Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Valerie]

Read this again that is if you read




I did not change the subject I am within the context of what this post mentioned

Try reading THIS dipshit:


American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is calling for jihad against America, claiming "America is evil" in a new audio message obtained by CNN."With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim," he says in the recording...

Purported al-Awlaki message calls for jihad against U.S. - CNN

A newpaper reported him saying that? Did you hear him say that?

If you did not hear him say it then i a court of law that information would be thrown out.

Back in the place we call REALITY al-Awlaki's case is the one that got thrown out>>>

Umm, the guy confessed. You better read up on treason again.

Should have been easy to get a legal judgment against him then.

Too bad our government didn't even try before they targeted him for death.

Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates said, quoting an earlier decision on a similar issue.






Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Anderson said.

In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.

"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.

Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.

The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

 

[Xchel]

I just find it disturbing that the left 3 years ago were pissed because Bush didn't mirandized anyone captured on the battlefield but yet now it's ok to side step the Constitution and assassinate American citizens. And it's even more disturbing that those on the right the so called defenders of the constitution are happy about it to.

I am not necesarily right or left, but I am just as pissed about it now as I was when Bush did it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Try reading THIS dipshit:


American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is calling for jihad against America, claiming "America is evil" in a new audio message obtained by CNN."With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim," he says in the recording...

Purported al-Awlaki message calls for jihad against U.S. - CNN

A newpaper reported him saying that? Did you hear him say that?

If you did not hear him say it then i a court of law that information would be thrown out.

Back in the place we call REALITY al-Awlaki's case is the one that got thrown out>>>

Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates said, quoting an earlier decision on a similar issue.






Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Anderson said.

In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.

"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.

Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.

The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

 

[Valerie]

A newpaper reported him saying that? Did you hear him say that?

If you did not hear him say it then i a court of law that information would be thrown out.

Back in the place we call REALITY al-Awlaki's case is the one that got thrown out>>>

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

He's dead now.



Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

 

[Sunshine]

Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Back in the place we call REALITY al-Awlaki's case is the one that got thrown out>>>

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

He's dead now.



Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

I'm not pretending anything. If we don't follow the Constitution it becomes worthless and nobody's rights are protected or safe. Those witness would have to take the stand and admit they heard him say it under oath. otherwise it's nothing but hearsay and worthy only to be printed in the tabliods.

 

[Sunshine]

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

WTF is THAT supposed to mean? I have never heard the term 'amicable in a court of law.'

But here's a flash for you. Some hearsay IS most definitely admissible (if that is what you intended.) The state of TN has 19 codified hearsay exceptions and one case law excetion.

 

[Amelia]

Back in the place we call REALITY al-Awlaki's case is the one that got thrown out>>>

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

He's dead now.



Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

It's not that they did go after an innocent citizen. It's that now they can.

The Bill of Rights was written to take that kind of decision out of political hands.

The Bill of Rights has been torn in half. A bright red line has been crossed. From here on out, the criteria for who gets constitutional protections is going to be blurred more and more.

 

[Amelia]

Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law.

Good point. I overlooked that in my answer above.

 

[Valerie]

Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

WTF is THAT supposed to mean? I have never heard the term 'amicable in a court of law.'

But here's a flash for you. Some hearsay IS most definitely admissible (if that is what you intended.) The state of TN has 19 codified hearsay exceptions and one case law excetion.

OMG how old are you?

Amicable action
An action commenced and maintained by the mutual consent and arrangement of the parties to obtain a judgment of a court on a doubtful Question of Law that is based upon facts that both parties accept as being correct and complete.

The action is considered amicable because there is no dispute as to the facts but only as to the conclusions of law that a judge can reach from consideration of the facts. An amicable action is considered a Justiciable controversy because there is a real and substantive disagreement between the parties as to the appropriate relief to be granted by the court.

Other names for an amicable action are a case agreed on, a case stated, or a friendly suit.


If evidence does not meet these requirements then it would be inamicable
Amicable action legal definition of Amicable action. Amicable action synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Inamissible and its Opposite

Bill Long 8/10/05

One of the words that lawyers dread hearing after they have attempted to introduce something into evidence is a ruling from the bench that it is "inadmissible." Something is inadmissible because it violates one of the hearsay rules, it isn't relevant, it is redundant or is highly prejudicial. Because of a spate of law-oriented TV shows and celebrity trials in the past decade or so, the general American public knows this word now. It is one of the few five-syllable words that flows effortlessly from the lips of great and small alike.* America, however, doesn't know is aural cousin, inamissible. Something inamissible is "not liable to be lost." The word ought to have
Inamissible and inadmissible and amissible and amissibility

 

[Sunshine]

Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.

"Intel"....just another word for 'evidence' which was NOT presented to a court of law. The man was an American citizen who was murdered by Obama without due process. Since you so freely CHOOSE to deny citizens their Constitutional protections, then we can safely assume you will offer up your most precious loved one for assassination the minute he does something Obama might not approve of. You have no clue how close this case brings that to actually happening.

 

[Sunshine]

Unless you heard him say those words it's hearsay and not amicable in a court of law.

WTF is THAT supposed to mean? I have never heard the term 'amicable in a court of law.'

But here's a flash for you. Some hearsay IS most definitely admissible (if that is what you intended.) The state of TN has 19 codified hearsay exceptions and one case law excetion.

