Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 194

Thread: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

  1. #161
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    A quick summary of what applies with respect to U.S. citizens:

    1. When one is a combatant, one is governed by the Laws of War. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that U.S. citizenship does not shield U.S. citizens from the consequences of belligerency. Hence, a U.S. citizen who is a combatant is a legitimate military target as a combatant. There is no immunity from a combatant's being targeted.

    2. When a combatant is hors de combat, that individual is also covered by the Laws of War. At the same time, a U.S. citizen who is hors de combat is entitled to trial by a military commission. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on that issue.

    3. When a civilian (as distinguished from a combatant) who is a U.S. citizen is captured and has been aiding an enemy (but not in a role that makes him/her a combatant under the Laws of War), that citizen must be tried through the normal judicial process, not a military commission. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that matter during the Civil War.

    The American cleric, in question, is presently a combatant, as he is serving a command-and-control function within Al Qaeda. In that capacity, he is a legitimate military target. If he is captured or surrenders, among other scenarios, then he is rendered hors de combat. As such, he would be entitled to a trial by military commission.
    If we were at war with Yemen, or if we had explicitly declared war on AQ (and I'm saying that assuming the sake of argument that it's even possible to declare war on an organization), you'd have a point.

    Since we're not, he's a criminal, not a combatant.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  2. #162
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    If we were at war with Yemen, or if we had explicitly declared war on AQ (and I'm saying that assuming the sake of argument that it's even possible to declare war on an organization), you'd have a point.

    Since we're not, he's a criminal, not a combatant.
    Just to be pedantic. The GCs don't actually cover war. They cover conflicts. Not all conflicts are wars. Vietnam and Korea werent, GWI and II werent, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and Yugoslavia werent either yet all of those conflicts are covered by the GCs.

  3. #163
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Just to be pedantic. The GCs don't actually cover war. They cover conflicts. Not all conflicts are wars. Vietnam and Korea werent, GWI and II werent, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, and Yugoslavia werent either yet all of those conflicts are covered by the GCs.
    Feel free to be a pedant. Whether the word is conflict or war, it doesn't change my argument a whit.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  4. #164
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    The US has a long history of approving the murder of it's citizens, including John Wilkes Booth, John Dillinger, and the countless others who were "wanted dead or alive". This particular "citizen" has taken refuge in a renegade country and is inaccessible for arrest and deportation. He has clearly demonstrated a repudiation of his responsibility to US citizenship through his actions. I suspect this announcement stems from the fact that the only way authorities can reach out to him is with a drone, and I say more power to them.

  5. #165
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    If we were at war with Yemen, or if we had explicitly declared war on AQ (and I'm saying that assuming the sake of argument that it's even possible to declare war on an organization), you'd have a point.

    Since we're not, he's a criminal, not a combatant.
    Congress has repeatedly authorized the conflict. That Congress has not made a formal declaration of war does not change things. Precedents for "undeclared" military engagements go as far back as 1798 and the U.S. Supreme Court has been meticulous about not materially abridging such authorization. In addition, considering that the declaration of war is not limited to nation-states under the U.S. Constitution, neither is Congress' authorization of military engagements.

    Under the Laws of War, which are applicable in the case in question, the relevant determination is whether the individual is a combatant (he is). If he is a combatant, he is a legitimate military objective.

    The President's decision is both Constitutional and consistent with the Laws of War. Legal challenges aimed at overturning it are highly unlikely to be successful.

  6. #166
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    There is no such designation in the GCs.
    The GC designates lawful combatants, which would imply that anyone deviating from those standards is an unlawful combatant.

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    The statement about due process stands on its own. The grammar is clear.
    He is not being deprived of his life, liberty, or property without "due process of law" since the laws of war are being adhered to in this instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Those tribes occupy territory, which they control each amongst themselves.

    War is essentially about grabbing land and the things in and on the land.

    On its own soviergn piece of land.
    That's an exceedingly narrow (not to mention subjective) definition of war. The dictionary gives several, very broad definitions:

    1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
    2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
    3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
    4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
    5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
    6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
    7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.

    War | Define War at Dictionary.com
    Obviously, we are at "war" with AQ.

    I think the people who wrote those Conventions, like the people who wrote the Constitution, figured that war was so obviously the province of nation-states that it just didn't bear repeating.
    If that's true, then why do the Geneva Conventions make mentions of non-state actors?

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Feel free to be a pedant. Whether the word is conflict or war, it doesn't change my argument a whit.
    Of course it changes your argument. The Geneva Conventions govern armed conflicts, and we're obviously in an armed conflict with AQ. If you think the Geneva Conventions do not apply to our conflict with AQ, then that means we can just ignore the GC's entirely, since, according to you, they only govern declared wars between nation-states. That would mean we can capture AQ operatives and torture them all the live-long day, while never violating international law. Is that your argument?

  9. #169
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    ah, so if the dude's back is turned we can frag him

    but if we catch him with handcuffs he has to go before judge judy or lance ito

    cuz he has rights

    unless he's captured in the skies above detroit, cuz HIG is not yet operational

    typical keystone incoherence from the clueless crowd controlling dc

    their radical agenda visibly distorts their thinking on these in-the-gut issues

    mom knows, her agenda is wholesome, not twisted

    had obama's security team done its job after fort hood it would have stumbled unmistakably on correspondence leading directly, thru awlaki, to mutallab

    instead, the pentagon issued a report which refused to utter the politcally unmentionables, "hasan" and "islam"

    in other words, the culture of pc that created and protected the fort hood hitman persists

    just yesterday, the white house banished "islamic radicalism" from its jihadist-approved lexicon

    this white house is clueless, incompetent and driven by a radical pro-muslim agenda

    My Way News - Not all terrorism: Obama tries to change subject

    Fort Hood Report: No Mention of Islam, Hasan Not Named - TIME

    Northwest Airlines Flight 253 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #170
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Either way the job will get done and the sentence will be undoubtedly be the same, but using police is less controversial and they are better equipped for the job.
    You have US police squads in Yemen? Come to think of it, do you have military personnel there? How is this hit going to be carried out? Will you send in a hit squad disguised as tennis players?
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •