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

[loosecannon]

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.

you can't distinguish the difference between "Bush" and "Obama" and you call me a retard? Geeeesh!@

 

[loosecannon]

Are you kidding?

Harriet Miers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

I am sorry, I thought every American remembers Bush nominating his WH counsel as a SC nom because she had a fawning crush on him and would support anything he did.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Wow some on this thread have shown some real honesty & consistency on this issue. I have to give kudos and applaud those who have. However many on here who would have ripped DA BOOOOOOOSH 24/7 over an issue like this have given their Hopey Changey a free pass. These people are disingenuous hypocrites who can't be trusted on anything. They deserve a big BOOOO!

 

[loosecannon]

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

correct, AlQueda was created by the CIA during the soviet Afghan war era.

That is a widely recognized fact. As is the fact that they have little if any organizational structure and no roster of members, and have never been found responsible for 9/11 by any court anywhere in the world.

In fact numerous unrelated groups both refer to themselves and are referred to as AQ.

 

[Liability]

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?

Actually, as I understand it, the "preachings" and videos of that scumbag were motivators for at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. Plus, the guy is presently a higher echelon level member of al qaeda. In my opinion, therefore, he is a VERY suitable target.

We do not have Star Chambers in this Republic. If an accused is to be tried, he must first be served with some form of judicial process. I don't believe he was ever arrested since 9/11 and thus he cannot be brought before the Court nor can he legally be tried in absentia.

And a "trial" is the wrong way to proceed in MANY such cases precisely because it conflates the notions of mere criminal conduct and prosecution on the one hand with the consequences of war on the other hand. If we "try" a "criminal," the accused enjoys a right to a public trial and the right to "discovery" of the information which establishes his guilt (at least insofar as the Government elects to use that evidence to prove his guilt). But much of that "information" might VERY WELL be classified material.

It is beyond common sense that we do not publicly share classified information. And there is no reason to do so in a case like his where we shouldn't be "trying" him for a "crime" in the first place. The nature of our complaint against him has nothing to do with a violation of our criminal laws. The nature of our complaint against him is the commission of acts of WAR against this Republic and her people and property.

 

[blu]

White House invokes state secrets privilege to block targeted killings suit - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Pretty interesting and controversial issue. This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture. This policy is now being challenged in court. So how do you feel about this White House targeting an American Citizen for death? I'm interested in hearing what people think about this. Thanks.

has he been shown to support them more than just pep rallies? last time (4 or 5 months ago) that I looked into it extensively, he wasn't actual doing anything but cheer leading for them

if this is still the case then its completely wrong, if he has started helping them with mission planning, acquiring weapons, physical training, etc than I am torn.

 

[Liability]

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.

You have nothing in that regard to be sorry for, since your claim is itself wrong.

In battle, a soldier might face summary execution for desertion or cowardice. But a soldier does not face summary execution for the vast majority of violations of the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. Instead, such a soldier or sailor or airman etc faces the lodging of charges and specifications against him to be tried before a Court Martial.

You will (as always) be unable to prove that a soldier could legally be subject to summary execution for revealing classified materials.

You simply have no fucking clue on this set of topics.

 

[blu]

I'm dumbfounded!

If he's believed to be a traitorous murderer, he should be TRIED for his actions, to determine guilt,

and sentenced, accordingly.

WTF country am I living in, again?!?

Yea this is a little bizarre. Not hearing much outrage from the MSM on this one. I wonder why? Hmm?

its a problem on both sides, msm wouldn't cover it b/c it would make obama look bad. fox news wouldn't cover it b/c neocons are actually okay with it. they think he should have been killed already

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As long as Bush isn't doing it, it's ok.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm dumbfounded!

If he's believed to be a traitorous murderer, he should be TRIED for his actions, to determine guilt,

and sentenced, accordingly.

WTF country am I living in, again?!?

Yea this is a little bizarre. Not hearing much outrage from the MSM on this one. I wonder why? Hmm?

its a problem on both sides, msm wouldn't cover it b/c it would make obama look bad. fox news wouldn't cover it b/c neocons are actually okay with it. they think he should have been killed already

Yea you nailed it for sure. The MSM aint touching this one because it may actually reflect poorly on their beloved Hopey Changey. Now if DA BOOOOOOOSH or any Republican was in there? Completely different story. You are also correct on the Fox News take. Thanks.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Those two douchebags Reid & Pelosi have been especially quiet on this issue as well. Man,could you imagine DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican being in there right now? Those two douchebags would be screeching 24/7 about how awful this is. I can't stand those two dishonest cretins.

 

[blu]

Those two douchebags Reid & Pelosi have been especially quiet on this issue as well. Man,could you imagine DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican being in there right now? Those two douchebags would be screeching 24/7 about how awful this is. I can't stand those two dishonest cretins.

this one person isn't even important in the big picture. if you read intelligence reports, obama has teams roving the entire world hunting down and killing people who he thinks are "a threat". the 3000 man team in pakistan isn't even a tenth of this global hit squad

 

[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.

