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: 54468
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
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
ping
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
So you are no on the record as not believing in innocent until proven guilty. You are not a fan of the United States Constitution.
There is a constitutional difference between acts of war and criminal acts.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
What's the big deal? America killed American citizen enemy combatants before - from Confederate soldiers to American citizens serving in Hitler's military.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
There were some US citizens who were members of the Waffen-SS, but no unit made up of American volunteers was ever raised (despite some claims about an "American Free Corps" or "George Washington Brigade"). According to figures from the SS five US citizens served in the Waffen-SS in May 1940, but after that date no numbers are available. Second Lieutenant Martin James Monti (born 1910 in St Louis of an Italian-Swiss father and German mother) went AWOL Oct 1944, travelled from Karachi to Naples (through Cairo and Tripoli) where he stole a F-4 or F-5 photographic reconnaissance aircraft (photo recon version of the P-38) and flew to Milan. There he surrendered, or rather defected, to the Germans and worked as a propaganda broadcaster (as Martin Wiethaupt) before entering the Waffen-SS as a SS-Untersturmführer in SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers. At the end of the war he went south to Italy where he surrendered to US forces (still wearing his SS uniform) claiming that he had been given the uniform by partisans. He was charged with desertion and sentenced to 15 years hard labour. This sentence was soon commuted and Monti rejoined the US Air Corps, but in 1948 he was discharged and picked up by the FBI. He was now charged with treason and sentenced to 25 years the following year. He was paroled in 1960. Peter Delaney (aka Pierre de la Ney du Vair), a Louisiana born SS-Haupsturmführer in SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers who is believed to have served in Légion des Volontaires Français (LVF). He met Monti and probably arranged for him to enter the Waffen-SS. Delaney was killed in 1945. At least eight American volunteers are known to have been killed during their service. Numerous ethnic Germans who were born in the USA served in the Wehrmacht, for example Boy Rickmers who was born in New York and won the Knight's Cross as part of 320. Infanterie-Division on 26 March 1943. No real attempt by the US authorities to investigate the matter and trace the volunteers was made after the war, as opposed to for example the efforts by the British. http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=310 Interesting point, as the people who write history do not like to talk about these traitors.
You make up stuff. Like separation of church and state. So I don't trust you. Quote from the constitution some of these differences. We have no declaration of war against anyone and surely not Yemen.
enemy comabants is a made up word to take peoples due process rights away.
All words are made up. If the 'enemy combatant' who wore a military uniform is not applicable to the al-Qaeda situation then you can find many examples of the USA going after American nationals or citizens who were pirates or insurgents. For example the filipino Moro Muslim rebels were technically U.S. nationals during their uprising. So this is nothing new.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
You made that up. I didn't make up separation of Church and State, the guy who wrote the first amendment along with those who ratified it to make it part of the USCON made it up. Quote from the constitution some of these differences. Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; Article II Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Point out in the USCON where it details the steps and format that the US Congress must take and follow to authorize the POTUS to take military action. Thanks.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel... Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. Let's see... Secret courts... Secret warrants... Secret killings... We're living in Nazi Germany.
When Durbin pointed that out what was your reaction?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Leftists and Statists. Like the ones who infest your forum.
"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
When Durbin pointed that out what was your reaction? My reaction was: Durbin can't decide whether he wants to be Hitler or Stalin.
"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
Yep...better go back to LP where if anyone questions your nonsense Goldi bans them for "censoring"...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
HA! That's the wet dream for Leftists: "Gee, look at the neat little rows of Capitalist and "teabagger" skulls!"
"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
Naw. I like you and your 0bama-idolotry too much.
"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've done a cursory count of 13 x 45 rows of skulls. @575 skulls. That would be Idi 0bama and Mugabe Holder's wet dream revenge of Whitey...after two minutes.
"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
0bama don't need no stinking "declaration of war." He's a Nobel Peace Prize winner, dammit! Didn't you see him receive his well-deserved (cough, hack) prize two weeks into his regime? So don't call his Yemeni and Libyan wars, "war"; Call them, "Lovefests."
"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
Well, he is, but only if it becomes subverted or suits the agenda of the current Leftist-Statist regime. When Bush did the same thing he wuz a beddy bad man.
