Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'
Source:
Reuters
URL Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011 ... killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
Published: Oct 6, 2011
Author: Mark Hosenball
Post Date: 2011-10-06 12:16:04 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 54340
Comments: 91
(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials. There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month. The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process. Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants. The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right. In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments. Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder. Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process. Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing. The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said. LAWYERS CONSULTED Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described. They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said. The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information. They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list. Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said. A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president. Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle. But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike. When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials. 'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL' Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets. "Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring. The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks. But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy. For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants. There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive." But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab. Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen. Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?" U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden. While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.
Poster Comment: Who are these people. Someone get their names and we will make our own little list.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-50) not displayed.
.
.
.
#51. To: Liberator (#49)
(Edited)
The English language works quite well on its own. It doesn't need your political and racially based distortions. Thanks, All? Ok, only 95% of the violence is left-wing. Bullshit. McVeigh was NOT "right-wing"; He was an anarchist and reportedly a tool of Muslim extremists (that's right - the OKC "investigation" was sloppy, suspect and bogus.) A) Bullshit that he wasn;t right wing. The extermination of baby-killers and the eradication of their murder clinics is not remotely the security problem Muslim terrorism is. Don't try to draw an equivalent in any sense - it doesn't work. It's in in the quantity of death not the death itself. Got it.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Show me where the current policy of the Department of Justice of the United States of America is that the descendants of slaves should be paid reparations for the ancestors' slavery. Thanks.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
We are...and you've provided plenty example of it on this thread alone. Blacks are among us Libby. Time you got used to it.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Blacks are among us Libby. Time you got used to it. Since Libby loves those pissing matches, I would wager most blacks have a majority of their ancestors that were in this hemisphere waaaaaaay before most of Libby's were.
Thanks. If you're gonna play dopey, it does work, but I just don't give a sh*t, Counselour. My statement is "validated" every single frickin' day by your racist mofo hero's words and actions - not that I expect you to admit this to be the case. And then there are his words admitted in his Kenyan version of 'Mein Kampf' books authored by his pal, by Bill Ayers. As a liberal/progressive, should legal discrimination - AA programs, set-asides and quotas - be scrapped? And what of the select enforcement of the law as per "hate crimes"? Exactly how does IT confer "equal protection" under the law? With respect to that $1.25 BILLION dollars to black farmers (and a few Indians ALREADY receiving reparations through casino ownership, "nation" subsidies, etc....WHY again is it legal to shake-down 5th gen Whitey? Goddam those mortherfucking niggers, anyway... You spelled "motherf*cker" wrong. BOO!
"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
Translated: I really don't have any examples...I just like to rant on about niggers. With respect to that $1.25 BILLION dollars to black farmers (and a few Indians ALREADY receiving reparations through casino ownership, "nation" subsidies, etc....WHY again is it legal to shake-down 5th gen Whitey? The claims derive from 1980's and 1990's Ag Department loan guarantees that were denied to black farmers on the basis of race. Now, if you believe that we are 5 generations removed from 1980...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Uh, excuse me; WHAT is it with your recent obsession with urine?? I would wager most blacks have a majority of their ancestors that were in this hemisphere waaaaaaay before most of Libby's were. That is relevant WHY exactly, Urine Queen? My ancestors were building grand cities and constructing hot tubs at the time of Christ. Meanwhile, yours were at the time still bathing in the same mud-hole they peed in. Hence your current genetic obsession.
"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
You're from the Far East?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Re-translated: "Since I worship at the Altar of My 0bama-god (see my tagline and unsigned idol photo), I will shut my eyes, close my ears, and cover my yapper cuz I am blind, deaf and dumb with respect to the sins of my...hero/idol/god." The claims derive from 1980's and 1990's Ag Department loan guarantees that were denied to black farmers on the basis of race. And "reparations" and Holder's/0bama's racist regime aren't part of that cozy equation? Geez....LOL. I didn't receive a college scholarship or job or a couple of loans based on MY race (too white) - where is MY portion of that $1,250,000,000??
"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
Lol, chyeah - historical Chinese technological advancements and accomplishments compare with the Roman Empire? That is IF you believe the anti-Euro history revisionists of Leftist academia. And you do. This isn't even an arguable point (though we know you'll do your best.)
"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
It doesn't mean they need to remain on your socialist Dim plantation....does it? Btw - get used to blacks LEAVING the plantation without calling them "Uncle Tom."
"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
See my note above and your efforts to "improve" upon the English language. The fact is, I don't put up with your bullshit that is rooted in your hatred for the man's skin. Your response is to cover up your embarrasment by lashing out with nonsense typical of the above. And "reparations" and Holder's/0bama's racist regime aren't part of that cozy equation? The lawsuit pre-dates them taking office, moron, and was close to settlement when DumbDub$43 left office. If you'd get them "goddam niggers" off of what's left of your what wasn't a very big brain to begin with then you'd know this. I'm done giving you reason to perpetuate your "I hate niggers" campaign, Libby. If you want to discuss your race based frustrations...4um is always looking for traffic. You give me a "whitey" and other such race nonsense in each and every one of your replies. It's old and now over. If you want to discuss issues...leave race out of it. If you can't...see ya...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Just because you, Bubba, the leftist media, and the rest of the Church of Goob propagandists described McVeigh as a "right-winger" for political theater doesn't make it true. Oh...McVeigh was an atheist. Like YOU. "NOT a "Christian" as you propagandists tried to foist upon the pods. And fancy that atheists weren't tabbed "terrorists. Oh, and again, McVeigh above all else was an anarchist. Moreover, it is duly noted that you are unable to support your bogus claim that there is ANY equivalent between your cited example of "terrorists" (abortion clinic extermination), and mine (stated, organized Muslim mass murder and systemic terrorism." "It's in in the quantity of death not the death itself" you say? So 1 = 1000 to you? GOT IT. Nice moral equivocation.
"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
So it was your ancestors' descendants who voted for Mussolini! LOL
Please Libby...this is a Boofer argument. McVeigh was a right winger. Period. Accept it and move on.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Unitarian. He believed in A GOD...not THE God...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Libby's EYEtalian and you know what the rest of Europe says about those Sicilians' racial heritage.
My hatred is rooted in noting and rejecting the treason, lies, and sowing of dissension, enmity, and division of your Commie/fascist racist god, 0bama that are destroying my country. But nice try on your part. The [black farmers reparations] lawsuit pre-dates them [0bama and Holder] taking office, moron, and was close to settlement when DumbDub$43 left office. So you say... I suppose you're going to claim 0bama and Holder had absolutely NO influence in this ridiculous decision, the final ridiculous amount, and fast tracking of this ridiculously racist case. Lending money to deadbeats and the unqualified isn't necessarily about race; However, to your ilk it's all that matters and a PRIME reason this country is bankrupt. In your defense, uber-statist Dubya Bush did he part in handing out ill-advised loans and helping destroy the economy. I'm done giving you reason to perpetuate your "I hate niggers" campaign, Libby. If you want to discuss your race based frustrations...4um is always looking for traffic. Nice meme. Just maybe the real story is "Your racist/Marxist hero 0bama sucks, hates Whitey, is a traitor, and he's f**ked up the country but good." NOT that you GAS either way as a fellow Commie. What's important to you is shilling FOR 0bama and his/your political/religious Cult.
"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
Oh, go on and say it.
"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
McVeigh's "god" was himself. That would make him more a new ager.
"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
LOL....Keep on telling yourself that. Afterall, you believe everything else the media and the Church of Goob command of you (Some rebel YOU are....NOT.)
"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
I have trouble keeping track of all the different gods. Which one is "The" god? Is it the one who protects Mormons when they wear their magic underwear? Is it Stone's god who condems everyone Stone doesn't agree with?
You need to keep asking yourself...."Does god understand my code talk"?
I threw in the towel and put him on bozo. I had forgotten that Libby is best in small doses. After, two or three songs his needle sticks.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
The one I don't know and don't care if HE exists... Hope that helped...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Is that your Tony Robbins advice for the day?
