SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 3 October 2011, 08:32
Purple36's Avatar
Purple36 Purple36 is offline
Swimming Upstream
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 9,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOTB View Post
Well, the above is certainly what I would expect the gov to state in order to justify their actions/abuse. And of course there are a number of Americans who accept it.

I'm not one of them. I'm going to keep this opinion so that I don't have to worry about modifying it when the gov tries to run over another American's rights in the future....
While I understand your concern, and it can certainly be misused, these ops are run by so many lawyers, it's a miracle we can operate at all. I state that because there no doubt was legal review on this. From personal experience, we are hindered at every turn by lawyers...for far less significant things than killing someone. In fact, I think risk adverse commanders/ lawyers put us at risk. Now a good SJA that has mission accomplishment within the boundaries of the law is golden...I've only met two to date. I wish I could take them with me to everywhere I PCS.

Perhaps they could do a FISA like trial? That still may not appease everyone since joe public wouldn't be privy to the information.

There are quite a few people who should be in jail but who are not because we did not want to compromise the sources and capabilities and operations...so they walk.
__________________
- Faith involves believing in the veracity of the unprovable and unobservable, whether that consists of religion or theoretical physics, which at the very subatomic level start looking rather similar. -ET1/SS Nuke
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 3 October 2011, 08:38
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple36
While I understand your concern, and it can certainly be misused, these ops are run by so many lawyers, it's a miracle we can operate at all....
The purposeful killing (in lieu of arrest) of an American citizen by (or for the US) should be considered murder, not a miracle. IMO, it is. Period....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 3 October 2011, 09:22
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 13,147
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


Quote:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.
http://www.history.org/foundation/jo...g08/trials.cfm

Quote:
That year, a letter to the people of Great Britain and Ireland was drafted, probably by John Jay, which said in part that Parliament was “depriving the American Subjects of the invaluable Trial by Jury” and taking colonists “in chains 3000 miles from their native country without evidence or Assistance of friends to be tried by a Jury of strangers.” Jefferson was familiar with the Virginia Declaration of Rights, penned by George Mason and adopted in Williamsburg on June 12, 1776. Its sixteen clauses included: “That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right . . . to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage.” “Vicinage,” like the word “vicinity,” is taken from Old French and meant “a neighborhood.” Today, in the law, it means a court’s district or circuit.

Judge Closes Jet Bombing Trial to Protect Airline Security

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/29/ny...-security.html

6th Amendment related:

Quote:
In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. In cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine the defendant's right to due process, (or expose government TTPs - P ) limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings. According to Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), trials can be closed at the behest of the government on account of there being "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The accused may also request a closure of the trial; though, it must be demonstrated that “first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
No matter how vile an American person may be, they should at least go before a judge, that's the law... shit, it's our national DNA. Heck, no matter how much of a sham, or how much of a shill, putting this mook, in absentia, before some judge, somewhere, would have quieted a whole bunch of people, I would think. This would have been a slam dunk...well, maybe...and I bet that had something to do with it.

Precedent has been set....awesome, but not for us.

As a hypothetical, what do you think would have happened if this mook got caught alive, taking a piss behind a gas station in Sanaa'?


P
__________________
What, you want to be part of a choir in an echo chamber? Provocate!

Last edited by Polypro; 3 October 2011 at 09:30.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 3 October 2011, 09:27
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polypro
Precedent has been set....awesome, but not for us....
I'm sure that the administration's lawyers will disagree with my thinking, but I believe that there is at least the opportunity/possibility for a future administration to bring about an investigation and even charges, against those who would purposely and deliberately seek to kill an American citizen in lieu of arresting him.

So "precedent" might not be so set and firm -- think about the current administration investigating (or seeking to investigate/bring charges against) those who were involved with renditions or interrogations during the last administration....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 3 October 2011, 09:37
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 13,147
I hear what your saying and anything is possible, but the future doesn't look bright for that sort of thing:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?...iw=975&bih=880

But you're right, it just depends on who gets in.

P
__________________
What, you want to be part of a choir in an echo chamber? Provocate!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 3 October 2011, 10:28
Gpool Gpool is offline
Paving the way
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 570
Not that I am losing any sleep over this guys death but the facts remain.
1. He was a US Citizen.
2. He was killed without due process.

If this killing happened on US soil shit would be hitting the fan.
The argument that he was a imminent and direct treat to US citizens could justify the action. I just don't see the evidence stacking up that way. I am halfway sold on the direct danger but the imminent part I don't see.

