Why has the Assassination of American Citizens Been Ignored this Election Cycle?

[Tigerace117]

No one can answer my questions? I have yet to hear a consistent or legitimate legal basis for this policy. I'm just hearing opinion.

People keep using the word terrorist while I have brought up due process. What if the government accused you of terrorism? Does that make actually make you a terrorist or are you innocent until proven guilty? Under your legal framework the evidence doesn't matter and it's merely the accusation that makes it legitimate. No trial is necessary.
From what you guys say it sounds like you'd feel right at home in North Korea, Cuba, or some other awesome places like that without civil liberties.

Let me guess--- your one of the guys who are still pissy because we took Osama out and didn't try and haul his ass out of Pakistan.

You mean the civil liberties this guy hated and wanted to undermine by planning terrorist attacks against the US and its institutions, right?

Treason carries the death penalty, and these guys were actively aiding and abiding enemies of the United States.

If I had contact with multiple individuals who tried to conduct terrorist attacks, fled to a terrorist sanctuary and preached support of terrorism, it's pretty safe to safe I was a terrorist.

 

[Tigerace117]

You're saying the drone strike was legal, but now you say we don't have jurisdiction to make an arrest. If we don't have jurisdiction to make an arrest then how do we have jurisdiction to fly a drone over Yemen for a drone strike? If that's "legal" then Russia or China should be able to drone strike people they call terrorists on U.S. soil. Maybe there's a flaw with that view, huh?

Because we can. Because, frankly, the Yemeni government--- what amounts to it--- has allowed US forces to conduct drone strikes against AQ targets in their territory before, but they are unwilling to let another country's police force come onto their land to make an arrest.

It's certainly legal.

Russia has killed dissidents abroad more than once before, by the way, so your analogy doesn't really work.

 

[matchlight]

Ya, I'm sure Bush's lawyers looked to see if torture was legal too. Of course they looked at the legal aspects of it, but that doesn't make it ok.
I haven't read the whole case, but none the elements the court listed in your quote don't match this discussion. 1.) Neither of the two U.S. citizens we are discussing are members of a military arm of any any government. 2.) The drone strikes were outside of the U.S. and therefore the "enter this country" part is not applicable.
The problem with what happened is that those who would say it was legally justified are saying that the entire world is a battlefield and the U.S. President can assassinate anyone in the world even without a Congressional Declaration of War. By the way, that is another distinction with your case. Congress had declared war against Germany, but the U.S. hasn't declared war on Yemen.

Of course I never claimed that Quirin was exactly on point. The facts in almost any Supreme Court decision may be distinguished in some way from the facts in the case being considered. I said I thought Quirin was relevant, and it is. Quirin was also the primary authority for the seizure of Jose Padilla, and it has generally been important legal authority in the war on Islamic jihadists.

The Constitution does not require a congressional declaration of war to be entitled "Declaration of War." The Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed after 9/11 serves as a declaration of war against Al Qaeda and other Islamic jihadist organizations. Even without any action by Congress, any U.S. President has broad authority to order military action in response to foreign threats.

While Mr. Bush was President, a number of lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel and in the Departments of Defense and State researched the question whether any of the enhanced interrogation techniques that had been proposed for use on important captured jihadists violated any U.S. laws against torture, including section 2340 of the U.S. Code. They concluded that all the techniques were legal. That makes them OK by me. The only pity is that the U.S. couldn't hang the bastards after waterboarding had forced them to cough up all the useful information they had.

Many hundreds of pages of these lawyers' legal memos have been published, and they are models of legal research. I've read several of the most important documents very closely, and I agree with their conclusion. I'm well aware that various dim persons have considered it a sign of their worldliness to sneer at these legal memos, but the more snide and dismissive the wisecrack, the more sure it is that the dim bulb who made it has never read a single paragraph of any of this legal research--and couldn't understand it if he tried.

 

[joG]

They weren't in a war zone or engaged in combat.