"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
If Bush had done this, the media would be demanding impeachment. Just noting the obvious here. I honestly don't have a problem with Owe-bama offing this prick.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Thanks Boofer...DumbDubv$43 DID do it and the media cheered him...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
I listen to what people say. Remember the report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" the Obama administration issued? They TOLD us who their target is: DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Not al Qaeda, but "right-wing" extremists". That is who this administration is really worried about. Who do they mean by that? Here is what the report says: People who express dissenting political opinions about the economic downturn on the Internet Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures... People who oppose Obama's programs and policies Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms... People who oppose illegal immigration DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence... People who support the Second Amendment Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence. People who are concerned with outsourcing jobs overseas Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy. Military veterans DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. The FBI noted in a 2008 report... that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups. ----- History has demonstrated what the lunatic left does with their enemies.
Nice to know you are against racial profiling...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Not al Qaeda, but "right-wing" extremists". That is who this administration is really worried about. EXCELLENT post in its entirety, JW. As per your informative post, the stated enemies list of 0bama and Holder, branded "terrorists": People who express dissenting political opinions about the economic downturn on the Internet People who oppose Obama's programs and policies People who oppose illegal immigration People who support the Second Amendment People who are concerned with outsourcing jobs overseas Military veterans I'm sure LF's resient circle-jerk of Leftist 0bama-bots are NOT concerned by this blatant threat and un-constitution, dictatorial abuse of power, but instead APPLAUD 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
Are these those death panels Palin was talking about?
Sorry to have disturbed Day 2 of your bender, Fred. As per your usual deeeeply contemplated and provocative question, the answer is "No." Cheers.
"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
That is so unlike you LIbby...lying about something. First off, that "list" as you call, came from DHS not DOJ. Secondly, it is nothing more than racial profiling of potential recruits to right wing terrorist groups. You're FOR racial profiling aren't you?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Ping to #29
And all of this was initiated and most of the info gathered....... surprise surprise........ by the Bush administration. Note the date on the military category... 2008... even someone as gullible as you should have been able to figure it out.
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. The FBI noted in a 2008 report... that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups. So 2008 means nothing to you..... that figures.
Yep, and I gain recognition via this list multiple times from the Owe-bama administration. Gee, why don't I like this POTUS.....
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Lone wolf? Figured that you have no friends...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Define what the FBI is calling 'extremist groups' ming. Then consider what they did to Randy Weaver and his son, and his wife.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
So you're claiming 0bama and his inner-cabal of Commies and Idi Aminites had NOTHING to do with it? Only Nappy pulled the list of out her azz? LOL! They're a TEAM! Secondly, it is nothing more than racial profiling of potential recruits to right wing terrorist groups. You're FOR racial profiling aren't you? God knows how the US has been staving off all those "right wing" threats to the WTC and the Pentagon and DC Snipers and Ft. Hood slaughters from within all those right-wing Mosques....right, DUMMY? Uh...Never mind. Of course I endorse racial profiling - that's exactly how law enforcement and profiling of ALL sorts works instead of wasting assets and shaking down white grammas and nuns at airports to appease PC fluffers like you.
"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
Then consider what they did to Randy Weaver and his son, and his wife. I was commenting on the 2008 date in case you still can't read, so there is no need for you to misconstrue my post.
Gee, why don't I like this POTUS..... But...but...According to war, ONLY Nappy was responsible for the enemies list....er I mean "terrorist list." 0bama and Holder actually loooove their people...er I mean hate da white debil slave-holder descendants. And anyway, 0bama has been much too busy vacationing, golfing and eating ice cream cones with Reggie Love to be bothered hatin' on Whitey, vets, conservatives, anti-baby killers, gun owners, and peeps who opposed a pro-Muzzie/Commie dictatorship.
"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'll take 'Why a filter is a good thing in this forum!' for $2,000 Alex....
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
I'm telling you that this was something that had begun under the previous administration's DHS and was completed in early 2009 by the subsequent administration. You're too hung up on hating those niggers who hate America to care. God knows how the US has been staving off all those "right wing" threats to the WTC and the Pentagon and DC Snipers and Ft. Hood slaughters from within all those right-wing Mosques....right, DUMMY? Uh...Never mind. Or FBI buildings...or abortion clinics...or abortion providers...or... Oh...wait...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
I'll take "Go Fuck Yourself Boofer" and wage all of it on the Daily Double... /twit
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
And there was nothing "alleged" about his AQ association. He was AQ. In point of fact he was not a combatant. In point of fact, he was an American citizen. In point of fact, the U.S. Constitution is not waived at the whim of a secret star chamber. If this were lawful, how many people could be put on the secret kill list? Where does the authority end? Does a U.S. citizen have fewer protections than an illegal alien? Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), No. 73-1046, at 77 From the Opinion of the Court by Justice Stevens.