"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
Hope that helped... I think there are at least 300 million different "The" gods in this country alone.
Your effort was commendable, but we both realize it's impossible to defend the indefensible.
"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
You ARE like a stuck needle. The so called novelty of your terminology, heard over and over and over again, wears thin..... like most of your obsessions.
Hey Pal...the God that I don't care about is the one and only TRUE GOD to not care about!!!!
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
The authority "ends" where the military value of the target or the military advantage gained by the killing has no significant measurement. Who is empowered to decide when the military value to a target or military advantage gained by a killing has significant measurement? A secret star chamber? If they decide that Iran is a threat, and they put the entire population of Iran on a kill list, asserting there to be a military value or advantage to be gained by eradication of the entire population, and the President concurs, is it lawful? If not, why not? What authority could contest it? If it is a unilateral authority of the Executive Branch, how can the Legislative branch take it away or limit it? How can a target invoke jurisdiction of any federal court if the foreign target of a military strike cannot challenge in court the wisdom of retaliatory military action taken by the United States?
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. This assertion appears to be poorly chosen, invoking the Laws of War, considering what it is, and what the Geneva Conventions say. Where do you classify al-Aulaqi according to the Laws of War? Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Under Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Paragraph 50.1, Article 4 of the Third Convention pertains to Prisoners of War. Article 43 of the Protocol pertains to members of the Armed Forces. Under The Geneva Convention, everyone who does not fall under the definition of Armed Forces or Prisoner of War is a civilian. If you seriously invoke international law and assert al-Aulaqi is a civilian, Article 51 of the Protocol could cause concern. - - - Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. 2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. 3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character. Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. 8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. - - - 1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. 2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities. 3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict. - - - Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. [...] (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. - - - - - Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
Under our constitution it's somewehat of a trifurcate. The CIC is responsible for the National Security of the US but the ultimate authority would be the US Congress and the penultimate the courts...the Congress empowers the CIC and the Courts, lacking a Congressional estoppel of review, would oversee whether that empowerment was properly executed. If they decide that Iran is a threat, and they put the entire population of Iran on a kill list, asserting there to be a military value or advantage to be gained by eradication of the entire population, and the President concurs, is it lawful? If not, why not? What authority could contest it? If the POTUS wished to wage all out war against Iran, without the so-called ticking time bomb, then he would need a Congressional authorization to do so. Your other questions imply that you might be under the impression that I believe that the 9/18/01 AUMF empowered the POTUS to do whatever he wanted to wage war. I don't so believe. I believe that it empowered him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against Al Qaeda...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Neither the laws of war nor international law were written contemporary to these acts of terrorism. Can a POTUS, as authorized by the Congress [stipulate for a moment that my interpretation of AUMF is correct and that Obama acted as CIC rather than from the EOP], execute his duties as CIC placing the National Security above the laws of war and international law? I believe that he can. I do not believe that he can put it above the USCON.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
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.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Under our constitution it's somewehat of a trifurcate. The CIC is responsible for the National Security of the US but the ultimate authority would be the US Congress and the penultimate the courts...the Congress empowers the CIC and the Courts, lacking a Congressional estoppel of review, would oversee whether that empowerment was properly executed. The Courts have ruled they lack jurisdiction on such a matter. el-Shifa v. USA, USCA DC Cir 07-5174, June 8, 2010. See also al-Aulaqi v. Obama, USDC DCDC 1-10-cv-01469, December 7, 2010. What role did Congress play in creating the Obama Death Panel (a real one this time)? What rules and standards did Congress establish for the Obama Death Panel? What role did Congress play in determining that al-Aulaqi should be assassinated? If there were no ticking time bomb, what would be the authority for Congress to declare war? Why doesn't the President need a ticking time bomb or anything at all besides the decree of his secret death panel? My question did not make any reference to all out war. The President's death panel decrees that Iranians are a part of al qaeda. They create a list of names for targeted assassination. It is a very, very long list, about as long as the Manhattan telephone directory. They send in the drones and kill specifically authorized and targeted individuals one by one until they run out of targets. Each individual is authorized in the same manner as al-Aulaqi. At what point do the assassinations become criminal?
