http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8606584.stm
QuoteUS 'approves killing' US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki
Anwar al-Awlaki's has said violence is a religious duty for Muslims
The US government has authorised operations to capture or kill the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, currently based in Yemen, reports say.
The cleric, who is a US citizen, is being targeted for his involvement in planning attacks on the US, officials told journalists.
Mr Awlaki was linked to the attempted bombing of an airliner bound for the US and a shooting on a US Army base.
The US has warned Yemen is becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda.
The order was made by the Obama administration earlier this year, but it has just been revealed after a review of national security policy, the New York Times reported.
Further approval
"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words, he's gotten involved in plots," unnamed officials told the newspaper.
Unnamed officials quoted by the Reuters news agency confirmed the story, saying that Mr Awlaki had been placed on a "US target list" of people it had authorised to kill or capture.
The list, maintained by the CIA, is thought to be of people the US government believes are planning terrorist attacks against the US.
Because Mr Awlaki is an American citizen, his addition had to be approved by the US National Security Council, the paper reported.
"Awlaki knows what he's done, and he knows he won't be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone," the New York Times quoted the official as saying.
Failed state
Mr Awlaki was born in New Mexico, but is currently based in Yemen.
The Yemeni government, with support from the US and Saudi Arabia, has bombed suspected al-Qaeda hideouts in the last few months.
But some analysts have warned that Yemen may become a failed state because of the fragile hold the Yemeni government has on its own country.
Mr Awlaki was linked to an attack by a US Army major on the Fort Hood base last November, in which 13 people died.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a plane on its way into Detroit airport on Christmas Day 2009, allegedly met Mr Awlaki in Yemen weeks before boarding a US-bound plane in Lagos.
The cleric became popular among Islamic radicals for his firebrand preaching in English which endorsed the use of violence as a religious duty.
He lived and studied in the US where he was an imam in San Diego, where his sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers.
He fled the US in 2007 and went to Yemen.
This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:10:20 AM
This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.
You're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:27:24 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:10:20 AM
This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.
You're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
We'll tape it to a hellfire.
Also,
OMG OBAMA IS TEH WEAK ON TERRORZ!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:27:24 AMYou're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:49:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:27:24 AMYou're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.
Maybe if he's in Montana, but in Yemen he's fair game.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:53:43 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:49:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:27:24 AMYou're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.
Maybe if he's in Montana, but in Yemen he's fair game.
Well at least the US is planning to kill a citizen by themselves, unlike we did in WW2, when we outsourced the jews to Germany.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:49:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:27:24 AMYou're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.
You don't get due process in wartime if you're fighting on the other side.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:10:20 AM
This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.
US citizens are no more guaranteed due process than non-US citizens. This guy enjoys no special privileges or immunities because he is a US citizen. Actions against him would be military, not criminal.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 06:28:11 AMUS citizens are no more guaranteed due process than non-US citizens. This guy enjoys no special privileges or immunities because he is a US citizen. Actions against him would be military, not criminal.
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
I agree it's unprecendented. It was a line Bush was careful not to cross.
I dunno. The US government wasn't serving warrants on the battlefield at Gettysburg. This doesn't seem that different then a sniper being ordered to shoot a hostage taker or something.
To me, battlefields and hostage takers are different as there is immediate contact and it is likely that not killing a person in such a situation would lead to others being killed by that person. Shooting a hellfire missle from a drone at this guy is not necessary to avert clear and present danger to other persons. Sure, it may help in the long run. But I don't think this potential benefit in the long run is worth what I consider to be a breach of perhaps the most basic right a citizen has, namely not to be killed by his government (*).
(*) death penalty under due process is something different that I don't support either, but for other reasons.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 06:43:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 06:28:11 AMUS citizens are no more guaranteed due process than non-US citizens. This guy enjoys no special privileges or immunities because he is a US citizen. Actions against him would be military, not criminal.
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?
Perhaps, but there lots of incidents of this happening. Stuff like Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger. It's not exactly a precedent. The question is: Can law enforcement reasonable expect to capture him with out undue danger to themselves? Probably not. These guys tend to have armed militia surrounding them. Of course he's free to contact a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in and face any charges against him in a court of law.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:53:25 AM
Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?
[Lettow] Yes. Mew. [/Lettow]
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 07:57:32 AM
Perhaps, but there lots of incidents of this happening. Stuff like Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger. It's not exactly a precedent. The question is: Can law enforcement reasonable expect to capture him with out undue danger to themselves? Probably not. These guys tend to have armed militia surrounding them. Of course he's free to contact a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in and face any charges against him in a court of law.
