• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

TacticalEvilDan said:
Those tribes occupy territory, which they control each amongst themselves.

War is essentially about grabbing land and the things in and on the land.
Click to expand...
Conventional warfare? yes. However there are other reasons for going to war. Ethnicity, religion, revenge, football......


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.
Click to expand...
Nope. They didn't mention the fact that war was specifically between nation states because that would defacto make conflicts between nation states and their own population (civil war or insurgency) or with other groups who are either not recognized states or states who haddn't signed the relevant accords not subject to the GCs.

The only way to make it enforcable across all possible spectrums of warfare is to leave it as Armed parties, and signatories and non signatories. Which is what they did.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If it's that clear-cut, then a courtroom proceeding should go swiftly and find in the government's favor, which means there's no valid reason for them to avoid doing this the right way.
Click to expand...

The man left the country and sided with our enemies, so it is pretty clear that individual is no longer an American.So as a foreigner our constitution does not apply to him.

I thought that our troops signed up voluntarily to risk their lives for truth, justice, and the American way.
Click to expand...


I do not think any of them signed up to basically serve arrest warrant to a terrorist scumbag. Shooting a terrorist scumbag yes, serving arrest warrants no.



What could possibly be more American than respecting the lofty ideals upon which this nation was founded, no matter how dirty the deed done to us?
Click to expand...

Our constitution does not apply to foreigners let alone foreign enemies.Which is what that man is since he left US soil to join up with some of our enemies.
 
jamesrage said:
Our constitution does not apply to foreigners let alone foreign enemies.Which is what that man is since he left US soil to join up with some of our enemies.
Click to expand...

Your Constitution applies to anyone you can detain. Until they are detained, you can kill them all you like. But once in US Custody they get covered by a competant tribunal.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Conventional warfare? yes. However there are other reasons for going to war. Ethnicity, religion, revenge, football......
Click to expand...

At which point it is not warfare. It is genocide, ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence, murder. A crime, not a war.

Alvin T. Grey said:
Nope. They didn't mention the fact that war was specifically between nation states because that would defacto make conflicts between nation states and their own population (civil war or insurgency) or with other groups who are either not recognized states or states who haddn't signed the relevant accords not subject to the GCs.
Click to expand...

It is then not war, as I listed above.
 
jamesrage said:
The man left the country and sided with our enemies, so it is pretty clear that individual is no longer an American.So as a foreigner our constitution does not apply to him.
Click to expand...

First off, someone accused of siding with our enemies is accused of treason and is still entitled to due process of law.

Second off, there are many circumstances under which the Constitution applies to foreigners within our borders and in our custody.


jamesrage said:
I do not think any of them signed up to basically serve arrest warrant to a terrorist scumbag. Shooting a terrorist scumbag yes, serving arrest warrants no.
Click to expand...

They signed up to protect and defend the Constitution.

jamesrage said:
Our constitution does not apply to foreigners let alone foreign enemies.Which is what that man is since he left US soil to join up with some of our enemies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does. Read it again, in many places it says "persons," not "citizens."
 
Last edited:
Alvin T. Grey said:
Your Constitution applies to anyone you can detain. Until they are detained, you can kill them all you like. But once in US Custody they get covered by a competant tribunal.
Click to expand...

Sure, the government is free to commit murder if it so chooses. :lol:

That's what it is if the government shoots a civilian without an imminent threat of lethal force.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
First off, someone accused of siding with our enemies is accused of treason and is still entitled to due process of law.

Second off, there are many circumstances under which the Constitution applies to foreigners within our borders and in our custody.




They signed up to protect and defend the Constitution.



Yeah, it does. Read it again, in many places it says "persons," not "citizens."
Click to expand...

Those quotes are JRs. Not mine.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Sure, the government is free to commit murder if it so chooses. [\quote]
If it's a legitimate target, and organizing and abbeting terrorism in todays America would indeed qualify, then yes.

That's what it is if the government shoots a civilian without an imminent threat of lethal force.
Click to expand...
If said civillian is engaged in subersive behaviour against the Federal Government, then yes. They can be shot if arrest is impossible.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Feel free to be a pedant. Whether the word is conflict or war, it doesn't change my argument a whit.
 
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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
There is no such designation in the GCs.
Click to expand...

The GC designates lawful combatants, which would imply that anyone deviating from those standards is an unlawful combatant.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The statement about due process stands on its own. The grammar is clear.
Click to expand...

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.

TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then why do the Geneva Conventions make mentions of non-state actors?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Feel free to be a pedant. Whether the word is conflict or war, it doesn't change my argument a whit.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
Wiseone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 Prof said:
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
Click to expand...

An air strike was made on Awlaki in the weeks after Ft. Hood, and it was first reported that he was killed. You don't even bother to check the facts before you spew, do you...they might dilute your rightious venom.

http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2...-worked-on-suicide-vests-merry-christmas-usa/
 
Last edited:
sure, the righteous venom---LOL!

anyway, fort hood went down on november 5

the FAILED awlaki assassination came on december 24, a day before the jingle bells jihadist attempted to detonate above detroit

it is what it is

instead of investigating hasan's hateful homies, the administration instead produced an 86 page report that never used the word "islam"

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

now, really, how could any right minded analyst do any kind of investigation of what went down at fort hood without, y'know, addressing the assassin's reasons, motives, intentions, goals, capabilities, connections...

LOL!
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?
Click to expand...

And the heat gets turned up another notch… I hope we all jump out before the water boils…
 
Andalublue said:
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?
Click to expand...
They don't play much tennis in Yemen I'm afraid.
 
The Prof said:
sure, the righteous venom---LOL!

anyway, fort hood went down on november 5

the FAILED awlaki assassination came on december 24, a day before the jingle bells jihadist attempted to detonate above detroit

it is what it is

instead of investigating hasan's hateful homies, the administration instead produced an 86 page report that never used the word "islam"

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

now, really, how could any right minded analyst do any kind of investigation of what went down at fort hood without, y'know, addressing the assassin's reasons, motives, intentions, goals, capabilities, connections...

LOL!
Click to expand...

the government learned of the Awlaki connection from the panty bomber himself, there was no paper trail. But I have a feeling you knew that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom