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

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you READ responses to you? We can not try him in ANY manner unless we hold him at least long enough to charge him. Are you advocating we violate the law to TRY him and not follow the law that allows us to kill him as an enemy combatant?

I'm saying I don't think he has to be charged in person. It could be done via publication, IMO. And I don't think a traditional criminal trial is our only choice.

No. There is a little verbal ambiguity going on here. One CAN be charged with a crime in absentia. For example, Osama bin Laden was never in our hands, yet he was charged with a terrorist act involving an incident prior to 9/11. The charge came in the form of an Indictment.

But since that diseased prick was never in our hands, he could not be tried in absentia. HAD he ever been arrested and brought before a Court of Law to answer to that Indictment, he could later be tried in absentia even if he escaped to some mountain cave in Afghanistan before trial.

If one has never been brought before the Court at all, one cannot be tried in absentia. Not by "publication" and not by any other means.

Madeline is way to stupid to understand assuming she even understands what she is reading.

 

[JBeukema]

I wanna live in JB's world, where all threats to our national security can be safely ignored until we convene a trial.

Yes, because arresting someone is ignoring them

 

[JBeukema]

]You can't be a joint citizen unless you're a minor. America doesn't recognize dual citizenship. If he'd been a citizen, then he'd have been charged for his crimes (assuming some lone hand didn't kill him).

You are wrong on a variety of levels. First off, if a person is born in the US, the US recognizes his US citizenship.

I already mentioned minors, dipshit.

Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes. You don't know diddly dick about how the Justice system works.

Yes, because there's no right to a fair trial, since we are in Iran.

 

[Madeline]

Do you READ responses to you? We can not try him in ANY manner unless we hold him at least long enough to charge him. Are you advocating we violate the law to TRY him and not follow the law that allows us to kill him as an enemy combatant?

I'm saying I don't think he has to be charged in person. It could be done via publication, IMO. And I don't think a traditional criminal trial is our only choice.

No. There is a little verbal ambiguity going on here. One CAN be charged with a crime in absentia. For example, Osama bin Laden was never in our hands, yet he was charged with a terrorist act involving an incident prior to 9/11. The charge came in the form of an Indictment.

But since that diseased prick was never in our hands, he could not be tried in absentia. HAD he ever been arrested and brought before a Court of Law to answer to that Indictment, he could later be tried in absentia even if he escaped to some mountain cave in Afghanistan before trial.

If one has never been brought before the Court at all, one cannot be tried in absentia. Not by "publication" and not by any other means.

Why not, Liability? There are plenty of precedents for going forward with a trial when the defendant is absent. Minimum due process is satisfied. I'm not seeing the problem.

Regardless of whether the US Constitution allows for this, we could try the shitheel in The Hague, etc. In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

 

[8537]

In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

To hear the folks defending this yes.

This is going to come back and bite us in the ass at a very near point in the future. Remember when it turns out to be you all personally targetted due to some mistake or intentional misuse of the law, you all defended it.

We can easily turn into a dictatorship within 10 years. Good freaking job people.

 

[Liability]

]You can't be a joint citizen unless you're a minor. America doesn't recognize dual citizenship. If he'd been a citizen, then he'd have been charged for his crimes (assuming some lone hand didn't kill him).

You are wrong on a variety of levels. First off, if a person is born in the US, the US recognizes his US citizenship.

I already mentioned minors, dipshit.

Well, then, asshole, you should have included that "little" caveat in your referenced post. You really are too fucking stupid to breathe.

Just because this fucker Awlaki is a citizen doesn't mean that he has to be charged for his alleged crimes. You don't know diddly dick about how the Justice system works.

Yes, because there's no right to a fair trial, since we are in Iran.

Soldiers killed in battle, asshole-sucker, do not get "due process." "Fair trial" has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter under discussion. If we had elected to assassinate Adolf Hitler during WWII, you brain dead diseased rodent, we would NOT have had to ask a Court of LAW for "mother may I?" permission. It is literally impossible for a jack-off like you to get ANY dumber.

 

[Charles_Main]

In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

 

[Liability]

I'm saying I don't think he has to be charged in person. It could be done via publication, IMO. And I don't think a traditional criminal trial is our only choice.

No. There is a little verbal ambiguity going on here. One CAN be charged with a crime in absentia. For example, Osama bin Laden was never in our hands, yet he was charged with a terrorist act involving an incident prior to 9/11. The charge came in the form of an Indictment.

But since that diseased prick was never in our hands, he could not be tried in absentia. HAD he ever been arrested and brought before a Court of Law to answer to that Indictment, he could later be tried in absentia even if he escaped to some mountain cave in Afghanistan before trial.

If one has never been brought before the Court at all, one cannot be tried in absentia. Not by "publication" and not by any other means.