My point is that the alternative to not being able to capture him alive is not necessarily to kill him, but perhaps it is to just leave him be and wait for a better opportunity. I am generally very sceptical about the state killing people, especially its own citizens, so the latter possiblities could for me be the smaller evil than just killing him.
I agree, he shouldn't be killed if possible. Secret detention and torture in a third country is the best option.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:53:25 AMVirtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?
It's not about serving him a warrant. The alternative for me is to just leave him be. As I don't know anything about the case, so that may not be realistic as he may well constitute a direct danger to Americans. But if that's not the case, I could see myself preferring not to do anything against him instead of just killing him because he acts treasonous.
The difference to the Confederate Army is that it certainly was a direct threat to the very existence of the United States and its people. So inaction was not possible and the only possible alternative was outright warfare - obviously without using stuff like due process during battle.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 08:19:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 07:57:32 AM
Perhaps, but there lots of incidents of this happening. Stuff like Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger. It's not exactly a precedent. The question is: Can law enforcement reasonable expect to capture him with out undue danger to themselves? Probably not. These guys tend to have armed militia surrounding them. Of course he's free to contact a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in and face any charges against him in a court of law.
My point is that the alternative to not being able to capture him alive is not necessarily to kill him, but perhaps it is to just leave him be and wait for a better opportunity. I am generally very sceptical about the state killing people, especially its own citizens, so the latter possiblities could for me be the smaller evil than just killing him.
So a government shouldn't attempt to stop a criminal unless they are reasonably sure they can do so with out harming him?
Unless he is an immediate threat for life and limb of other persons then, yes, governments should not use deadly force to stop a criminal.
What about the fact that he is based in a third country (and thus impossible to apprehend in other ways), and from there certainly encouraging and likely orchestrating further attacks on the US? Shouldn't that factor into the equation at all?
The problem is, I think, that killing him would essentially be assassinating an American citizen. That seems a dangerous precendent.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 08:27:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:53:25 AMVirtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?
It's not about serving him a warrant. The alternative for me is to just leave him be. As I don't know anything about the case, so that may not be realistic as he may well constitute a direct danger to Americans. But if that's not the case, I could see myself preferring not to do anything against him instead of just killing him because he acts treasonous.
The difference to the Confederate Army is that it certainly was a direct threat to the very existence of the United States and its people. So inaction was not possible and the only possible alternative was outright warfare - obviously without using stuff like due process during battle.
But they have in fact made that very determination, as the article states.
They have decided that he has gone from simply speaking to acting, and therefore constitutes a real danger to American lives, and therefore have decided that the normal prohibitions you are rightly concerned about do not apply any longer.
You are basically agreeing with them, in theory, and they are agreeing with you, but adding that the case in question actually meets the criteria you have established for when the state should take such a drastic measure.
Like someone pointed out, if he wished to enjoy the protections of the Constitution, he can easily do so by turning himself in.
The Constitutional question is a bit murky. The text of the due process clause is clear enough - it refers to the rights of "persons" not just citizens. In the terror detention cases, the Court considered and rejected making significant distinctions between citizens and non-citizens for due process purposes. Thus, in Rasul, the Court ruled that non-citizens could seek a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the basis of their detention as "enemy combatants"; OTOH in Hamdi, the Court ruled that a US citizen could be detained as an "enemy combatant" to the same degree and extent as an alien.
OTOH there is a line of precedents addressing the constitutionality of governmental actions overseas that does make an alien-citizen distinction. In Verdugo-Urquidez the Court held that US government agents didn't need to abide by the 4th Amendment when conducting searches on non-US citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the US. Although the case dealt solely with the 4th amendment, the decision was written very broadly and explicitly referred to other constitutional provisions, including - notably for the issue at hand here - the 5th amendment. The Court also made a very clear and strong distinction between actions of the US overseas affecting US citizens and those affecting aliens.
I think Verdugo-Urquidez was a dubious decision but it is the law of the land now, and the implication of that decision is that this guy's status as a US citizen is a meaningful datum. Assuming the order is just "kill or capture" as oppposed to "capture - but deadly force is authorized in the event of resistance", it seems to me the only way to justify this order is to take the full Rumsfeldian position that al-Awlaki is an active enemy combatant engaged in warfare against the United States (with the corollary being that the "War on Terror" is legally speaking a war like any other traditional interstate conflict).
The conclusion that I draw from this order is that Obama's policy w/r/t the war on terror is basically identical to that of the prior adminstration except rhetorically and as to matters of emphasis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2010, 09:20:12 AM
The conclusion that I draw from this order is that Obama's policy w/r/t the war on terror is basically identical to that of the prior adminstration except rhetorically and as to matters of emphasis.
