FOX: U.S. Born Terror Boss Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

[PeterMP]

The Constitution allows for the use of deadly force for self defense and to ensure the safety of the population...both military and in law enforcement

Civilian law enforcement not being real relevant in this case since it is a military and foreign service op

There is NO right to due process if ya are dead....His Dad can try again though :pfft:

Hey, I was just replying to your post. You don't think they are relevant, don't bring them up.

And yes, the Constitution allows for deadly force to be used in cases of self-defense, it also requires due process, and prohibits the government from interfering with the exercise of free speech, which would include killing you because they don't like what you were saying.

[twa]

Hey, I was just replying to your post. You don't think they are relevant, don't bring them up.

And yes, the Constitution allows for deadly force to be used in cases of self-defense, it also requires due process, and prohibits the government from interfering with the exercise of free speech, which would include killing you because they don't like what you were saying.

I was using them to illustrate the fact location matters

He was killed for more than simply speech...as I already mentioned he was deemed part of a active ongoing threat

add

on your opium topic location again matters

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,604183,00.html

According to the new rules, US forces can now bomb drug labs if they have previous analysis that the operation would not kill "more than 10 civilians."

[sacase]

No, in fact it matter a great deal

I suggest you read your history, Look up the first and second Barbary wars, "war" was not formally declared. We have a long history of not declaring war and using military force. To say that the founding fathers never intended this is false because they used it also. Additionally the supreme court has affirmed that there does not need to be a "formal declaration of war", that's just something that people have made up.

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 01:10 PM ----------

Hey, I was just replying to your post. You don't think they are relevant, don't bring them up.

And yes, the Constitution allows for deadly force to be used in cases of self-defense, it also requires due process, and prohibits the government from interfering with the exercise of free speech, which would include killing you because they don't like what you were saying.

If you are working with a country or organization that we have declared war on then you forfeit your due process. We are not going to stop making war just becuase and American is on the other side. Now if you get captured then yeah I can see trying you as a traitor and hanging you from the neck until dead, but if you are on the battle field, and get popped so be it.

[twa]

[/color]

If you are working with a country or organization that we have declared war on then you forfeit your due process. We are not going to stop making war just becuase and American is on the other side. Now if you get captured then yeah I can see trying you as a traitor and hanging you from the neck until dead, but if you are on the battle field, and get popped so be it.

It goes back to location and jurisdiction(as well as threat level).....One in a US controlled territory has a increased expectation that a missile will not be used,and the level of force deemed correct varies.

However as events and policy show, we are willing to put a missile into a plane full of US citizens to stop a greater threat......Due process is far from absolute

[twa]

Thats why the FISA board and Congressional intelligence comittee was created?

Behind a red sign that reads Court Chambers and through a series of electronically sealed doors lies a secret court that has approved wiretaps that target terrorists and foreign agents since 1979.

Currently 10 federal judges, who serve in judicial districts across the nation, sit on the FISA Court on a rotating basis.

I'm bored

The FISA court only has a limited jurisdiction limited to matters of surveillance/wiretapping ect,with extra judicial killings and such outside their charter.

http://lawsource.com/also/also.cgi?cts&00us

The intelligence committee certainly has a minor role,though more of a supervisory role than a determinative one(they are advised of actions and sometimes consulted beforehand as a courtesy to avoid conflict)

Things like this action illustrate why we have typically restricted the CIA and military's ability to operate in domestic areas....bringing us back to location and jurisdiction mattering

[PeterMP]

If you are working with a country or organization that we have declared war on then you forfeit your due process. We are not going to stop making war just becuase and American is on the other side. Now if you get captured then yeah I can see trying you as a traitor and hanging you from the neck until dead, but if you are on the battle field, and get popped so be it.

1. We haven't declared war on anybody.

2. The Constitution doesn't say anything about forfeiting your right to due process under any circumstances.

3. He wasn't on a battle field (or at least had no reason to believe he was on a battle field or any where near one, until we dropped a bomb on it).

And yes location matters. If he were in Afghanistan/Pakistan, then I believe absolutly the Supreme Court would find it Constitutional. If it were in VA, absolutely the would find it unconstitutional. I'm not sure what they'd do with Yemen.