The question was, Your response avoids the question and does not address it. The action was committed in Yemen and is international in character. Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
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.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24727&Disp=2#C2 In point of fact, an enemy combatant who happened to be a citizen was targeted. And there was nothing "alleged" about his AQ association. He was AQ. Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs war posted on 2011-10-06 12:22:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply In point of fact, Aulaqi was a civilian, not an enemy combatant. Your claim is utter bullshit. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the Palestinian Freedom Fighters are civilians and not enemy combatants. PCATI v. Israel, HCJ 769/02 (2006) "as we have seen, the terrorists acting against Israel are not combatants according to the definition of that term in international law...." The U.S. Supreme Court held that Al Qaeda fighters were 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. Common Article 3 (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
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 war posted on 2011-10-07 8:54:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court held directly to the contrary in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in armed conflict involving alleged members of Al Qaeda, the Geneva Convention Common Article 3 applies, it must be complied with, and its protections must be observed. Oh snap! (Bench Opinion) NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006 - Decided June 29, 2006 At 1-2: At 4: At 6: At 6: (iii) While Common Article 3 does not define its "regularly constituted court" phrase, other sources define the words to mean an "ordinary military cour[t]" that is "established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country." The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statute. At a minimum, a military commission can be "regularly constituted" only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice. No such need has been demonstrated here. Pp. 69.70. (iv) Common Article 3's requirements are general, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems, but they are requirements nonetheless. The commission convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements. P. 72. (d) Even assuming that Hamden 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. P. 72. - - - - Hamdan v Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006) - Armed Conflict With Al Qaeda and Common Articles 2 and 3
The AUMF of 2001 never made any mention of Al Qaeda. What is says is 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… ." It was the AUMF of 2002, directed against Iraq, that made specific mention of Al Qaeda. Appropriate force must comply with the Geneva Conventions.
Sure there is; Statist Worship IS "religious fanaticism." But it is a bi-partisan cult as both you and yukon prove every day.
Noah Webster
B) As was pointed out, religious extremism is inherently right wing in nature.
#52. To: Liberator (#48)
NOT when that opinion becomes policy.
#53. To: Liberator (#48)
Or refer to white people a "cowards" on the issue of race
#54. To: war, Liberator (#53)
We are...and you've provided plenty example of it on this thread alone.
#55. To: war (#50)
Feel free to cite the numerous examples required to vaildate the above statement.
#56. To: Liberator (#55)
If you're gonna play dopey, it does work, but I just don't give a sh*t, Counselour. My statement is "validated" every single frickin' day by your racist mofo hero's words and actions - not that I expect you to admit this to be the case. And then there are his words admitted in his Kenyan version of 'Mein Kampf' books authored by his pal, by Bill Ayers.
#57. To: mininggold (#54)
Since Libby loves those pissing matches....
#58. To: Liberator (#57)
My ancestors were building grand cities and constructing hot tubs at the time of Christ.
#59. To: war (#56)
Translated: I really don't have any examples...
#60. To: war (#58)
You're from the Far East?
#61. To: war (#53)
Blacks are among us Libby. Time you got used to it.
#62. To: Liberator (#59)
Re-translated: "Since I worship at the Altar of My 0bama-god (see my tagline and unsigned idol photo), I will shut my eyes, close my ears, and cover my yapper cuz I am blind, deaf and dumb with respect to the sins of my...hero/idol/god."
#63. To: war (#51)
#64. To: Liberator (#57)
My ancestors were building grand cities and constructing hot tubs at the time of Christ. Meanwhile, yours were at the time still bathing in the same mud-hole they peed in. Hence your current genetic obsession.
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
Just because you, Bubba, the leftist media, and the rest of the Church of Goob propagandists described McVeigh as a "right-winger" for political theater doesn't make it true.
#66. To: All (#65)
Oh...McVeigh was an atheist.