:)
This is consistent with other terror-related decisions of the administration. For all the talk about civilian vs. military trials, the policies of the two admins are identical. The Bush admin policy was to try some detainees in civilian courts and some before commissions; the Obama admin policy is exactly the same - only the messaging was different. The Bush admin policy was to detain people in Gitmo but eventually phase out its use. That is also the Obama admin policy - with the difference that the message is to emphasize the desire to phase it out in press communications, without really doing much more to speed the process than the prior administration was doing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2010, 09:34:09 AM
This is consistent with other terror-related decisions of the administration. For all the talk about civilian vs. military trials, the policies of the two admins are identical. The Bush admin policy was to try some detainees in civilian courts and some before commissions; the Obama admin policy is exactly the same - only the messaging was different. The Bush admin policy was to detain people in Gitmo but eventually phase out its use. That is also the Obama admin policy - with the difference that the message is to emphasize the desire to phase it out in press communications, without really doing much more to speed the process than the prior administration was doing.
:)
BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 06:43:07 AM
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
The Constitution has no due process procedures for military actions. The Executive has no more responsibility to provide due process to a citizen than a non-citizen. Do you object to the fact that due process does not apply to military actions, or to the fact that the US Constitution applies to the US government and not to US citizens?
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 08:34:42 AM
Unless he is an immediate threat for life and limb of other persons then, yes, governments should not use deadly force to stop a criminal.
In such a world criminals need only carry weapons and show a willingness to use them if stopped by police to be untouchable.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:13:06 AMDo you object to the fact that due process does not apply to military actions, or to the fact that the US Constitution applies to the US government and not to US citizens?
The former. I am not quite sure what "due process" actually means so it is well possible that I misunderstand the concept. Does it only apply to criminal law or is it a more general term for "rule of law"? I understood it as the latter. Rule of law and just killing a terrorist because it is impossible to apprehend him otherwise are not compatible for me. The exception to that rule would be if that terrorists presents direct danger to life and limb of others.
As Berkut pointed out that's what the US government now decided regarding this particular terrorist and as I have to assume that their decision was not made lightly and that they had good intel on the guy being a direct danger.
That the military is the government agency that actually executes the action is not of such a big concern to me. I would have the same qualms if it was the FBI or some other government agency acting. I guess the military is bound to the constitution as every other government agency is.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 10:38:14 AM
I am not quite sure what "due process" actually means so it is well possible that I misunderstand the concept. Does it only apply to criminal law or is it a more general term for "rule of law"? I understood it as the latter.
It means that the US government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without strictly following the procedures for doing that under the law. It can apply to both civil or criminal contexts.
QuoteRule of law and just killing a terrorist because it is impossible to apprehend him otherwise are not compatible for me.
That is true if the basis for seeking out the terrorist is to apply a criminal sanction. In that case deprivation of life cannot occur without due process of law, which in a criminal matter means the right to present a defense, with counsel, etc. However, if the terrorist is a combatant in a war against the United States, then the relevant law to which "due process" applies is not the criminal law but the laws of war. And the laws of war permit a belligerant to kill other belligerents without warning and without a trial.
That raises the question of whether al-Awlaki is merely a criminal or whether he is a combatant engaged in war against the United States. Obama's order as I see it definitely answers that question from the standpoint how the White House views the matter.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 10:38:14 AM
The former. I am not quite sure what "due process" actually means so it is well possible that I misunderstand the concept. Does it only apply to criminal law or is it a more general term for "rule of law"?
Neither, exactly. It applies to judicial and quasi-judicial processes in general, not just criminal proceedings.
"Due process" is a reference to the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Honestly, the thing that bugs me is that we hold born citizenship to some impossibly high standard. If this had been a naturalized citizen, it would have been a non-issue because citizenship would be revoked. But for a confirmed terrorist sympathizer working with foreign nationals on foreign soil as a self-declared enemy of the United States government to get special treatment simply by dint of being born here? I have to wonder which side is being more pigheaded about absurd ideals.
Takes three pages to determine that most of you are morons. Way to go.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:51:34 PM
Takes three pages to determine that most of you are morons. Way to go.
Pah, you knew I was moron from the word go.
I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.
Quote from: Jaron on April 07, 2010, 06:34:16 PM
I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.
That makes much more sense as an argument against the death penalty than it does against an enemy in the field... but you knew that. :cool:
Quote from: Jaron on April 07, 2010, 06:34:16 PM
I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.
I think renouncing his citizenship was implied when he left the country for Yemen and help plan terrorist attacks on real US citizens.
