'State Secrets' Cited By White House To Block Targeted Killings Suit...

[loosecannon]

hummm, do we have a legal right to do this? many fought for years up to the SC to provide constitutional protections to non citizens, yet we have announced a predetermined death sentence on a US citizen? Interesting....

9/11 changed everything, now stfu!

its sarcasm dude, calm down.

yes, I was being sarcastic, thanks for asking.

But "9/11 changed everything" really is the rationale behind this targeted assassination exec order. It began under Cheney and continues under Obama. Everything the exec does under the banner of WOT is legal until the SC pries that assumed power from the executive's cold, bloody hands.

And Obama is packing the court with libs who believe in broad executive powers. And they are all women,...like Harriet Miers!

 

[Liability]

If an American citizen were to become the actual head of al qaeda, would the law demand that we are somehow obliged to "try" him as a criminal (treason, perhaps)? Or, would we be within our lawful rights to target the leader of an international organization waging war on the United States (and against whom we ARE at war)?

And what if that same American citizen is not the new "head" of al qaeda but is instead just one of that terrorist organization's more active high-echelon members? Does that change the analysis as to whether or not we are legally entitled to target him?

If Adolf fucking Hitler had been a joint citizen of Germany and the United States,* would it have been somehow unlawful to target him for death during WWII?


__________
* Anwar Awlaki is a joint citizen of the U.S. (having been born in New Mexico) and Yemen.

You are taking enormous liberties with your definition of war.

The SC has already found that the war on terror didn't apply outside Afghanistan. As in indefinite detentions without trial and unlawful combatant status could not be applied to folks, say, kidnapped in Italy.

They can be if and only if they are captured on the battlefield, which is Afghanistan.

And we were at war with Germany. Declared war.

The SCOTUS does NOT get to define "war" for us.

And we are at war with al qaeda, too. Congress authorized it rather explicitly. When Congress authorizes the use by the Commander in chief of our nation's military might, as Congress did here, then we are at war even if the words used by Congress didn't include a captiojn saying "Declaration of War."

I realize that many of you liberals like to quibble about such matters, but that's really just too freaking bad. Congress has already spoken.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

Come to think of it, in fact, the Congressional Resolution may be the definitive answer to the question posed in the OP.

 

[loosecannon]

But I agree with Madeline that it is passing strange that the same Administration isn't attempting (so far as I can see) to use the doctrine in the WikiLeaks matter.

Why would they, the perp in the wikileaks matter had classified status. Probably even an officer within the military. He can be shot legally for insubordination. With a firing squad. Military law.

 

[8537]

If an American citizen were to become the actual head of al qaeda, would the law demand that we are somehow obliged to "try" him as a criminal (treason, perhaps)?

In every case I can think of, Yes. OR at the very least the courts would need to approve the executive branch having the authority to detain him without access to his constitutional rights.

 

[loosecannon]

The SCOTUS does NOT get to define "war" for us.

Of course they do, it is a legal definition.

And we are at war with al qaeda, too.

AlQueda is a myth. Your own link says we are at war with the folks who attacked us on 9/11:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

 

[Liability]

But I agree with Madeline that it is passing strange that the same Administration isn't attempting (so far as I can see) to use the doctrine in the WikiLeaks matter.

Why would they, the perp in the wikileaks matter had classified status. Probably even an officer within the military. He can be shot legally for insubordination. With a firing squad. Military law.

No. "He" cannot be legally shot for insubordination.

Military law does not dispense with due process.

Since you clearly do not have the foggiest notion of the things you are attempting to discuss, silence would be your best course until such time as you educate yourself.

 

[Liability]

The SCOTUS does NOT get to define "war" for us.

Of course they do, it is a legal definition.

Nonsense.

And we are at war with al qaeda, too.

AlQueda is a myth. Your own link says we are at war with the folks who attacked us on 9/11:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Al qaeda is an actual organization and is the organization responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks, stupid. And since that is the case, the AUMF unequivocally authorizes the President to use the nation's military might against that group and the individuals so responsible.

Under the Constitution, WAR has to be authorized by Congress. They did that authorizing thing. We are at war.

 

[rightwinger]

This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture

Sucks being a terrorist nowadays

 

[Liability]

This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture

Sucks being a terrorist nowadays

We may not agree on much, but on that sentiment, I believe we do.

In fact, I hope it gets all the more sucky for terrorists these days.

I harbor a generally very low opinion of President Obama, but in this area, imho, he's been doing a decent job.

 

[loosecannon]

No. "He" cannot be legally shot for insubordination.

Military law does not dispense with due process.

Of course it does:

Courts martial have the authority to try a wide range of military offences, many of which closely resemble civilian crimes like fraud, theft or perjury. Others, like cowardice, desertion, and insubordination, are purely military crimes. Punishments for military offences range from fines and imprisonment to execution (in nations that retain the death penalty). Military offences are defined in the Army Act, Royal Air Force Act and Royal Navy Act for members of the British Military. Regulations for the Canadian Forces are found in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. For members of the United States armed forces offenses are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These offences, their corresponding punishments and instructions on how to conduct a court-martial, are explained in detail based on each country and/or service.

 

[Liability]

No. "He" cannot be legally shot for insubordination.

Military law does not dispense with due process.

Of course it does:

Courts martial have the authority to try a wide range of military offences, many of which closely resemble civilian crimes like fraud, theft or perjury. Others, like cowardice, desertion, and insubordination, are purely military crimes. Punishments for military offences range from fines and imprisonment to execution (in nations that retain the death penalty). Military offences are defined in the Army Act, Royal Air Force Act and Royal Navy Act for members of the British Military. Regulations for the Canadian Forces are found in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. For members of the United States armed forces offenses are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These offences, their corresponding punishments and instructions on how to conduct a court-martial, are explained in detail based on each country and/or service.

