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: 126232
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
Comments (1-139) not displayed.
.
.
.
#140. To: A K A Stone, nolo chan (#136)
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.
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]