Just because his parent lived here when he was born shouldn't give him special protection.
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 07, 2010, 06:34:16 PM
I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.
I think renouncing his citizenship was implied when he left the country for Yemen and help plan terrorist attacks on real US citizens.
Just because his parent lived here when he was born shouldn't give him special protection.
Nope. If that was true we couldn't try anyone for treason.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2010, 08:40:05 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 07, 2010, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 07, 2010, 06:34:16 PM
I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.
I think renouncing his citizenship was implied when he left the country for Yemen and help plan terrorist attacks on real US citizens.
Just because his parent lived here when he was born shouldn't give him special protection.
Nope. If that was true we couldn't try anyone for treason.
I am not sure what point you are striking for, here. If you are saying that simply leaving the country and taking up arms with an enemy does not constitute "implied renunciation of citizenship" I think you are probably right. If you are saying that the US couldn't try someone for treason because they are not US citizens, that is not strictly correct.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 09:04:11 PMIf you are saying that the US couldn't try someone for treason because they are not US citizens, that is not strictly correct.
Damned close, though.
Quote from: 18 USC 2381Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
While the accused does not have to be a US citizen, they clearly are required to "owe[] allegiance to the United States."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2010, 07:53:25 AM
Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?
What an entirely inappropriate and retarded analogy. I award you 1 Marty point for excellence in bad analogies.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2010, 09:34:09 AM
This is consistent with other terror-related decisions of the administration. For all the talk about civilian vs. military trials, the policies of the two admins are identical. The Bush admin policy was to try some detainees in civilian courts and some before commissions; the Obama admin policy is exactly the same - only the messaging was different. The Bush admin policy was to detain people in Gitmo but eventually phase out its use. That is also the Obama admin policy - with the difference that the message is to emphasize the desire to phase it out in press communications, without really doing much more to speed the process than the prior administration was doing.
The funny part is that the left lambasted Bush for being a fascist and the right is now lambasting Obama for being a terrorist-loving pinko. :)
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2010, 10:13:06 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 06:43:07 AM
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
The Constitution has no due process procedures for military actions. The Executive has no more responsibility to provide due process to a citizen than a non-citizen. Do you object to the fact that due process does not apply to military actions, or to the fact that the US Constitution applies to the US government and not to US citizens?
The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:56:57 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 07, 2010, 09:34:09 AM
This is consistent with other terror-related decisions of the administration. For all the talk about civilian vs. military trials, the policies of the two admins are identical. The Bush admin policy was to try some detainees in civilian courts and some before commissions; the Obama admin policy is exactly the same - only the messaging was different. The Bush admin policy was to detain people in Gitmo but eventually phase out its use. That is also the Obama admin policy - with the difference that the message is to emphasize the desire to phase it out in press communications, without really doing much more to speed the process than the prior administration was doing.
The funny part is that the left lambasted Bush for being a fascist and the right is now lambasting Obama for being a terrorist-loving pinko. :)
Wait, you aren't trying to suggest that most of the angst on both sides has nothing to do with actual policy, and is simply tribal feces flinging, are you???
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:59:08 AM
The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".
By law, an act of Congress. Most presidents (at least after election), however, claim the inherent power to engage in military operations indefinitely without Congressional approval as "emergency measures."
Quote from: ulmont on April 07, 2010, 09:06:44 PM
Quote from: 18 USC 2381Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
While the accused does not have to be a US citizen, they clearly are required to "owe[] allegiance to the United States."
Precisely my point. Citizenship not required, so the argument that it is isn't precisely correct, though the distinction doesn't matter in most circumstances,
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:59:08 AM
The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".
The answer used to be straightforward: a declaration of war by the Congress.
But that has long been considered an old-fashioned way about going about things, and the US sticks to fighting undeclared wars nowadays. A fact that can create a certain zone of ambiguity about the boundaries between international law enforcement efforts, "intelligence" operations, and military conflicts.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:59:08 AM
The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".
By law, an act of Congress. Most presidents (at least after election), however, claim the inherent power to engage in military operations indefinitely without Congressional approval as "emergency measures."
This is not an answer to my question. I asked for a definition of a military action - not how it is ordered (unless anything that the President orders the military to do as "emergency measures" is a military action, which is extremely unlikely).
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 06:43:07 AM
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens? Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2010, 08:44:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 01:59:08 AM
The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".
The answer used to be straightforward: a declaration of war by the Congress.
But that has long been considered an old-fashioned way about going about things, and the US sticks to fighting undeclared wars nowadays. A fact that can create a certain zone of ambiguity about the boundaries between international law enforcement efforts, "intelligence" operations, and military conflicts.