There are mechanisms in place for trial in absence. Then we could just work on capturing him.
__________________
I don't have anything witty to write.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 3 October 2011, 10:52
Longrifle's Avatar
Longrifle Longrifle is offline
Sound off for equipment check!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pergo per caligo...
Posts: 5,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpool View Post
1. He was a US Citizen.
2. He was killed without due process.

If this killing happened on US soil shit would be hitting the fan.
The argument that he was a imminent and direct treat to US citizens could justify the action. I just don't see the evidence stacking up that way. I am halfway sold on the direct danger but the imminent part I don't see.
If a "US citizen" is in my house without my permission at night and I perceive him/her to be an imminent and/or direct threat to me or my family there will be a killing without due process.

Let's get back to the fact that there was a hearing before a federal judge to determine the legality of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" with regard to this POS.

He had "Due Process." The killing was approved beforehand.

If we need to discuss opinions whether Congressional approval and the subsequent hearing meet "due process" as required by the Constitution, so be it.

I have a legal question - for lawyers only:
Was "due process" as required by the Constitution and US Code met in this case by the dismissal of the ACLU/CCR suit?
__________________
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

"Sēlre bið æghwæm þæt hē his frēond wrece, þonne hē fela murne." ~Bēowulf, bearn Ecgþēowes
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:08
Tracy's Avatar
Tracy Tracy is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Feb 1997
Location: West
Posts: 11,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpool View Post
Not that I am losing any sleep over this guys death but the facts remain.
1. He was a US Citizen.
2. He was killed without due process.

If this killing happened on US soil shit would be hitting the fan.
The argument that he was a imminent and direct treat to US citizens could justify the action. I just don't see the evidence stacking up that way. I am halfway sold on the direct danger but the imminent part I don't see.

There are mechanisms in place for trial in absence. Then we could just work on capturing him.
OK, how would you handle it? Anwar al-Awlaki is in Yemen and a warrant issued for his arrest and a request for extradition is in Yemeni hands. Explain for me the better solution.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:09
Guy's Avatar
Guy Guy is offline
#AllLionsMatter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: CONUS @ the moment
Posts: 13,220
There was a similar action...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
Let's get back to the fact that there was a hearing before a federal judge to determine the legality of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" with regard to this POS.

He had "Due Process." The killing was approved beforehand.
Although the guy was not a US citizen:

Green Berets Face Hearing on Killing of Suspect in Afghan Village
Quote:
From his position about 100 yards away, Master Sgt. Troy Anderson had a clear shot at the Afghan man standing outside a residential compound in a village near the Pakistan border last October. When Capt. Dave Staffel, the Special Forces officer in charge, gave the order to shoot, Sergeant Anderson fired a bullet into the man’s head, killing him.

In June, Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson were charged with premeditated murder. On Tuesday, in a rare public examination of the rules that govern the actions of Special Operations troops in Afghanistan, a military hearing will convene at Fort Bragg to weigh the evidence against the two men, both Green Berets.

The case revolves around differing interpretations of the kind of force that the Special Forces team that hunted and killed the man, Nawab Buntangyar, were allowed to use once they found him, apparently unarmed.

To the Special Forces soldiers and their 12-man detachment, the shooting, near the village of Ster Kalay, was a textbook example of a classified mission completed in accordance with the American rules of engagement. They said those rules allowed the killing of Mr. Buntangyar, whom the American Special Operations Command here has called an “enemy combatant.”

Mr. Buntangyar had organized suicide and roadside bomb attacks, Captain Staffel’s lawyer said.

But to the two-star general in charge of the Special Operations forces in Afghanistan at the time, Frank H. Kearney, who has since become a three-star general, the episode appeared to be an unauthorized, illegal killing. In June, after two military investigations, General Kearney moved to have murder charges brought against Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson — respectively, the junior commissioned and senior noncommissioned officers of Operational Detachment Alpha 374, Third Battalion, Third Special Forces Group.

The soldiers’ cases also highlight the level of scrutiny that General Kearney, who also ordered swift investigations into an elite Marine unit accused of killing Afghan civilians last March, has given to the actions of some of the most specialized and independent American troops fighting Taliban and insurgent forces along the border with Pakistan.

Mark Waple, a civilian lawyer representing Captain Staffel, said the charges against his client and Sergeant Anderson carry a whiff of “military politics.” In an interview, Mr. Waple said that General Kearney proceeded with murder charges against the two soldiers even after an investigation by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command concluded in April that the shooting had been “justifiable homicide.”