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
The authority "ends" where the military value of the target or the military advantage gained by the killing has no significant measurement.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Do this mean you justify Holder and 0bama's hostility and assault of Whitey as "reparation" for slavery? Or "justification" is ANY legit sense? Or FBI buildings...or abortion clinics...or abortion providers...or...Oh...wait... "Wait" for what? You to make a LEGIT point? LOL! You've cited McVeigh as an example of "right wing"?? Bwaaahaa! CLUE-LESS. And as though THAT example dovetails with 9/11? OR even the original Muslim take-down of the WTC back in 1993? And then you have the balls to cite your desperate examples of "right wing terrorism" because of an anomalous assault of a professional baby killer to supposedly counter-balance the DC Sniper terrorism and murders after 9/11, AND the 50-odd shootings at Ft. Hood by a Muslim "Captain"? Not the mention the Muzzie member of the US Army who rolled a grenade into a tent in Iraq? Read it and weep: FAIL, war. The REAL Terrorists remain Muslims, yet you, Nappy, 0bama and Holder put Whitey of the fake "terrorist" list. Some of us know who the real "terrorists" are.
"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
Generally, given their particular racial demographic, that is hardly a unique position. That said, the only public position that Obama has taken on reparations is to oppose them: SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders. The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all. "I have said in the past _ and I'll repeat again _ that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently. As for Holder, he's entitled to his opinion. He's in no position to affect them. Again, that said, I've neother heard nor read any opinion of Holder's that could be characterized as support for them. Do you have any contrary information that would support your above statement? Ot is it you and that "nigger" hang-up thing that you have again..."They "be" black so they "be" for."? Wait" for what? You to make a LEGIT point? LOL! You've cited McVeigh as an example of "right wing"?? Bwaaahaa! CLUE-LESS. And as though THAT example dovetails with 9/11? OR even the original Muslim take-down of the WTC back in 1993? First off, there is no such thing as "left wing" religious fanaticism. Secondly, YOU made the claim that ALL violence was left wing in nature. McVeigh was hardly a left winger. The people responsible for violence against abortion clinics and providers are hardly left wingers. Don't blame me for your reality issues.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
0bama's anomalous and purely political words of supposed opposition to reparations contradict his deeds and that of his administration. Generally, given their [Holder and 0bama] particular racial demographic, that [reparations] is hardly a unique position. Well, at least now we have an admission of the truth. Too bad reparations is a VIOLATION of civil rights of Whitey and UN-constitutional NOR has it been legislated through We The People. Oddly enough, that hasn't stopped the goob from enforcing it as we have noted by unequal application of the law though Affirmative Action, quotas, and illegal "hate crimes" legislation. And then we have the black farmers recently receiving billions of dollars for something that happened to others BY others 150 years ago? The truth of the matter is the black Chief Executive of the US and his black Attorney General are blatantly encouraging and undermining several civil rights laws and abusing the rights of White America with impunity.
"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
NOT when that opinion becomes policy. Do you have any contrary information that would support your above statement? Ot is it you and that "nigger" hang-up thing that you have again..."They "be" black so they "be" for."? You mean you have NO idea Holder hates Whitey? You mean you never heard him refer to the indicted Black Panthers as "my people"? Or refer to white people a "cowards" on the issue of race (yeah, ironically)? War, I can't make you take off your blinders.
"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
Sure there is; Statist Worship IS "religious fanaticism." But it is a bi-partisan cult as both you and yukon prove every day. Secondly, YOU made the claim that ALL violence was left wing in nature. McVeigh was hardly a left winger. The people responsible for violence against abortion clinics and providers are hardly left wingers. All? Ok, only 95% of the violence is left-wing. 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.) The extermination of baby-killers and the eradication of their murder clinics is not remotely the security problem organized Muslim terrorism is. Don't try to draw an equivalent in any sense - it doesn't work.