And it isn't just the US/international. Anybody believe if we dropped bombs on suspected Al Qeada sympathisziers in Montreal that the Supreme Court wouldn't find that Unconstitutional?

[Redskins Diehard]

Since when is due process a military requirement?

Do you have a right to due process if you are deemed a threat or the enemy?

The right of self defense trumps due process every day of the week in the civilian world(much less in military)....you are of course free to question the judgment exercised.

Just like other back seat drivers

Since when was this a military directed action?

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 05:06 PM ----------

Congress has authorized military action against Al Queda, thus we have "declared war" on AQ. Regardless of his position he is still la legitimate war target.

Then why wasn't this a Title X action?

[twa]

Since when was this a military directed action?

Military assets under CIA control from my understanding....perhaps paramilitary would be more acceptable to ya?

Special activities by the paramilitary wing of the CIA differ only in chain of command(and accountability)....they have quite a few military capabilities :evilg:

If it was JSOC,would it matter?

[sacase]

1. We haven't declared war on anybody.

2. The Constitution doesn't say anything about forfeiting your right to due process under any circumstances.

3. He wasn't on a battle field (or at least had no reason to believe he was on a battle field or any where near one, until we dropped a bomb on it).

And yes location matters. If he were in Afghanistan/Pakistan, then I believe absolutly the Supreme Court would find it Constitutional. If it were in VA, absolutely the would find it unconstitutional. I'm not sure what they'd do with Yemen.

And it isn't just the US/international. Anybody believe if we dropped bombs on suspected Al Qeada sympathisziers in Montreal that the Supreme Court wouldn't find that Unconstitutional?

Here is where you are getting yourself caught up. The whole declare war thing is just some made up thing. We don't need to say the words "I declare war" once congress authorized action against AQ and those whole support AQ, AAA become a legit target when he joined them. The battlefield with AQ is wherever we find them at, however in the US we will use LE resources and not Miitary ones.

[PeterMP]

Here is where you are getting yourself caught up. The whole declare war thing is just some made up thing. We don't need to say the words "I declare war" once congress authorized action against AQ and those whole support AQ, AAA become a legit target when he joined them. The battlefield with AQ is wherever we find them at, however in the US we will use LE resources and not Miitary ones.

Yeah, their made up, but they are the made up ones in the Constitution.

Do you really believe that if we started dropping bombs on suspected Al Qeada in Canada the Supreme Court wouldn't find that unconstitutional?

[sacase]

Yeah, their made up, but they are the made up ones in the Constitution.

Do you really believe that if we started dropping bombs on suspected Al Qeada in Canada the Supreme Court wouldn't find that unconstitutional?

Why would it be unconstitutional dropping bombs on a legitimate war target. It wouldn't win us any friends to be sure but hardly unconstitutional.

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 06:06 PM ----------

Yeah, their made up, but they are the made up ones in the Constitution.

Do you really believe that if we started dropping bombs on suspected Al Qeada in Canada the Supreme Court wouldn't find that unconstitutional?

Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. Congress shall have the power to declare war. Please point out how it lays out the format for declaring war?

By congress issuing PL 107-40, they in essence gave the president power to use military forces against AQ, in essence declaring war. This was further upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe Vs Bush.

Look at our own history. First Barbary war, funded by congress, no official war declared. Jefferson was president. He was a founding father. I think he knew what that constitution was originally meant to do. Look a the second Barbary war, Madison was president, once again congress authorized it so its legit.

[PeterMP]

Why would it be unconstitutional dropping bombs on a legitimate war target. It wouldn't win us any friends to be sure but hardly unconstitutional.

Because you've violated their right to due process and freedom of speech?

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 07:12 PM ----------

By congress issuing PL 107-40, they in essence gave the president power to use military forces against AQ, in essence declaring war. This was further upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe Vs Bush.

Look at our own history. First Barbary war, funded by congress, no official war declared. Jefferson was president. He was a founding father. I think he knew what that constitution was originally meant to do. Look a the second Barbary war, Madison was president, once again congress authorized it so its legit.