#67. To: war (#62)
You give me a "whitey" and other such race nonsense in each and every one of your replies. It's old and now over. If you want to discuss issues...leave race out of it. If you can't...see ya...
#68. To: war (#62)
I don't put up with your bullshit that is rooted in your hatred for the man's skin.
#69. To: mininggold (#67)
Libby's EYEtalian and you know what the rest of Europe says about those Sicilians' racial heritage.
#70. To: war (#66)
Unitarian. He [McVeigh] believed in A GOD...not THE God...
#71. To: war (#65)
Please Libby...this is a Boofer argument. McVeigh was a right winger. Period. Accept it and move on.
#72. To: war (#66)
(Edited)
Unitarian. He believed in A GOD...not THE God...
#73. To: Liberator (#71)
LOL....Keep on telling yourself that. Afterall, you believe everything else the media and the Church of Goob command of you (Some rebel YOU are....NOT.)
#74. To: mininggold (#73)
#75. To: Skip Intro (#72)
Which one is "The" god?
#76. To: mininggold (#73)
You need to keep asking yourself...."Does god understand my code talk"?
#77. To: war (#75)
The one I don't know and don't care if HE exists...
#78. To: war (#74)
I threw in the towel and put him on bozo.
#79. To: Liberator, war (#78)
Your effort was commendable, but we both realize it's impossible to defend the indefensible.
#80. To: Skip Intro (#77)
#81. To: war (#44)
If this were lawful, how many people could be put on the secret kill list? Where does the authority end?
#82. To: war (#43)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
Laws of war. This term denotes a branch of public international law, and comprises the body of rules and principles observed by civilized nations for the regulation of matters inherent in, or incidental to, the conduct of a public war; such, for example, as the relations of neutrals and belligerents, blockades, captures, prizes, truces and armistices, capitulations, prisoners, and declarations of war and peace; e.g. Geneva Convention.
A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population
Art 43. Armed forces
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
#83. To: nolu chan (#81)
(Edited)
Who is empowered to decide when the military value to a target or military advantage gained by a killing has significant measurement?
#84. To: nolu chan (#82)
Where do you classify al-Aulaqi according to the Laws of War?
#85. To: nolu chan (#82)
(Edited)
Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
#86. To: war (#83)
Who is empowered to decide when the military value to a target or military advantage gained by a killing has significant measurement?
The political question doctrine bars our review of claims that, regardless of how they are styled, call into question the prudence of the political branches in matters of foreign policy or national security constitutionally committed to their discretion. A plaintiff may not, for instance, clear the political question bar simply by “recasting [such] foreign policy and national security questions in tort terms.” Schneider, 412 F.3d at 197 (explaining the courts could not determine whether taking military action was “wrongful” as an element of a wrongful death claim).
If the POTUS wished to wage all out war against Iran, without the so-called ticking time bomb, then he would need a Congressional authorization to do so.
#87. To: war (#84)
Neither the laws of war nor international law were written contemporary to these acts of terrorism. Can a POTUS, as authorized by the Congress [stipulate for a moment that my interpretation of AUMF is correct and that Obama acted as CIC rather than from the EOP], execute his duties as CIC placing the National Security above the laws of war and international law?
Where do you classify al-Aulaqi according to the Laws of War?
#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
#89. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#2)
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
#90. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#43)
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
OCTOBER TERM, 2005
The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission's proceedings, concluding that the President's authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offenses triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention's full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. The D. C. Circuit reversed.
4. The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72.
(d) The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan's challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. Pp. 62–68.
(ii) Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a "conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum," certain provisions protecting "[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by . . . detention," including a prohibition on "the passing of sentences . . . without previous judgment . . . by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a "conflict not of an international character." That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory "accepts and applies" those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict "in the territory of" a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65.68.
#91. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#83)
Your other questions imply that you might be under the impression that I believe that the 9/18/01 AUMF empowered the POTUS to do whatever he wanted to wage war. I don't so believe. I believe that it empowered him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against Al Qaeda...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]