#94)
[war #94] You've posted the floor speech of one of 535 members of the US Congress. Do you have 534 more stating that they share Byrd's opinion as to what was passed on 9/18/01.
#76. To: war (#73)
I can cite "speeches" from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship. You and I both **know** that it does in fact so convey.
#105. To: war (#80)
Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..."figments of my imagination" is what I believe you called them...
#106. To: nolu chan (#102)
(Edited)
As for the McCain claim that "[w]e are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates," we are not at war. We are engaged in an armed conflict. McCain's misstatement does not change international law. He's the one who said Iran was training al Qaeda operatives and sang Bomb, bomb, Iran.
#107. To: nolu chan (#104)
(Edited)
#108. To: nolu chan (#105)
I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims t
#109. To: nolu chan (#103)
You did not claim Congress passes Amendments.
#110. To: war (#106)
[war 106] Thanks for that. And I should regard you as an authority to negate what McCain knows or does not know why again? Oh right...you're that guy on the internet...
What is "war"? Wars on drugs, on poverty, and on illiteracy are laudable political constructs but are not literally wars, of course. A state of war has wide-ranging repercussions in contracts, insurance, constitutional issues, neutrality, and governmental wartime emergency powers, not to mention the life and death issues played out on the battlefield. The "War on Terrorism" is not a war in the sense of Geneva Convention common Article 2 … not all armed conflicts are wars, but all wars are armed conflicts."
1.1. International Armed Conflict
Extraterritorial targeted killings which clearly were not directed against legitimate military targets, and must therefore be examined under the law enforcement paradigm include… .
22.03.2004
I've read through the floor speeches of both chambers long prior to this discussion.
There are several speakers, in both the House and the Senate, who stated that the war would last years and span several nations for the purpose of eradicating the organization that perpetrated 9/11 not just the perps themselves but Al Qaeda's ability to strike again.
There were House members and Senate members who stated this. But, since you kindly provided the Congressional record of those floor debates, I am sure that you are well aware of this and that you omission was to save space.
IN speech after speech, the members of Congress, including IIRC, Ron Paul, did not question the authority of the POTUS to wage a retaliatory action under the War Powers Act alone - oddly invoked if we aren't at war but in an armed conflict...and thank you for your redundant euphemism. It reminds me how dealing with lawyers has made me mistrustful of language.
#111. To: war (#107)
Since we are discussing the resolution that was passed in 2001, providing a copy of the Congressional Record from 2002 when the debate was regarding Iraq and going to war, er, entering into an armed conflict against them, that "information" is extrinsic and thus spurious. We're discussing the authorization to destroy Al Qaeda and their enablers.
In 2002, President George W. Bush sought authorization to use military force against Iraq. The resulting joint resolution contained the following:
Whereas , an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ;
#112. To: war (#108)
Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..."figments of my imagination" is what I believe you called them...
#108. To: nolu chan (#105)
I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims t
#113. To: war (#109)
[nc 103] I pointed out that that congress does not, demonstrating the insignificance of your claim that you could (you did not) "cite 'speeches' from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship."
#114. To: nolu chan (#111)
Had you bothered to read the Iraq resolution or my posts, or had you been able to comprehend them, as the case may be, you could not have missed the relevant information showing your witless comment to be inane. You seem to have forgotten that members of al Qaeda being in Iraq was one of the specific justifications to going into Iraq.
#115. To: war (#114)
What we are discussing is the targeted killing of an enemy who was actively engaged in fomenting and conspiring in acts of war against the US
#116. To: nolu chan (#113)
(Edited)
The significance of a floor speech signifying the intended meaning of a piece of legislation may well be used by a court to help determine the intended meaning where the black letter text is not clear.
#117. To: nolu chan (#110)
(Edited)
Because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
#118. To: nolu chan (#112)
That's the best you can do because you got caught bullshitting again. That's pathetic.
#119. To: war (#117)
You cited one goddam speech
#120. To: war (#118)
You dismissed what I saw and heard and shared.
#121. To: A K A Stone (#120)
#122. To: war (#121)
#123. To: A K A Stone (#122)
I guess those people were part of a large conspiracy to say the basement was blown up.
#124. To: A K A Stone (#119)
(Edited)
Not true. He quoted the constitution. He quoted several laws.
#125. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#116)
Mr Lantos: Mr. Speaker, the world is watching these deliberations and is asking: Is the United States up to the challenge? Are we, as a Nation, blessed for so much of our history with peace and prosperity, capable of mounting a costly and concerted campaign against international terror? Let us today answer those doubts with a resounding affirmation.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
[page 5639, beginning in column 2 of 3]
#126. To: nolu chan (#125)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#127. To: Biff Tannen (#126)
#128. To: war, A K A Stone (#124)
Nolo is arguing that this action was not one undertaken by the POTUS as Commander In Chief but as a civilian executive.
#88. To: war (#85)
Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99
#101. To: war (#37)
[war #33] Please show me where "appropriate force" means "Shoot but not kill".