I have provided a subtle hint or two to help you educate yourself. See if you can spot that very very subtle set of hints.

 

[Madeline]

9/11 changed everything, now stfu!

its sarcasm dude, calm down.

yes, I was being sarcastic, thanks for asking.

But "9/11 changed everything" really is the rationale behind this targeted assassination exec order. It began under Cheney and continues under Obama. Everything the exec does under the banner of WOT is legal until the SC pries that assumed power from the executive's cold, bloody hands.

And Obama is packing the court with libs who believe in broad executive powers. And they are all women,...like Harriet Miers!

WTF is Harriet Miers?

 

[loosecannon]

Al qaeda is an actual organization

NO, it isn't. Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida

 

[loosecannon]

its sarcasm dude, calm down.

yes, I was being sarcastic, thanks for asking.

But "9/11 changed everything" really is the rationale behind this targeted assassination exec order. It began under Cheney and continues under Obama. Everything the exec does under the banner of WOT is legal until the SC pries that assumed power from the executive's cold, bloody hands.

And Obama is packing the court with libs who believe in broad executive powers. And they are all women,...like Harriet Miers!

WTF is Harriet Miers?

Are you kidding?

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harriet Ellan Miers (born August 10, 1945) is an American lawyer and former White House Counsel. In 2005, she was nominated by President George W. Bush to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

 

[Liability]

Al qaeda is an actual organization

NO, it isn't. Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida

Canadian "research" propaganda websites are not actually authoritative on -- anything -- you imbecile.

The creation of and the history of al qaeda is not even subject to rational debate by anyone who isn't a fucking conspiracy asshole. Al-Qaida

 

[Liability]

yes, I was being sarcastic, thanks for asking.

But "9/11 changed everything" really is the rationale behind this targeted assassination exec order. It began under Cheney and continues under Obama. Everything the exec does under the banner of WOT is legal until the SC pries that assumed power from the executive's cold, bloody hands.

And Obama is packing the court with libs who believe in broad executive powers. And they are all women,...like Harriet Miers!

WTF is Harriet Miers?

Are you kidding?

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harriet Ellan Miers (born August 10, 1945) is an American lawyer and former White House Counsel. In 2005, she was nominated by President George W. Bush to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Hey retard:

President Bush did not exactly "pack" the Court and he certainly didn't do so with nominees (like Ms. Miers) who could not and did not get confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Madeline]

If an American citizen were to become the actual head of al qaeda, would the law demand that we are somehow obliged to "try" him as a criminal (treason, perhaps)? Or, would we be within our lawful rights to target the leader of an international organization waging war on the United States (and against whom we ARE at war)?

And what if that same American citizen is not the new "head" of al qaeda but is instead just one of that terrorist organization's more active high-echelon members? Does that change the analysis as to whether or not we are legally entitled to target him?

If Adolf fucking Hitler had been a joint citizen of Germany and the United States,* would it have been somehow unlawful to target him for death during WWII?


__________
* Anwar Awlaki is a joint citizen of the U.S. (having been born in New Mexico) and Yemen.

You are taking enormous liberties with your definition of war.

The SC has already found that the war on terror didn't apply outside Afghanistan. As in indefinite detentions without trial and unlawful combatant status could not be applied to folks, say, kidnapped in Italy.

They can be if and only if they are captured on the battlefield, which is Afghanistan.

And we were at war with Germany. Declared war.

The SCOTUS does NOT get to define "war" for us.

And we are at war with al qaeda, too. Congress authorized it rather explicitly. When Congress authorizes the use by the Commander in chief of our nation's military might, as Congress did here, then we are at war even if the words used by Congress didn't include a captiojn saying "Declaration of War."

I realize that many of you liberals like to quibble about such matters, but that's really just too freaking bad. Congress has already spoken.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

Come to think of it, in fact, the Congressional Resolution may be the definitive answer to the question posed in the OP.

Not for nothing, Liability, but to my knowledge no one accuses Anwar Awlaki of having anything to do with 9/11. IMO, extrajudicial killings are constitutional under Article II, provided the need to avoid due process can be shown to be one of national security that cannot otherwise be satisfied.

In the case of Anwar Awlaki, I dunno why we don't try him inabsenti. His case has been argued in the editorial pages of most US newspapers...what need is there for secrecy?

 

[loosecannon]

I have provided a subtle hint or two to help you educate yourself. See if you can spot that very very subtle set of hints.

In time of war, esp during instances of insurrection and cowardice, officers are authorized to summarily try and execute soldiers who refuse to fight.

Sorry you are always wrong.

 

[loosecannon]

In the case of Anwar Awlaki, I dunno why we don't try him inabsenti. His case has been argued in the editorial pages of most US newspapers...what need is there for secrecy?[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

WORD! But that would compromise state secrets....

 

[Madeline]

WTF is Harriet Miers?

Are you kidding?

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harriet Ellan Miers (born August 10, 1945) is an American lawyer and former White House Counsel. In 2005, she was nominated by President George W. Bush to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Hey retard:

President Bush did not exactly "pack" the Court and he certainly didn't do so with nominees (like Ms. Miers) who could not and did not get confirmed by the Senate.

Imma dimwit because I cannot recall the names of people who never made it to the Supremes? C'mon, loosecanon. If ya wanna use obscure references, provide the information.