Why not, Liability? There are plenty of precedents for going forward with a trial when the defendant is absent. Minimum due process is satisfied. I'm not seeing the problem.

Regardless of whether the US Constitution allows for this, we could try the shitheel in The Hague, etc. In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

The short answer to your question, Madeline, is "jurisdiction." Osama bin Laden was indicted in absentia. But, he has never been brought before a Court to answer to the charges. UNTIL that day comes (if ever), the Court has no "in personam" jurisdiction over his filthy ass.

And I can fathom no reason why we want to "try him" in the Hague, either. I don't think a shitwad like him has ANY right to any trial. He has the right to die. But if we (for some silly reason) insist on "trying" him as though all he is is a mere "criminal," then it would sure seem like we would want him subject to OUR laws.

The scumbag should be consigned to an eternity of "whack a mole." If his head pops out of any hidey-hole cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or anywhere else on planet Earth, he should get whacked. And to whatever extent the current President has authorized that, I will again accord to the President my profound thanks and accolades.

 

[8537]

In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

To hear the folks defending this yes.

This is going to come back and bite us in the ass at a very near point in the future. Remember when it turns out to be you all personally targetted due to some mistake or intentional misuse of the law, you all defended it.

We can easily turn into a dictatorship within 10 years. Good freaking job people.

I believe we can (very generally) place people who accept this into two categories. These are obviously broad stereotypes and perhaps I'm missing some other motive, but...

1. Those that understand the implications and accept them. These folks know that the executive branch is claiming a significant extra-judicial power unto itself found nowhere in the Constitution. They accept it because they balance that against the perceived national security implications and decide it's worth it. I fundamentally disagree with these folks because I don't believe the national security claims nor do I believe in such a significant increase in executive authority or where it leads in the future.

2. People who don't understand the implications. These people really don't see the slope upon which they are standing, and can't conceive of how the government might use this authority against people they like - they are quite certain the government will only use this power against people they don't like and don't believe deserve constitutional protections.

While I can at least wrap my brain around the first group, I have absolutely no sympathy or understanding for the second.

 

[8537]

In any event, bottom line is I think the POTUS should be permitted to issue a death warrant without any due process whatsoever when doing so is the only way to protect the national security.

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

 

[Liability]

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Until then, your "worries" are candy-ass bullshit.

Enemies in time of war get no "cover" from our legal system, you retard.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction: The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

 

[Liability]

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction: The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction to your erroneous "correction [sic]":

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

 

[8537]

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Until then, your "worries" are candy-ass bullshit.

Enemies in time of war get no "cover" from our legal system, you retard.

1. You seem awfully angry.
2. We have these places where citizens charged with things like "targeting the US or any of her people" can be held accountable. Those places aren't 1600 PA ave.

 

[Charles_Main]

Who gets to decide when "doing so is the only way to protect national security"? The same person who wants to have the person killed?

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

Yes I would mind him calling for the head of a Citizen. We are not talking about Citizens here.

 

[Liability]

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Until then, your "worries" are candy-ass bullshit.

Enemies in time of war get no "cover" from our legal system, you retard.

1. You seem awfully angry.
2. We have these places where citizens charged with things like "targeting the US or any of her people" can be held accountable. Those places aren't 1600 PA ave.

Angry? Nah. I enjoy tweaking dumb-ass whiners like you. It aint no thang.

Yes, we DO have places for citizens charged with crimes. We also have places for citizens who engage in acts of war against America and her people. Those places are not the same places.

You remain a retard.

 

[8537]

you must be real hit at cocktail parties!

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Until then, your "worries" are candy-ass bullshit.

Enemies in time of war get no "cover" from our legal system, you retard.

1. You seem awfully angry.
2. We have these places where citizens charged with things like "targeting the US or any of her people" can be held accountable. Those places aren't 1600 PA ave.

Angry? Nah. I enjoy tweaking dumb-ass whiners like you. It aint no thang.

Oh, just childish and stupid then. OK, carry on...

Yes, we DO have places for citizens charged with crimes. We also have places for citizens who engage in acts of war against America and her people. Those places are not the same places.

neither of those places reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction: The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

Correction to your erroneous "correction [sic]":

The day I wage war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

You're still wrong. Under the system you support it should be:

The day the President of the United States believes I am waging war against the United States of America and target any of her people is the day I might reasonably have to "worry" about such things.

 

[8537]

The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.

We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.

So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?

You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.

Yes I would mind him calling for the head of a Citizen. We are not talking about Citizens here.

From the article linked in the OP:

Anwar al-Awlaki....

He's said to be on a U.S. list that approves death or capture of key terrorist suspects. The 39-year-old's placement on the list in April made him the first U.S. citizen to land on the CIA targeted kill list.

The lawsuit also aimed to block the assassination green light against al-Awlaki, and compel the U.S. government to disclose the guidelines for putting a U.S. citizen on such a list.