A spokesman for Special Forces Command at Fort Bragg declined to comment on the shooting or the murder charges. Lt. Col. Lou Leto, the spokesman for General Kearney’s previous command, where the murder charges originated, also did not comment. General Kearney was promoted in July to lieutenant general and became deputy commander of Special Operations, where a spokesman declined to discuss the case.

On Oct. 13, 2006, when Captain Staffel learned that Mr. Buntangyar could be found in a home near the village where his detachment was guarding a medical convoy, he ordered a seven-man team to investigate the tip.

Driving toward Ster Kalay in two government vans, the Americans called the Afghan national police and border patrol officers to assist them, Mr. Waple said. Mr. Buntangyar had already been “vetted as a target” by American commanders, as an enemy combatant who could be legally killed once he was positively identified, Mr. Waple said.

After the Afghan police called Mr. Buntangyar outside and twice asked him to identify himself, they signaled, using a prearranged hand gesture, to Sergeant Anderson, concealed with a rifle about 100 yards away, Mr. Waple said.

From a vehicle a few hundred yards farther away, Captain Staffel radioed Sergeant Anderson, Mr. Waple said. “If you have a clear shot,” he told the sergeant, “take it.”

Confirming the order, Sergeant Anderson fired once, killing Mr. Buntangyar. The American team drove to the village center to explain to the local residents, “This is who we are, this is what we just did and this is why we did it,” Mr. Waple said.

The highest-ranking witness called to testify at the soldiers’ hearing Tuesday will be General Kearney, though it is unclear whether he will comply with the request.

Also scheduled to testify is Sgt. First Class Scott R. Haarer, a paralegal on General Kearney’s staff last October who, as part of the military justice procedure, signed the forms that charged Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson with murder.

In a notarized statement, Sergeant Haarer told defense lawyers last week that he would not have accused the soldiers of any crime if he had known that the Criminal Investigation Command had determined that the shooting was justified.
They were exonerated.

Stay safe.
__________________
Quote:
Education is acquired through the formal institutions like school, colleges, and universities, whereas knowledge is gained from the real-life experiences.
Quote:
Education is all about gaining theoretical knowledge in the classroom or any institution. Training is a way to develop specific skills, whereas education is a typical system of learning.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:14
MixedLoad's Avatar
MixedLoad MixedLoad is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 8,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gpool View Post
Not that I am losing any sleep over this guys death but the facts remain.
1. He was a US Citizen.
2. He was killed without due process.

If this killing happened on US soil shit would be hitting the fan.
The argument that he was a imminent and direct treat to US citizens could justify the action. I just don't see the evidence stacking up that way. I am halfway sold on the direct danger but the imminent part I don't see.

There are mechanisms in place for trial in absence. Then we could just work on capturing him.
Would you like to treat him like a common criminal? Would it make you sleep better at night if you knew that he happened to be co-located with another non American HVT that was on our kill list when the hellfire went high order? That he was collateral damage. Doesn't make an ounce of difference to me.

Terrorist with US passport espousing and promoting the death of American citizens actively loses his life in the cause of his quest. Next....
__________________
“Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re"

"Operator much like rock and roll, is dead." - ClearedHot
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:14
Guy's Avatar
Guy Guy is offline
#AllLionsMatter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: CONUS @ the moment
Posts: 13,220
Red face LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy View Post
OK, how would you handle it? Anwar al-Awlaki is in Yemen and a warrant issued for his arrest and a request for extradition is in Yemeni hands. Explain for me the better solution.
Maybe we ought too get Interpol more involved?

Stay safe.
__________________
Quote:
Education is acquired through the formal institutions like school, colleges, and universities, whereas knowledge is gained from the real-life experiences.
Quote:
Education is all about gaining theoretical knowledge in the classroom or any institution. Training is a way to develop specific skills, whereas education is a typical system of learning.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:36
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,226
Disclaimer #1- I don't trust Ron Paul and never will.

Disclaimer #2- This dude got the dirt nap he deserved.

That said, I have some questions about how this was authorized. I'm not adverse and never will be to scumbags being killed, however the same people who directed it are the ones who have set our nation on a course of financial ruin and actively encourage citizens to snitch on other citizens even if it's only to report a negative comment made about the current president.

People, including many here, were pissing down their legs over the former administration monitoring calls that originated from oconus but are cheering this without questioning the procedures for it being implemented. Seems to me this is a huge order of magnitude worst in regards to presidential overreach than that would have ever been.

I trust very few, and no politician. I'll reserve my applause until I know there are some checks and balances.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:46
BigNickT BigNickT is online now
BTDT
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
§ 1481. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN; VOLUNTARY ACTION; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTIONS
How Current is This?
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Parts in bold are mine for emphasis.