"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
Feel free to cite the numerous examples required to vaildate the above statement. Thanks. Too bad reparations is [sic] a VIOLATION of civil rights of Whitey [sic] and UN-constitutional I agree. There is a proscription on Bill of Attainders and Forfeiture of Blood. NOR has it been legislated through We The People. Um...okay...and? and illegal "hate crimes" legislation. "Hate crimes" statutes are not "illegal". There is no legal estoppel to passing such laws. And then we have the black farmers recently receiving billions of dollars for something that happened to others BY others 150 years ago? Uh...no...a) those claims are contemporary to the late 20th and early 21st century b) it wasn't "billions" it was $1.25 billion and c) included American aboriginals. The truth of the matter is the black Chief Executive of the US and his black Attorney General are blatantly encouraging and undermining several civil rights laws and abusing the rights of White America with impunity. Goddam those mortherfucking niggers, anyway...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
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.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy.
#3. To: war (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#5. To: war, A K A Stone (#2)
#6. To: Godwinson (#5)
US volunteers in the Waffen-SS
#7. To: war (#4)
There is a constitutional difference between acts of war and criminal acts.
#8. To: Godwinson (#5)
What's the big deal? America killed American citizen enemy combatants before -
#9. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike, war (#8)
(Edited)
enemy comabants is a made up word to take peoples due process rights away.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#7)
(Edited)
You make up stuff. Like separation of church and state. So I don't trust you.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#7)
We have no declaration of war against anyone and surely not Yemen.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
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.
Honest Socialism
#13. To: jwpegler (#12)
Conclusion: We're living in Nazi Germany.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Who are these people.
#15. To: war, jwpegler (#13)
Conclusion: We're living in Nazi Germany.
#16. To: Liberator (#14)
Leftists and Statists. Like the ones who infest your forum.
#17. To: jwpegler (#12)
Honest Socialism
#18. To: war (#16)
Yep...better go back to LP...
#19. To: jwpegler, LF (#12)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#7)
We have no declaration of war against anyone and surely not Yemen.
#21. To: A K A Stone, war (#3)
You are not a fan of the United States Constitution.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#23. To: Badeye (#22)
If Bush had done this, the media would be demanding impeachment.
#24. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, liberator, badeye (#0)
(Edited)
Honest Socialism
#25. To: jwpegler (#24)
#26. To: jwpegler (#24)
They TOLD us who their target is:
#27. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#28. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone (#27)
Are these those death panels Palin was talking about?
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
As per your informative post, the stated enemies list of 0bama and Holder, branded "terrorists":
#30. To: Liberator (#29)
#31. To: jwpegler (#24)
(Edited)
They TOLD us who their target is: ..........
#32. To: Liberator (#26)
Military veterans
#33. To: jwpegler (#24)
#34. To: Badeye (#33)
Yep, and I gain recognition via this list multiple times from the Owe-bama administration.
#35. To: mininggold (#32)
The FBI noted in a 2008 report... that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
#36. To: war (#29)
(Edited)
First off, that "list" as you call, came from DHS not DOJ.
#37. To: Badeye (#35)
(Edited)
Define what the FBI is calling 'extremist groups' ming.
#38. To: Badeye, jwpegler, war (#33)
Yep, and I gain recognition via this list multiple times from the Owe-bama administration.
#39. To: Liberator (#38)
#40. To: Liberator (#36)
(Edited)
So you're claiming 0bama and his inner-cabal of Commies and Idi Aminites had NOTHING to do with it? Only Nappy pulled the list of out her azz? LOL! They're a TEAM!
#41. To: Badeye (#39)
#42. To: war, A K A Stone (#2)
In point of fact, an enemy combatant who happened to be a citizen was targeted.
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 163 U. S. 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 282 U. S. 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42)
(Edited)
In point of fact he was not a combatant.
#44. To: nolu chan (#42)
If this were lawful, how many people could be put on the secret kill list? Where does the authority end?
#45. To: war (#40)
(Edited)
You're too hung up on hating those niggers who hate America to care.
God knows how the US has been staving off all those "right wing" threats to the WTC and the Pentagon and DC Snipers and Ft. Hood slaughters from within all those right-wing Mosques....right, DUMMY? Uh...Never mind.
#46. To: Liberator (#45)
Do this mean you justify Holder and 0bama's hostility and assault of Whitey as "reparation" for slavery?
#47. To: war (#46)
#48. To: war (#46)
As for Holder, he's entitled to his opinion.
#49. To: war (#46)
(Edited)
First off, there is no such thing as "left wing" religious fanaticism.
#50. To: Liberator (#47)
0bama's anomalous and purely political words of supposed opposition to reparations contradict his deeds and that of his administration.
#51. To: Liberator (#49)
(Edited)
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]