OMG how old are you?

Amicable action
An action commenced and maintained by the mutual consent and arrangement of the parties to obtain a judgment of a court on a doubtful Question of Law that is based upon facts that both parties accept as being correct and complete.

The action is considered amicable because there is no dispute as to the facts but only as to the conclusions of law that a judge can reach from consideration of the facts. An amicable action is considered a Justiciable controversy because there is a real and substantive disagreement between the parties as to the appropriate relief to be granted by the court.

Other names for an amicable action are a case agreed on, a case stated, or a friendly suit.


If evidence does not meet these requirements then it would be inamicable
Amicable action legal definition of Amicable action. Amicable action synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Inamissible and its Opposite

Bill Long 8/10/05

One of the words that lawyers dread hearing after they have attempted to introduce something into evidence is a ruling from the bench that it is "inadmissible." Something is inadmissible because it violates one of the hearsay rules, it isn't relevant, it is redundant or is highly prejudicial. Because of a spate of law-oriented TV shows and celebrity trials in the past decade or so, the general American public knows this word now. It is one of the few five-syllable words that flows effortlessly from the lips of great and small alike.* America, however, doesn't know is aural cousin, inamissible. Something inamissible is "not liable to be lost." The word ought to have
Inamissible and inadmissible and amissible and amissibility

How any of that relates to this discussion is beyond me.

 

[Valerie]

As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land... The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been... WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him? Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric... He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents. You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.

 

[Amelia]

Plenty of witnesses heard his spoken intentions... Anyone who wants to deny that FACT and pretend the US is going after innocent citizens is living in some sort of hypothetical la la land...

According to the laws of our land he WAS innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Guilt is a verdict that is decided by a jury. It seems an important part of the process was bypassed here!

Using your philosophical stance, I would think it OK for Obama to hunt you down and shoot you as well. I mean, you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING!

No, according to the laws of our land there was actionable intelligence that al-Awlaki was orchestrating Jihad against innocent American citizens and an executive order was carried out which brought him lawfully to his death. He died by the violence HE chose to engage in.

Actionable intelligence which was so non-pressing that they waited almost two years between putting him on the kill list and actually doing the deed.

They had plenty of time to do this right. He was not carrying a bomb into the country. He did not present an imminent danger. A serious threat ... presumably so ... but not an imminent threat.

There was no reason they could not have indicted him. If at some point he presented an imminent threat during an attempt to give him due process then it would have been fair for them to have acted. But they didn't even try to go through the motions.

There was no reason to put him on a death list without a conviction.


A watch list would have been sufficient until there was a verdict or until he made a more overt action. No reason to literally mark him for death without due process.



No reason to tell the rest of us citizens that the Bill of Rights is only paper.




Did you listen to Jay Carney dodge Jake Tapper's questions about this? Carney was practically incoherent. The administration was nakedly wrong and Carney had no defense whatsoever.

 

[Xchel]

imminent threat would be like if they shot down the plane that was going to crash into the White House, Flight 93...yet they didn't shoot it down because they didn't get into the air in time before the plane crashed...but that is what immenent danger is...not someone who says they are waging jihad on a video.

 

[Sunshine]

As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land... The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been... WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him? Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric... He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents. You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.

Rules of engagement my ass! You don't even use terms correctly. You have no clue what you are even parroting. The SCOTUS has consistently held that terrorists are criminals. And that they are entitled to due process. Where is the law that says 'violent rhetoric' is a capital offense? Miss know it all!

 

[Valerie]

As I said all you've got is hypothetical la la land... The rules of engagement have not changed from what they've always been... WHY didn't he turn himself in once the court threw out his father's attempt to protect him? Instead HE CHOSE to stay in harms way and continue with his violent rhetoric... He was counting on dopes like you all to further undermine America and pretend we are doomed to go after innocents. You all would sooner believe THAT lie than a man who openly ADMITTED to intentions of killing innocents.

Rules of engagement my ass! You don't even use terms correctly. You have no clue what you are even parroting. The SCOTUS has consistently held that terrorists are criminals. And that they are entitled to due process. Where is the law that says 'violent rhetoric' is a capital offense? Miss know it all!

I'm not parroting anything...


I'm sure YOU know it all so much better than all the top legal scholars...

Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Anderson said.

In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.

"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.

Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.

The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.

Open Channel - Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

 

[Xchel]

I hope it never someone you know that some guy determines is a terrorist without due process and selects for execution...

 

[Valerie]

I hope it never someone you know that some guy determines is a terrorist without due process and selects for execution...

Do you care about the innocents the Jihadists choose for execution?


About Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj Nidal Malik Hasan:

Mr Hasan, accused of shooting dead 13 people at the military base, had seen Awlaki preach in Virginia in 2001 and received religious advice from him by email.

Awlaki told al-Jazeera after the November 2009 attack: "Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

"My support to the operation was because the operation brother Nidal carried out was a courageous one."




If someone I know ever praises and orchestrates Jihad against America then they are fair game...


"Fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils.

"Fighting them is what is called for at this time. We have reached a point where it is either us or them.

"We are two opposites that will never come together. What they want can only be accomplished by our elimination. Therefore this is a defining battle."

BBC News - In quotes: Anwar al-Awlaki