Doe v. Bush was related to Iraq. I'm not saying the whole operation is unconstitutional (which was what Doe v. Bush was claiming). I'm saying that it doesn't give the government the right to violate people's Constitutional rights. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Look, I'm not saying one way or another what the Supreme Court would decide. I'm just not sure that it would have been a slam dunk decision.

If he would have taken it to court, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would have said, in Yemen, where he had no reason to believe he would directly interact with any US military personal, they would have said he was a legitimate target, and I think it might have been dependent on how much evidence the government could bring to the table to show that he was actually actively involved in planning and not just acting as a propogandist/PR person.

[sacase]

Because you've violated their right to due process and freedom of speech?

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 07:12 PM ----------

Doe v. Bush was related to Iraq. I'm not saying the whole operation is unconstitutional (which was what Doe v. Bush was claiming). I'm saying that it doesn't give the government the right to violate people's Constitutional rights. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Look, I'm not saying one way or another what the Supreme Court would decide. I'm just not sure that it would have been a slam dunk decision.

If he would have taken it to court, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would have said, in Yemen, where he had no reason to believe he would directly interact with any US military personal, they would have said he was a legitimate target, and I think it might have been dependent on how much evidence the government could bring to the table to show that he was actually actively involved in planning and not just acting as a propogandist/PR person.

What? Are you serious? Freedom of speech applies when a person actively takes part in an organization that the the Government of the United States is at WAR with? GTFO. I am seriously stunned. If you are an American and you are participating in a war against America, you do not have freedom of speech or due process. In no way should we put soldiers lives at risk to capture this guy to put him on trial, especially when he is a war target. I could understand if he was captured that once he was captured and identified as an American he should get due process, but he was killed. No way shape of form. It doesn't matter what his role was merely his affiliations with the group. That's enough to get popped.

You know its kind of sad that people actually even think that plotting the deaths of Americans would fall under freedom of speech. I am stunned and saddened.

What Doe Vs Bush did was set precedent that Congress authorizing the use of military force is the same as a Declaration of war.

[winstonspencer]

hey, mr. ACLU.

you support them, you lose your rights as a citizen

[twa]

Hamdi dealt strictly with the rights of US citizens in custody of the US

Is there any precedent that a US citizen cannot be a legitimate war target?(or of US military action if the war word hangs ya up)

There have been quite a few captured and killed over the years.....and as sarcase said not for simply speech.

add

The Canada example is a interesting tangent

Since they are allies a missile strike is unlikely,and probably not needed,as they would actively assist in capture or killing the target.

Even there the legal possibility exists the US could mount a strike in rare circumstances.

[PeterMP]

Hamdi dealt strictly with the rights of US citizens in custody of the US

Is there any precedent that a US citizen cannot be a legitimate war target?(or of US military action if the war word hangs ya up)

There have been quite a few captured and killed over the years.....and as sarcase said not for simply speech.

Have any of them ever directly targeted? Is there ever been any information saying, we are going to do X to kill this American citizen w/o due process?

Isn't this backwards? You're assuming a right is removed unless there is evidence that it hasn't been removed. Wouldn't the better question to ask is there evidence that the right is no longer valid or applies?

Has anybody shown that you retain your right to due process when you turn 80? If the case has never been tested does this mean we can assume all 80 year olds no longer have the right to due process?

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 08:38 PM ----------

What? Are you serious? Freedom of speech applies when a person actively takes part in an organization that the the Government of the United States is at WAR with?

Why not?

When the US was at war with Vietnam or N. Korea did everybody that is a member of the communist party surrender their right to free speech?

You know its kind of sad that people actually even think that plotting the deaths of Americans would fall under freedom of speech. I am stunned and saddened.

Where is the evidence that he ever plotted to do anything (and I'm not saying it doesn't exist. As I've already said, I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been killed or that the Supreme Court wouln't have found it Constitutional.)?

Like I said, I could see the Supreme Court decision as being dependent upon how much he was really involved in planning.

[twa]

Have any of them ever directly targeted? Is there ever been any information saying, we are going to do X to kill this American citizen w/o due process?

Isn't this backwards? You're assuming a right is removed unless there is evidence that it hasn't been removed. Wouldn't the better question to ask is there evidence that the right is no longer valid or applies?

Like I said, I could see the Supreme Court decision as being dependent upon how much he was really involved in planning.