They were planing attacks against hundreds of citizens. That is plenty. We shoot citizens in the street foe less. That may not be nice, but clean up the act at home and then worry about the dead or alive clause of enforcement, when a citizen declares war on his country and its citizens.

 

[Fishking]

They were planing attacks against hundreds of citizens. That is plenty. We shoot citizens in the street foe less. That may not be nice, but clean up the act at home and then worry about the dead or alive clause of enforcement, when a citizen declares war on his country and its citizens.

We shoot people in the streets for being a direct threat. Al Capone was even brought to court and not just shot, even though we knew he was planning things all the time.

 

[chuckiechan]

Our Constitution was never meant to be our death warrant. There are times when arresting and charging someone over seas is just not practical. And if they are still part of a terrorist effort, to not kill them gives them a form of immunity because they are US citizens that are out of reach of US justice.

 

[joG]

We shoot people in the streets for being a direct threat. Al Capone was even brought to court and not just shot, even though we knew he was planning things all the time.

The Americans that were droned were waging war on the country from a far and inaccessible place. Capone only had to be picked up. And a fellow in a car can be surrounded, while one waits till he surrenders. This is especially true, if he is not armed. So please find something smart to complain about.

 

[Fishking]

The Americans that were droned were waging war on the country from a far and inaccessible place. Capone only had to be picked up. And a fellow in a car can be surrounded, while one waits till he surrenders. This is especially true, if he is not armed. So please find something smart to complain about.

I think due process is a pretty smart thing to complain about. And Capone walked free for the world to see, only to be caught with tax evasion. Again, it's called due process and I find it doubtful we couldn't have extracted him from Yemen.

 

[Clapton is God]

Of course I never claimed that Quirin was exactly on point. The facts in almost any Supreme Court decision may be distinguished in some way from the facts in the case being considered. I said I thought Quirin was relevant, and it is. Quirin was also the primary authority for the seizure of Jose Padilla, and it has generally been important legal authority in the war on Islamic jihadists.

The Constitution does not require a congressional declaration of war to be entitled "Declaration of War." The Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed after 9/11 serves as a declaration of war against Al Qaeda and other Islamic jihadist organizations. Even without any action by Congress, any U.S. President has broad authority to order military action in response to foreign threats.

While Mr. Bush was President, a number of lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel and in the Departments of Defense and State researched the question whether any of the enhanced interrogation techniques that had been proposed for use on important captured jihadists violated any U.S. laws against torture, including section 2340 of the U.S. Code. They concluded that all the techniques were legal. That makes them OK by me. The only pity is that the U.S. couldn't hang the bastards after waterboarding had forced them to cough up all the useful information they had.

Many hundreds of pages of these lawyers' legal memos have been published, and they are models of legal research. I've read several of the most important documents very closely, and I agree with their conclusion. I'm well aware that various dim persons have considered it a sign of their worldliness to sneer at these legal memos, but the more snide and dismissive the wisecrack, the more sure it is that the dim bulb who made it has never read a single paragraph of any of this legal research--and couldn't understand it if he tried.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq applies to Yemen and all other countries too?

 

[Clapton is God]

Because we can. Because, frankly, the Yemeni government--- what amounts to it--- has allowed US forces to conduct drone strikes against AQ targets in their territory before, but they are unwilling to let another country's police force come onto their land to make an arrest.

It's certainly legal.

Russia has killed dissidents abroad more than once before, by the way, so your analogy doesn't really work.

"Because we can" isn't a valid legal philosophy. Might doesn't not make it right. That basically tells me you don't know and can't comment on my questions without twisting them.
Has Russia or China flown military craft over the U.S. and bombed people they deemed to be terrorists? No. And no it's not legal. Just because Russia has done elsewhere doesn't mean it was legal. That's not even an argument.

You've consistently avoided the question of whether you would want a trial if you were accused. You twisted it to imply well "if you were really guilty" then it would be ok to bomb you, but how are the people to know if they merely take the government's word? Is this not the whole point of due process?