To give a more pointed edge to the legal position, it may be useful to compare two prominent instances of targeting enemy individuals in the course of World War II. In 1943, the US targeted the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Fleet, Admiral Yamamoto, whose plane was ambushed (subsequent to the successful breaking of the Japanese communication codes) and shot down over Bougainville.635 This was a faultless targeted killing. In contrast, the ambush of the car of SS General Heydrich in 1942 amounted to an exercise in unlawful combatancy. Heydrich — as a military officer — was a lawful target, just like Yamamoto. Still, the act constituted unlawful combatancy, since Heydrich was killed by members of the Free Czechoslovak army (parachuted from London) who were not wearing uniforms (see supra 99)636
Moreover, the fact that CIA operatives are most likely to coordinate targeted killings using the drone is also problematic. Since these operatives themselves do not conform to the laws of war, by failing to wear distinctive insignia and by not carrying arms openly, they may be subject to prosecution for war crimes.
#129. To: Biff Tannen (#126)
#130. To: war (#118)
[war #118] You believe that the planes did not bring down the Towers. You dwell in the land of the Moonbat.
#2. To: continental op (#0)
[Alexander Cockburn] No, shout the conspiracists, they “pancaked” because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges in the preceding days inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom–party to mass murder–have held their tongues ever since.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
#131. To: war (#117)
Byrd's speech is BUT ONE OF 535. McCain was in that same chamber during that same time and during that same "debate". Oddly, you are dismissive of what McCain stated what he believed was the affect of his "AYE" vote. Why is that?
There is no current treaty or law which would internally sanction the act of a US Commander In Chief for what you claim is ignnoring international convention.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
#88. To: war (#85)
Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99
#132. To: nolu chan (#127)
(Edited)
When war stops making up facts, I'll stop documenting it. If you don't like it, don't read it. You are always welcome to put me on bozo.
#133. To: war (#132)
You've not made the case in any way, shape or recognizable form that this targeted killing of a high value military target was extra-legal.
#134. To: A K A Stone (#133)
#135. To: nolu chan (#127)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#136. To: war (#134)
You still haven't answered what specifically the guy did and the documentation. Why is that? Because you are full of shit that is why.
#137. To: Biff Tannen (#135)
And, ya, I already don't read it. Too many words, dude.
#138. To: A K A Stone (#137)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#139. To: Biff Tannen (#138)
You can pick out a bullshitter from his presentation, rather than sifting thru a ton of information.
#140. To: A K A Stone, nolo chan (#136)
You haven't answered that.
#141. To: A K A Stone (#139)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#142. To: Biff Tannen, war (#141)
War's not a bullshitter. Sometimes he's full of shit...
#143. To: Biff Tannen (#141)
(Edited)
But lately war beats pretty much everyone. Like a rented mule.
#144. To: Biff Tannen, nolu chan (#126)
Enough with the spamming.
#145. To: war (#143)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#146. To: Liberator (#142)
Feint[sicco] praise indeed.
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#147. To: Biff Tannen (#146)
...and I doubt war's looking for it....
#148. To: war (#132)
Did you actually READ the entire section from which you culled this one snippet?
#149. To: nolu chan (#148)
#150. To: war, A K A Stone (#140)
#151. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#140)
Nolo tries to make the case that any military action undertaken by agents and officers of the CIA violate various rules and protocols of war to which the US is a signatory.
19. Substantial parts of international law dealing with armed conflicts are of customary character. That customary law is part of Israeli law, "by force of the State of Israel's existence as a sovereign and independent state"
[T]he laws of armed conflict are entrenched in 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, hereinafter The First Protocol). Israel is not party to that protocol, and it was not enacted in domestic Israeli legislation. Of course, the customary provisions of The First Protocol are part of Israeli law.
IN other words, he avers that the CIA cannot engage in military actions without citing any US LAW so forbiding.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
Where do you classify al-Aulaqi according to the Laws of War?
SUMMARY
40. These examples point out the dilemma which the "for such time"requirement presents before us. On the one hand, a civilian who took a directpart in hostilities once, or sporadically, but detached himself from them(entirely, or for a long period) is not to be harmed. On the other hand, the "revolving door" phenomenon, by which each terrorist has "horns of the alter" (1 Kings 1:50) to grasp or a "city of refuge" (Numbers 35:11) to flee to, to which he turns in order to rest and prepare while they grant him immunity from attack, is to be avoided ( see Schmitt, at p. 536; Watkin, at p. 12; Kretzmer, at p. 193; DINSTEIN, at p. 29; and Parks, at p. 118). In the wide area between those two possibilities, one finds the "gray" cases, about which customary international law has not yet crystallized. There is thus no escaping examination of each and every case. In that context, the following four things should be said: first, well based information is needed before categorizing a civilian as falling into one of the discussed categories. Innocent civilians are not to be harmed (see CASSESE, at p. 421). Information which has been most thoroughly verified is needed regarding the identity and activity of the civilian who is allegedly taking part in the hostilities (see Ergi v. Turkey, 32 EHRR 388 (2001). CASSESE rightly stated that –
"[I]f a belligerent were allowed to fire at enemy civilianssimply suspected of somehow planning or conspiring to planmilitary attacks, or of having planned or directed hostileactions, the basic foundations of international humanitarianlaw would be seriously undermined. The basic distinction between civilians and combatants would be called into question and the whole body of law relating to armedconflict would eventually be eroded" (p. 421).
