Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[High_Gravity]

A lot of those we used to be able to get have been pulled HG:

(NEWSER) – YouTube has pulled hundreds of videos featuring Anwar al-Awlaki, in response to pressure from British officials and a letter from New York congressman Anthony Weiner. YouTube said the al-Qaeda cleric’s videos violated the site’s policies against “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech, and incitement to commit violent acts,” as well as its prohibition against accounts “registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Weiner told the New York Times that his letter initially received a “bureaucratic” response, but that Google changed its tune after Awlaki was linked to the recent attempted mail bombings from Yemen. “It has become increasingly clear that this guy is an international terrorist that is using their service to do illegal things,” Weiner said. A YouTube spokeswoman says the company wants to protect freedom of expression, and would only remove videos that called for violence. “These are difficult issues,” she added
YouTube Pulls Videos By Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Urging Violence Against West

and still anyone can upload a video on you tube even if those video's were still there thats not proof enough to kill him on the spot. In my opinion. Bring him in and face his accusers, to see if those are his actual videos.

So you don't believe thats him? he's completely innocent eh?

 

[Liability]

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
H. R. 1540—266
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
H. R. 1540—267
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.

* * * *

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

I am too lazy to reformat it all. But this is the gist of the relevant sections. I took the liberty of highlighting certain significant provisions.

The Presidential implementation procedures are not yet prepared, as far as I can tell.

 

[saveliberty]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A trial in absentia accomplishes what exactly though? while this is going on the guy is still out there plotting attacks.

Not 100% sure, but I think it took a couple of years to catch up to him. Plenty of time to accomplish due process, which keeps us the protectors of liberty and the US Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A trial in absentia accomplishes what exactly though? while this is going on the guy is still out there plotting attacks.

on who's word?

 

[Liability]

Again,how is the US supposed to give due process to a citizen hiding in Yemen? are we supposed to just send out a black and white to slap the cuffs on this guy?

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

YOU persist in confusing the law of war with criminal law. The latter entails certain basic RIGHTS like confrontation and discovery. Thus, even if the accused is "absent" from his own trial, his attorney is not. And any half-way competent attorney WILL move for that "discovery" stuff. And discovery is obligatory on the Government. IF it happens to include classified intel, then the government cannot comply. But the court imposed sanctions for non-compliance can be pretty onerous -- including dismissal of the charges.

This is one of many reasons why it is incredibly absurd to treat an enemy combatant as a mere criminal.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A trial in absentia accomplishes what exactly though? while this is going on the guy is still out there plotting attacks.

on who's word?

On HIS word. As previously posted, before Youtube took them down because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he had posted hundreds of Youtube speeches to his troops spelling out his intentions in some detail. If you didn't see any of those, you'll just have to take the word of Huffington Post (which I linked), WAPO, NYT, Youtube, and those of us who did see at least some of them.

 

[High_Gravity]

This is how you satisfy due process High_Gravity.

in absentia (in ab-sensh-ee-ah) adj. or adv. phrase. Latin for "in absence," or more fully, in one's absence. Occasionally a criminal trial is conducted without the defendant being present when he/she walks out or escapes after the trial has begun, since the accused has thus waived the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. During the War Crimes trials following World War II, it was employed against Nazis who had committed atrocities and then disappeared, the most famous being Martin Bormann, Hitler's closest aide.

Trial in absentia legal definition of Trial in absentia. Trial in absentia synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A trial in absentia accomplishes what exactly though? while this is going on the guy is still out there plotting attacks.

on who's word?

Excuse me? who's word? you really believe this guy is a boy scout, don't you?

 

[saveliberty]

First the argument I heard was there wasn't a way to complete due process. That failed. Now we are arguing they might not be found guilty? This guy posted videos online. Why so bent on taking Constitutional rights from US citizens?

 

[High_Gravity]

First the argument I heard was there wasn't a way to complete due process. That failed. Now we are arguing they might not be found guilty? This guy posted videos online. Why so bent on taking Constitutional rights from US citizens?

So if you happen to be born on US Soil, you have a constitutional right to terrorize fellow citizens? this guy met with him and trained the Nigerian underwear bomber who flew into Detroit, he also had discussions with the Fort Hood shooter and motivated him, what more would this guy have to before enough is enough?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
H. R. 1540—266
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
H. R. 1540—267
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.