Can the US President order a military action in the US territory? The way grumbler defined a military action, the US President could, for example, decide that Glenn Beck is an enemy combatant and order the military to take him out.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2010, 08:55:00 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 06:43:07 AM
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens? Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.
So if your neighbor in Texas unilaterally declares a secession from the United States and proclaims a war on the US, and then sits on his ass on his front porch, you have no problem with the US military carrying out a "military action" against him, taking out the entire block (yourself included) as collateral damage?
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2010, 08:55:00 AMSo if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens? Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.
Not sure what that has to do with the post of mine that you quoted, but no:
QuoteGerman Constitution, Article 87a
(4) In order to avert an imminent danger to the existence or free democratic basic order of the Federation or of a Land, the Federal Government, if the conditions referred to in paragraph (2) of Article 91 obtain and the police forces and the Federal Border Police prove inadequate, may employ the Armed Forces to support the police and the Federal Border Police in protecting civilian property and in combating organized armed insurgents. Any such employment of the Armed Forces shall be discontinued if the Bundestag or the Bundesrat so demands.
However, I guess you would have a very hard time to show that a cleric in Yemen is an imminent threat to the existence of Germany or its constitution.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 08:53:10 AM
This is not an answer to my question. I asked for a definition of a military action - not how it is ordered (unless anything that the President orders the military to do as "emergency measures" is a military action, which is extremely unlikely).
Sorry, I didn't realize you were simply asking for the definition of a phrase.
QuoteNoun
* S: (n) military action, action (a military engagement) "he saw action in Korea"
WordNet home page
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=military%20action (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=military%20action)
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 08:58:15 AM
Can the US President order a military action in the US territory? The way grumbler defined a military action, the US President could, for example, decide that Glenn Beck is an enemy combatant and order the military to take him out.
Yes, of course the president can order a military action on US territory! It would make the country extremely difficult to defend, otherwise.
President Bush claimed the power to declare anyone (citizen or not) an enemy combatant. Such a declaration about Beck would presumably allow a president use the military against Beck. This is why I, and many others (JR, for instance), objected to Bush's unilateral interpretations of expansive Presidential war powers.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 09:01:48 AM
So if your neighbor in Texas unilaterally declares a secession from the United States and proclaims a war on the US, and then sits on his ass on his front porch, you have no problem with the US military carrying out a "military action" against him, taking out the entire block (yourself included) as collateral damage?
I award you one Martinus Point for Excellence in Making Inane Analogies.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 09:01:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2010, 08:55:00 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 06:43:07 AM
Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.
So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens? Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.
So if your neighbor in Texas unilaterally declares a secession from the United States and proclaims a war on the US, and then sits on his ass on his front porch, you have no problem with the US military carrying out a "military action" against him, taking out the entire block (yourself included) as collateral damage?
I have no problem with this.
Quote from: grumbler on April 08, 2010, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 08:58:15 AM
Can the US President order a military action in the US territory? The way grumbler defined a military action, the US President could, for example, decide that Glenn Beck is an enemy combatant and order the military to take him out.
Yes, of course the president can order a military action on US territory! It would make the country extremely difficult to defend, otherwise.
President Bush claimed the power to declare anyone (citizen or not) an enemy combatant. Such a declaration about Beck would presumably allow a president use the military against Beck. This is why I, and many others (JR, for instance), objected to Bush's unilateral interpretations of expansive Presidential war powers.
So what is according to you the limit of Presidential war powers? Common decency?
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 09:21:14 AM
So what is according to you the limit of Presidential war powers? Common decency?
The War Powers Resolution spells it out.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2010, 09:21:14 AM
So what is according to you the limit of Presidential war powers? Common decency?
First of all, the availability of a writ of habeas corpus domestically means that the government can't detain people without a valid basis for doing so. The writ can only be suspended with specific Congressional authorization under conditions of rebellion or invasion (ie there must be a real national security emergency and concurrence of the two principal branches of government). That explains why the Bush admin made such strenuous efforts to fight the applicability of the writ, efforts the Supreme Court rejected.
Second, Congress has some ability to restrict Presidential action. The degree of that authority is contested but at the very minimum they can take the extreme action of cutting off all funding for a given "war." Depending on one's reading of the constitution, Congressional authority may extend more broadly to regulating the exercise of war powers by the Executive.
Quote from: Zanza on April 07, 2010, 05:49:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2010, 05:27:24 AMYou're right. Let's serve him his warrant instead.
Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.
Only a german could say that.
Hey, when the League of the South is declared a terrorist group you'll get the pleasure of kicking down lettow's door.