You have nothing in that regard to be sorry for, since your claim is itself wrong.

In battle, a soldier might face summary execution for desertion or cowardice. But a soldier does not face summary execution for the vast majority of violations of the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. Instead, such a soldier or sailor or airman etc faces the lodging of charges and specifications against him to be tried before a Court Martial.

You will (as always) be unable to prove that a soldier could legally be subject to summary execution for revealing classified materials.

You simply have no fucking clue on this set of topics.

look up "treason" in the UCMJ.

from our constitution:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

from the UCMJ

“(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

They will try him, but in time of war he could be summarily executed

 

[RetiredGySgt]

White House invokes state secrets privilege to block targeted killings suit - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Pretty interesting and controversial issue. This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture. This policy is now being challenged in court. So how do you feel about this White House targeting an American Citizen for death? I'm interested in hearing what people think about this. Thanks.

Good, chances are we can not capture him and why should we waste time trying? At least in this instance the Obama Administration has shown some back bone.

 

[Madeline]

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.

I get so sick and tired of saying this. That private is not the only one involved; there had to be a conspiracy involving at least the WikiLeaks' site owner...but more likely, involving several people in and out of the military.

 

[blu]

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.

I get so sick and tired of saying this. That private is not the only one involved; there had to be a conspiracy involving at least the WikiLeaks' site owner...but more likely, involving several people in and out of the military.

there could have been only two people, the guy who sniffed the transmissions and the person at wikileaks who received. why would there need to be multiple people in the military?

 

[Liability]

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.

You have nothing in that regard to be sorry for, since your claim is itself wrong.

In battle, a soldier might face summary execution for desertion or cowardice. But a soldier does not face summary execution for the vast majority of violations of the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. Instead, such a soldier or sailor or airman etc faces the lodging of charges and specifications against him to be tried before a Court Martial.

You will (as always) be unable to prove that a soldier could legally be subject to summary execution for revealing classified materials.

You simply have no fucking clue on this set of topics.

look up "treason" in the UCMJ.

from our constitution:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

from the UCMJ

“(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

They will try him, but in time of war he could be summarily executed

We all already know what treason is.

And the point is that a Court Martial is required to punish anybody for committing treason. We are in time of war, but that doesn't change the analysis. You remain ignorant, addled and wrong.

 

[Madeline]

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.



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?

Actually, as I understand it, the "preachings" and videos of that scumbag were motivators for at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. Plus, the guy is presently a higher echelon level member of al qaeda. In my opinion, therefore, he is a VERY suitable target.

We do not have Star Chambers in this Republic. If an accused is to be tried, he must first be served with some form of judicial process. I don't believe he was ever arrested since 9/11 and thus he cannot be brought before the Court nor can he legally be tried in absentia.

And a "trial" is the wrong way to proceed in MANY such cases precisely because it conflates the notions of mere criminal conduct and prosecution on the one hand with the consequences of war on the other hand. If we "try" a "criminal," the accused enjoys a right to a public trial and the right to "discovery" of the information which establishes his guilt (at least insofar as the Government elects to use that evidence to prove his guilt). But much of that "information" might VERY WELL be classified material.

It is beyond common sense that we do not publicly share classified information. And there is no reason to do so in a case like his where we shouldn't be "trying" him for a "crime" in the first place. The nature of our complaint against him has nothing to do with a violation of our criminal laws. The nature of our complaint against him is the commission of acts of WAR against this Republic and her people and property.

Star Chambers refers to an English court of equity, Liability. When the law provided no remedy, sometimes a Brit could take his petition there. Has nothing whatsoever to do with jurisdiction over the person.

There's such a thing as service by publication. Announce the indictment on the front page of the NY Times. I'm sure Anwar Awlaki will get a copy but if you're super-concerned, we could try hiring a sky-writing plane to fly over Yemen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Terrorist leaders are not IN our military. The UCMJ does not apply nor does the Law of the US apply UNLESS we capture them alive. Which we are not required to do or even attempt. He is an enemy combatant, subject to being killed by the US in any place he happens to be hiding.

The Courts have zero say in it. UNLESS we capture him alive. Obama has the right and authority to order him killed anywhere we find him. Unless he surrenders or he is captured in a raid. There is NO requirement to launch such a raid. There is no justification for the Courts to try and tell the President not to try and kill an enemy Combatant still under arms.

 

[Madeline]

White House invokes state secrets privilege to block targeted killings suit - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Pretty interesting and controversial issue. This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture. This policy is now being challenged in court. So how do you feel about this White House targeting an American Citizen for death? I'm interested in hearing what people think about this. Thanks.

has he been shown to support them more than just pep rallies? last time (4 or 5 months ago) that I looked into it extensively, he wasn't actual doing anything but cheer leading for them

if this is still the case then its completely wrong, if he has started helping them with mission planning, acquiring weapons, physical training, etc than I am torn.

I believe Awlaki is implicated in the Ft. Bliss shootings, blu.