Conclusion
#152. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#140)
"[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."
[i]n interpreting the law, our goal should be to avoid paralyzing the legal process as much as possible and, in the case of humanitarian conventions, to enable them to serve their protective goals.294
294 Meron, p. 239.
16 November 1998
16 November 1998
[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution - not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view. 296
16 November 1998
#153. To: war (#140)
Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki
#154. To: A K A Stone (#153)
[war] Nolo incorrectly cited the 9/11 commission as exonerating Al- Alwaki
#155. To: nolu chan (#154)
It is difficult to see where it contains anything to justify an execution.
#156. To: nolu chan (#151)
(Edited)
This legal bullshit spewed by war is such bullshit that I will rebut it with the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice.
#157. To: nolu chan (#152)
(Edited)
Prosecutor v Delalic, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, IT-96-21 (16 Nov 1998), pp. 99-101, paragraphs 264- 272.
#158. To: war (#155)
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter?
#159. To: A K A Stone (#158)
You still never answered what he did.
#160. To: nolu chan (#151)
Neither the U.S., nor anyone else, gets an exemption from international law which has been adopted as general custom and practice. The targeting nation does not need to sign anything to come under the constraints of international law as they would be applied to action against a target.
#161. To: war (#160)
When two laws are in conflict, one constitutionally based e.g. powers of the Commander in Chief versus the other which is based upon a treaty, which one takes precedent?
#162. To: A K A Stone (#161)
#163. To: war (#162)
Acts of war are not covered by the criminal code in the US. Again
#164. To: A K A Stone (#163)
(Edited)
What acts of war? We have no declared war.
#165. To: war (#155)
That was 9 years ago. Do you stop reading a book after the first chapter? Does a murder investigation stop at the finding of the body?
#166. To: war (#156)
Now you're just flailing.
#167. To: war (#157)
The AUMF that authorized the Commander in Chief to turn Al-Alwaki into bits of pink is dated 2001.
#168. To: war, A K A Stone (#159)
I have answered it several times on this thread. IN fact, yesterday I wrote a response to you that bottled the essence of the argument.
#169. To: war, A K A Stone (#160)
When two laws are in conflict, one constitutionally based e.g. powers of the Commander in Chief versus the other which is based upon a treaty, which one takes precedent?
#170. To: war, A K A Stone (#162)
Acts of war are not covered by the criminal code in the US.
#171. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#162)
Nolo believes that anyone allegedly out of uniform is a civilian even if he commits or conspires to commit acts of war.
As IHL does not prohibit civilian direct participation in hostilities, the expression 'unlawful combatant' belongs to the realm of domestic law only, and should not be used in a discussion of IHL.
A civilian is any person not belonging to one of the categories referred to Geneva Convention III as eligible for POW status upon capture.
Furthermore, in view of the mutually exclusive conception of the terms 'civilian' and 'combatant', the term 'unprivileged combatant' should be used exclusively for persons who are not civilians.
a civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol.
It has been argued that, at lease for situations of international armed conflict, civilians directly participating in hostilities may be described as 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants, as long as it remains clear this is a purely descriptive term and does not constitute a distinct status under IHL. Such 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants would remain civilians and the suspension of their protection against direct attack remains tied exclusively to the qualification of their individual conduct as 'direct participation in hostilities'. The term 'unlawful combatant' is here rejected as a term of IHL for the reasons stated.
#172. To: war, A K A Stone (#155)
#155. To: nolu chan (#154)
It is difficult to see where it contains anything to justify an execution.
#140. To: A K A Stone, nolo chan (#136)
You haven't answered that.
#173. To: nolu chan (#171)
(Edited)
A civilian is any person not belonging to one of the categories referred to Geneva Convention III as eligible for POW status upon capture.
#174. To: nolu chan (#172)
(Edited)
Where did I say it exonerated Aulaqi?
#175. To: nolu chan (#172)
In your typical dirtbag manne
#176. To: war (#173)
Again, you are referring to the status of persons IN CUSTODY and NOT persons who are actively engaged in either direct acts of war or conspiring to commit acts of war.
#177. To: war (#173)
Al-awlki was NOT in custody.
#178. To: war (#174)
You stated quite clearly that the 9/11 report - a report you have expressed extreme skepticism about in the past - cited Al-awlki merely as a spiritual leader of some of the hijackers.
#34. To: war (#33)
[war #33] He met with and, IIRC, harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers and became an integral member of AQ as a spokesman and a plotter and had himself called for "jihad" against the US and acts of terror against us.
Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers, alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
Born in New Mexico in 1971 to Yemeni parents al-Awlaki left the U.S. as a child as his family returned to Yemen. He then came back to America in 1991 as a mosque preacher where he conducted his university studies. He was not seen by his congregations as radical.
#179. To: war (#175)
Are you incapable of following a conversation from memory?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]