Unless you give terrorists a pass because they don't actually represent a "foreign state" it would seem that this guy already lost his citizenship. He is certainly a member of a foreign (para)military force engaged in hostilities against the U.S., and he is serving that entity as the equivalent of a commissioned officer. I'm betting he also swore some sort of oath and renounced his affiliations with the U.S.

So is the guy a citizen? If yes then it's really only because he is a terrorist and we (lawmakers/DOS/whatever) can't wrap our brains around dealing with a non-state sponsored actor, even after 10+ years. That's both counter-intuitive and counterproductive IMO.

If he has lost his citizenship due to a broader reading of the U.S. Code then does he rate due process or is he just another Tango that can be offed at our convenience?

I dislike the government and its abuses as much as anyone, but I'm unsure that this (maybe) U.S. citizen being killed meets the standard to get worked up about.

Tax out
__________________
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining

Pleasing everybody? Impossible. Pissing everybody off? Piece of cake.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 3 October 2011, 11:55
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,226
I think we should force the gov to make the declaration that he has lost his citizenship then.

Comments above our posts about lawyers getting in the way miss the mark on this issue and expect us to trust that this was the case.

If the gov or president have cause, then expecting them to make a declaration his or any other persons citizenship is null and void should be a requirement. The discussion would be moot, but until then I think it's questionable to assume anything because the gov does and will continue to abuse it's power and overreach.

I'm glad he's dead, but how far should we trust clowns who are ruining us in so many other ways? In fact how far should we trust clowns who aren't ruining us without oversight?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 3 October 2011, 12:18
redhawk redhawk is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverbullet View Post
I think we should force the gov to make the declaration that he has lost his citizenship then.
Agree. IMO, that would have been the way to go. Clearly the Obama Administration wanted to paint al-Awlaki as a terrorist and not a criminal (rightly so). I think that would explain why they haven't put forth any details as to his offenses and did not pursue criminal charges. So if they're prosecuting this as an act of war and not a criminal act, why not make some gesture revoking his citizenship? IMO, such a measure would unquestionably have resulted in a better outcome than what we have today. To me, that would quell most due process claims and would only leave Ron Paul and the ACLU screeching.

I think the Administration would have been much better off had they heeded the urgings of Rep. Charlie Dent and issued a "certificate of loss of nationality."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.1288:#
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 3 October 2011, 12:42
Mortalitus Mortalitus is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hadley's Hope- LV-426
Posts: 866
For SB - It Starts as you are aware with the 1976 Church Commission rulings and subsequent executive orders by Ford, Carter then Reagan banning assassination by any agent of the USGOV. That held a standard for even foreign non citizens that we could not kill them either.
In 1998 after the US embassy bombings in Africa. Pres. Clinton made a "presidential finding" that was never turned into an Official Executive order or Presidential Decision Directive that authorized the CIA to conduct operations against AQ and OBL. Placing him on a Capture or kill list with 9 other foriegn terrorists. This was against the previous Executive orders, and set the legal precedent (sort of if you consider it an official policy since there is no actual XO or PPD). However, it was not against US law technically since they were foriengers, (Constitutionally speaking) Just our Foreign policy, Itl law, etc. Bush then expanded the program by ammending the previous executive orders in 04' and 08'.


BigNick - don't think that applies as AQ is officially classified as an Intl criminal orginization not a paramilitary force. Same as the drug cartels, yakuza, the mob, etc. This is the same as if the POTUS were to have drone attacked Whitey Bolger instead of having arrested him after getting the tip.



Oddly enough after researching on the grounds of "if I were the administration how would I argue the legalities". I came up with one.
Earlier this year the POTUS signed an Executive order declaring a National State of economic emergency as well as a de'facto state of war against intl. criminal cartels. Stating that criminal cartels are waging economic war on us so we must wage real war on them.

This could be used to get the admin off the hook in my book legally. However, it's not what they are saying.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 3 October 2011, 13:46
Gpool Gpool is offline
Paving the way
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy View Post
OK, how would you handle it? Anwar al-Awlaki is in Yemen and a warrant issued for his arrest and a request for extradition is in Yemeni hands. Explain for me the better solution.
Yemeni is obviously not going to yield to an US extradition so it becomes a challenging situation. If the target is so important as to violate a couple articles of the constitution for then the target is probably worthy of the risk of violating another’s countries sovereignty and seizing him by force. Seizing this "citizen" by force ourselves or through a 3rd party would sit better with me. Another countries sovereignty doesn't warrant as much concern as the erosion of constitutional rights.