If plotting to commit terrorism nullifies your right to due process as an American citizen then why not other crimes like murder, robbery, etc...? Why not drone strike any residence of known mafia members or gang members? Either differentiate and discuss those points, or don't waste my time with another comment avoiding simple and basic principles of why we have due process.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Because we can" isn't a valid legal philosophy. Might doesn't not make it right. That basically tells me you don't know and can't comment on my questions without twisting them.
Has Russia or China flown military craft over the U.S. and bombed people they deemed to be terrorists? No. And no it's not legal. Just because Russia has done elsewhere doesn't mean it was legal. That's not even an argument.

You've consistently avoided the question of whether you would want a trial if you were accused. You twisted it to imply well "if you were really guilty" then it would be ok to bomb you, but how are the people to know if they merely take the government's word? Is this not the whole point of due process?

If plotting to commit terrorism nullifies your right to due process as an American citizen then why not other crimes like murder, robbery, etc...? Why not drone strike any residence of known mafia members or gang members? Either differentiate and discuss those points, or don't waste my time with another comment avoiding simple and basic principles of why we have due process.

Targeted Killings and Drone Warfare - Council on Foreign Relations

Do you have any idea how much even one hellfire missile costs? That alone would preclude using drone strikes to kill every single criminal.

There's also the issue of severity.

It's not always possible to get a suspect a day in court, particularly if they aren't in the United States. Would you suggest we just give up?

 

[Clapton is God]

I'm well aware of the CFR. I've been against them since I really started to learned about them around 2007. Almost all the politicians who have your view belong to the CFR.

The cost of a missile isn't a legal argument or political philosophy. You're avoiding my questions again. It's very simple. I would suggest you have given up as you are ok with surrendering your bill of rights because of terrorists. You won't even question what the government says. Why even have a legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything like that? If the government said he did it it's true right? Don't question anything!

For you I would recommend two things because we need a republic and not an empire and pretty much nothing the CFR wants.

1.) The Federalist Papers authored by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton.
2.) "War is a Racket" by 2x Medal of Honor recipient USMC General Smedley Butler.

 

[Clapton is God]

I think due process is a pretty smart thing to complain about. And Capone walked free for the world to see, only to be caught with tax evasion. Again, it's called due process and I find it doubtful we couldn't have extracted him from Yemen.

You should sacrifice all your liberty in the name of security! It's the only way...

 

[Fishking]

You should sacrifice all your liberty in the name of security! It's the only way...

In any cases, that's exactly what war has been used for. We like to call it "American interests", which is code for fighting over resources and influence.

 

[Clapton is God]

In any cases, that's exactly what war has been used for. We like to call it "American interests", which is code for fighting over resources and influence.

American corporate interests for sure. Have you heard of Lew Rockwell? I've watched this 3x so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9lS5k7H5M

 

[Abbazorkzog]

You should sacrifice all your liberty in the name of security! It's the only way...

^ My favorite President.

 

[Clapton is God]

^ My favorite President.

I don't think Eisenhower lived up to the words in his farewell address as the military budget definitely grew under his administration, but that doesn't negate the validity of what he said. Since Eisenhower was essentially a war hero along with Smedley Butler I think they are great to bring up to anyone who wants to demagogue opposition by saying things like "you don't support the troops" or the usual nonsense.

 

[matchlight]

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq applies to Yemen and all other countries too?

What is the document you refer to? The AUMF never restricted the President to Iraq or to any other place. It was a general authorization to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Here is the text:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text/enr

Anwar al-Awlaki was a son of a bitch and an Al Qaeda recruiter. He mentored two of the 9/11 hijackers, who moved near him in San Diego soon after they landed at LAX in January, 2000. When he got a plum job as an imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque near Washington, D.C., the two followed him back there. Some time after they were killed on 9/11, Awlaki, probably sensing things were getting a little too hot, went back to Yemen. While he was there, he exchanged a series of emails with Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood murderer, in which he gave the wavering Army psychiatrist the green light he needed to work up the nerve to shoot down a dozen of his fellow soldiers. Awlaki assured the yellow cur that Allah would smile on any act of jihadist violence he might commit against American servicemen.