* * * *

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

I am too lazy to reformat it all. But this is the gist of the relevant sections. I took the liberty of highlighting certain significant provisions.

The Presidential implementation procedures are not yet prepared, as far as I can tell.

The same language is used in this as it was for the senate version
1021 and 1022
1021 does not give any protection to U.S.Citizens


(1

) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States

What about protection in 1021?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A trial in absentia accomplishes what exactly though? while this is going on the guy is still out there plotting attacks.

on who's word?

On HIS word. As previously posted, before Youtube took them down because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he had posted hundreds of Youtube speeches to his troops spelling out his intentions in some detail. If you didn't see any of those, you'll just have to take the word of Huffington Post (which I linked), WAPO, NYT, Youtube, and those of us who did see at least some of them.

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

 

[Liability]

on who's word?

On HIS word. As previously posted, before Youtube took them down because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he had posted hundreds of Youtube speeches to his troops spelling out his intentions in some detail. If you didn't see any of those, you'll just have to take the word of Huffington Post (which I linked), WAPO, NYT, Youtube, and those of us who did see at least some of them.

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

Are you REALLY going to posit your argument on the made-for-TV-movie premise that al-Awlaki was set-up by a look-alike?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On HIS word. As previously posted, before Youtube took them down because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he had posted hundreds of Youtube speeches to his troops spelling out his intentions in some detail. If you didn't see any of those, you'll just have to take the word of Huffington Post (which I linked), WAPO, NYT, Youtube, and those of us who did see at least some of them.

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

Are you REALLY going to posit your argument on the made-for-TV-movie premise that al-Awlaki was set-up by a look-alike?

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

 

[High_Gravity]

on who's word?

On HIS word. As previously posted, before Youtube took them down because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he had posted hundreds of Youtube speeches to his troops spelling out his intentions in some detail. If you didn't see any of those, you'll just have to take the word of Huffington Post (which I linked), WAPO, NYT, Youtube, and those of us who did see at least some of them.

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

If thats what you need to hear to sleep better at night, than YES, IT WAS ANWAR AL-AWLAKI IN THE VIDEOS, I SWEAR TO GOD.

 

[High_Gravity]

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

Are you REALLY going to posit your argument on the made-for-TV-movie premise that al-Awlaki was set-up by a look-alike?

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

LMAO! Wow, you must be an ACLU Lawyer representing the Awlaki clan, cause this is just nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On HIS word. As previously posted, before Youtube took them down because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he had posted hundreds of Youtube speeches to his troops spelling out his intentions in some detail. If you didn't see any of those, you'll just have to take the word of Huffington Post (which I linked), WAPO, NYT, Youtube, and those of us who did see at least some of them.

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

If thats what you need to hear to sleep better at night, than YES, IT WAS ANWAR AL-AWLAKI IN THE VIDEOS, I SWEAR TO GOD.

Whats your expertise in the filming industry?

 

[Liability]

ok but considering it's someone life at stake could you state to the court as a fact that was the accused in the video and not someone who looked like him saying those words?

Are you REALLY going to posit your argument on the made-for-TV-movie premise that al-Awlaki was set-up by a look-alike?

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

Sorry.

Your premise is now too silly to address on a serious level.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you REALLY going to posit your argument on the made-for-TV-movie premise that al-Awlaki was set-up by a look-alike?

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

LMAO! Wow, you must be an ACLU Lawyer representing the Awlaki clan, cause this is just nuts.

I'm just trying to make a point a lawyer who is trained to deal with this type of defense would tare those videos a part especially when a person life is at stake.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you REALLY going to posit your argument on the made-for-TV-movie premise that al-Awlaki was set-up by a look-alike?

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

Sorry.

Your premise is now too silly to address on a serious level.

Your honor would you instruct the witness to answer the question?

 

[Liability]

Can you without a doubt say that was the accused in the video? What is your expertise in the filming industry?

Sorry.

Your premise is now too silly to address on a serious level.

Your honor would you instruct the witness to answer the question?

Please. Your silly "question" is absurd.

There is no serious question to answer.

If you have to "make" your entire case on that ridiculous "premise," then you might as well just admit you were wrong from jump street on this topic.