Obviously my solution has a larger risk of failure, and would cost more political capital internationally. It's not a great solution but I would lean along those lines. I don't feel the guy was an immediate threat. We could wait for a good opportunity. If he became an immediate threat then he become direct AND immediate so go ahead and park a missile in him.

I am not trying to be obtuse with the word “immediate”, he doesn’t have to be driving an airplane into a building to warrant being killed. If the US had information of him leading any current operation against the USA it would meet the criteria for immediate. I bet if the administration had that information they would have made it public as it would be better for PR.

However, short term it seems like the right call. The target was located, they had an effective weapons platform, and it was pretty much a sure way to limit your enemy's PR efforts. And for an organization like AQ that will certainly effect their operational ability.

However long term I feel eroding citizens rights is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think we could have waited and grabbed him over the next couple of years.
__________________
I don't have anything witty to write.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 3 October 2011, 13:50
ET1/ss nuke's Avatar
ET1/ss nuke ET1/ss nuke is offline
If you don't smell ozone, the radiation won't kill you before next week.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: sc
Posts: 5,917
I wonder if Janet Reno feels vindicated right now. We'll never know the name of the drone operator, but wouldn't it be ironic if it were Lon Horiuchi?
__________________
"I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Twain

"I agree that his intentions are suspect, and that he likely needs to die...." - SOTB

"Just a lone patriot acting alone at a fulcrum point, ideally in a deniable fashion. A perpetrator of accidents." - Magician
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 3 October 2011, 14:07
Gpool Gpool is offline
Paving the way
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longrifle View Post
If a "US citizen" is in my house without my permission at night and I perceive him/her to be an imminent and/or direct threat to me or my family there will be a killing without due process.

Let's get back to the fact that there was a hearing before a federal judge to determine the legality of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" with regard to this POS.

He had "Due Process." The killing was approved beforehand.

If we need to discuss opinions whether Congressional approval and the subsequent hearing meet "due process" as required by the Constitution, so be it.

I have a legal question - for lawyers only:
Was "due process" as required by the Constitution and US Code met in this case by the dismissal of the ACLU/CCR suit?
I would say if someone was in your house without your permission, the immediate and direct threat would be inseparable.

The point about the congressional approval holds weight, but someone should have given him a chance to present his side. He wouldn't have come and even if he sent a rep it would be nothing more than terrorist PR, but he would have been given the opportunity.

We are going to disagree as to if he received "due process" from the justice department without the opportunity to state his side. Not that anyone can doubt his side was that of a terrorist A-hole. I am interested in the lawyers take on the dismissal of the ACLU/CCR case as well.
__________________
I don't have anything witty to write.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 3 October 2011, 15:24
Wench Wench is offline
Bow chicka bow bow
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 7th layer of hell
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNickT View Post
Parts in bold are mine for emphasis.

Unless you give terrorists a pass because they don't actually represent a "foreign state" it would seem that this guy already lost his citizenship. He is certainly a member of a foreign (para)military force engaged in hostilities against the U.S., and he is serving that entity as the equivalent of a commissioned officer. I'm betting he also swore some sort of oath and renounced his affiliations with the U.S.

So is the guy a citizen? If yes then it's really only because he is a terrorist and we (lawmakers/DOS/whatever) can't wrap our brains around dealing with a non-state sponsored actor, even after 10+ years. That's both counter-intuitive and counterproductive IMO.

If he has lost his citizenship due to a broader reading of the U.S. Code then does he rate due process or is he just another Tango that can be offed at our convenience?

I dislike the government and its abuses as much as anyone, but I'm unsure that this (maybe) U.S. citizen being killed meets the standard to get worked up about.

Tax out
Being a member of a paramilitary force does not count as far as INA 349(a)(3) is concerned. This was addressed back in 2004 and it was determined that State would only make this determination under "certain circumstances" and that it could be adjudicated in other forums such as removal or other judicial proceedings in which nationality would be a "critical fact". Since he never went through any of those proceedings, then as it stands he would still be considered a US citizen.

Loss of nationality is formal, burdensome process (and one that will cost you $450) and is rather rare. And trust me, if he had done so and it would clear the air, I'm sure the current administration would have already scanned in those documents and released them to the press.

Thanks again, though, FBI, for not handling any criminal investigation/prosecution in due haste so this whole issue could have been avoided. He's not the only one.
__________________
The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. --Proverbs 28:1
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:24.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018