SCOTUS does not generally deal in second guessing purely military actions...I'll wait till they do.

[PeterMP]

SCOTUS does not generally deal in second guessing purely military actions...I'll wait till they do.

The military generally doesn't kill American citizens far from a combat zone containing US military personal.

Clearly, we'll be waiting until if/when the Supreme Court gets involved.

[Dan T.]

Where is the evidence that he ever plotted to do anything (and I'm not saying it doesn't exist. As I've already said, I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been killed or that the Supreme Court wouln't have found it Constitutional.)?

The military/CIA sought and received a ruling from the Justice Department on the legality of targeting him. I'll bet that before doing so, they saw enough evidence to make that ruling.

[Redskins Diehard]

The military/CIA sought and received a ruling from the Justice Department on the legality of targeting him. I'll bet that before doing so, they saw enough evidence to make that ruling.

They did that before waterboarding also.....

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 09:49 PM ----------

Military assets under CIA control from my understanding....perhaps paramilitary would be more acceptable to ya?

Special activities by the paramilitary wing of the CIA differ only in chain of command(and accountability)....they have quite a few military capabilities :evilg:

If it was JSOC,would it matter?

What do you base your understanding on? If you are talking about the raid to kill Bin Laden your understanding is correct. Otherwise...not so much.

Yes, it would matter. The two organizations have very different authorities. If there was no difference then why in the world would Leon Panetta "command" the Bin Laden mission instead of say the JSOC commander? You can call it whatever you want but there is a very real reason why things are done the way they are. If you are interested in gaining some insight into this it would be beneficial to study the difference between military action and covert action.

[twa]

With JSOC's expansion,and the CIA attempting to demonstrate it's military strike capabilities, the differences are becoming less every day.

[CurseReversed]

With JSOC's expansion,and the CIA attempting to demonstrate it's military strike capabilities, the differences are becoming less every day.

One of many disturbing trends.

Trends that have people justifiably concerned with the slow but continuous chipping away at the liberties of the citizen in exchange for security, both at home and abroad.

This particular circumstance is one that is hard to argue, its hard not to justify the assasination of some hardcore american terrorist embedded with real bad guys, actively recruiting against the US.

To people who follow the trend, this might not be a place to plant the flag but at the least to make the note.

Everything we know about this guy was told to us by the press or by the intelligence services, he had no defense.

While it seems this is a pretty cut and dry case, and it probably is, how are we to know for sure? More importantly, in the future, when the next citizen becomes demoralized with his government and becomes "radical" Will that person suffer the same fate?

Where is the cutoff point when we can no longer accept "oh this guy was just such a obviously bad guy that we had to just kill him"

People say they will know, but will they really? If things get bad, if there are more attacks, in a uncertain future, these types of precedents can spiral out of control quickly.

Who says that one day you might not find yourself looking up at a predator drone, coming to kill you for your views on an oppressive government?

Never gonna happen? Dont be so sure...

[Redskins Diehard]

With JSOC's expansion,and the CIA attempting to demonstrate it's military strike capabilities, the differences are becoming less every day.

Their authorities have not changed one bit. You really should bone up on the differences if you ever want to have an intelligent discussion with people that know what is going on. As it is you are coming off as someone that doesn't know much about either...or has watched a bunch of movies that feature the organizations.

Again, I ask the question....if the AUMF is what authorizes these actions then why are the F's not assigned to the M when it comes time for mission execution?

[twa]

Both operate under the Presidents direction,your argument on authorities seems peckish.

The CIC is not dependent on a AUMF,but in this case it lends support.

I base my understanding on the info released...You think they lie?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html

The attack was a coordinated operation involving both the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, in the Centcom area of operations.

[Redskins Diehard]

Both operate under the Presidents direction,your argument on authorities seems peckish.

The CIC is not dependent on a AUMF,but in this case it lends support.

I base my understanding on the info released...You think they lie?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html

The attack was a coordinated operation involving both the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, in the Centcom area of operations.

Sure there was coordination. There is in just about everything. Who was in charge? Who "fired the shot"? If you don't think that is significant in any way then I think you are taking a very elementary look at this.

I find it pretty amusing that you are taking the New York Times as an "authoritative source".