Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

[Ayiekie]

Apologies to Glenn Greenwald, from whom I borrow the amazingly appropriate quote from Alice in Wonderland.
The Obama Administration, who last April targeted American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki for a kill-on-sight order by the CIA (and as of late has made missile strikes in Yemen to attempt to kill him... you might know Yemen as a country that the United States is not at war with, so hooray for American exceptionalism!), is now considering filing criminal charges against this American citizen just in case, you know, he gets captured alive by the Yemeni government before the CIA can kill him.
So yes, the American citizen that the CIA has been given a kill-on-sight order for has never been charged with a crime:  "...counterterrorism officials regard al-Awlaki as a terrorist operative, not just a preacher, but they have revealed few specifics". Because, of course, the track record of the US means you should absolutely trust that anybody they say is a Bad Guy totally is and that is an excellent reason to invest the President with the authority to order the killing-without-trial of American citizens because that is totally a good thing for the President to be able to do that will never ever lead to bad things no sir.
The charge that is being floated around, according to the article, is "supporting terrorism", and the basis is "violent sermons" (what First Amendment?) and aiding in propaganda for Al-Qaeda. The sentence for that charge, incidentally, is 15 years. But of course that charge will only happen if the CIA fails in their mission to assassinate the American citizen before he ever goes to trial.
Barack Obama is an evil piece of shit. This is not a new opinion of mine, but I felt it bears mentioning. Every Democrat who supports this (the vast majority of them) is also an evil piece of shit, and so too is every Republican that does (the even vaster majority). Supporting the authority of the Dear Leader to assassinate American citizens without trial or even revealing specifics of their alleged crimes is anti-democratic, and that's about the nicest thing one can say about it. It's hard to think of a more dramatic overreaching of executive power than targeted killing of American citizens - even Bush never did anything like that. The joke of them now floating the idea of laying charges against him, many months after revealing his execution order, is just the icing on the cake.
He's an evil piece of shit. And so is everyone else who supports this. That is all.

[Wiregeek]

http://www.salon.com/news...eenwald/2010/01/27/yemen

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/gow1.htm

You are an imbecile and a liar.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Epsilon]

http://www.salon.com/news...eenwald/2010/01/27/yemen

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/gow1.htm

You are an imbecile and a liar.

Considering both those articiles support his accusations I don't see how your rebuttal has any merit.
--------------
Epsilon

[Foxboy]

Don't feed the troll, please.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Sweno]

I think Wire was rebutting the 'Bush never did anything like that' statement.

Even though it could have been better articulated.

I'm not going to take sides and say that Obama's actions are morally right or wrong, that way leads to far too much vitriol and anger for me to eagerly wade in.

But just because someone else has done something, doesn't mean it's ok for you to do it as well.
-Terry
-----
"so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today"
TF2: Spy

[Ayiekie]

That's pretty hilarious. I'm one of if not the most strident - or at least mouthy - leftists on the board, but call out Obama on ordering the assassination without trial of American citizens and I'm a troll, imbecile, and liar. I imagine certain people are highly amused. As for the links you gave, Wiredgeek... the second (at a quick glance as I'm posting from a mobile) seems to be talking about attempted assassinations of non-US citizens, so it is kind of irrelevant. As for the first, while Bush indeed had such a list, it is my understanding it was never implemented during his time in office, based on other Greenwald posts as well as the NYT article from when the assassination story first broke in April. I can't post links from my mobile but will later this evening if anyone's keen. But really, even if it turns out Obama was only continuing Bush policy by targeting US citizens for assasination without trial... uh, so what? Does that somehow make it less blatantly unconstitutional, less an extreme overreach of executive power, less blatantly evil? Barack Obama the candidate (and, supposedly, his party and most of his supporters) very publically stated that wiretapping American citizens without warrants was a gross violation of their Constitutional rights. Now he is cool with their execution without trial. Even someone loony enough to support him having that power should notice that's a pretty amazing swap of viewpoints for Mr. Constitutional Scholar (and most of his party and supporters).

[robkelk]

Folks, please discuss the topic, not the posters.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Ayiekie]

So, yes, upon rereading at home Wiredgeek's second link was indeed pretty much irrelevant to the notion of assassinating US citizens based on the President saying "he's a bad guy". As for the links I noted:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations
"At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually
implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of
Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric
Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list."
Emphasis mine. From the New York Times article linked to in the same post:
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be
approved for targeted killing, officials said.  A former senior legal
official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of
any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former
president. . . ."
So, if it's true that Bush did indeed do the same thing, at least when the story broke and I first posted it here everyone did not believe so. And once again, if he did, so what? That was seven words of my first post. How about you focus on the rest of it, and on the fact that the President of the United States claims the accountability-free right to order an American citizen to be killed without trial?
I will include here the text of the 5th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, part of that Constitution thingy that the US President's oath is to defend:
"No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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."
Anwar al-Awlaki is not in the land or naval forces or in the militia, and even if he was, the United States is not at war, and it is hard to argue there is any "public danger" from a man hiding out in Yemen while the United States fires missiles at him. So it is beyond doubt that, aside from being evil, President Obama's actions are absolutely and utterly unconstitutional. And even if they weren't, who exactly is comfortable or sanguine about the idea that the President has the power to declare any American a Bad Guy and have him killed? Weren't leftists supposed to be upset that the US government imprisoned people indefinitely without trial or charge (which Obama is still doing, of course, but that's another matter)? Aren't rightists supposed to be supporters of small government and strict interpretation of the Constitution? If you're cool with the President having the power to execute any American he or she likes without trial, what power are you not comfortable with the President having?

[rmthorn]

what power are you not comfortable with the President having?

The power to marry someone of the same sex!

(Not my own opinion, of course)

[robkelk]

what power are you not comfortable with the President having?

The power to marry someone of the same sex!

(Not my own opinion, of course)

And why shouldn't the President marry another man? (Assuming he divorces his wife first, of course.) It isn't as if his love life affects mine in the slightest...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

Why should he have to divorce his wife first? Poly relationships ought to be recognized next.

We now return you to our topic, already in progress.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ECSNorway]

If you want to speak of crimes, then the evidence available to us, the public, suggests -- I will not say proves, for obvious reasons -- that the most serious charges that can be brought against al-Awlaki are:

* Conspiracy to Commit Treason
* Supporting Terrorist Organizations
* Incitement to Riot

None of those is a capital crime.

The Geneva Conventions - treaties which the United States and Yemen are both signatory to - contain the following text... (Article 3)

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Has Al-Awliki "taken an active part in the hostilities"? Well, the most he's been accused of, publicly, is preaching sermons that attacks on the US are good. That's... well, moral support for the enemy, at most. Has he taken up arms against the United States, participated directly in the recruitment and/or training of combatants for such actions, or otherwise directly involved himself in the conflict?

As far as we know... no.

From the WaPo article Greenwald links to:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.

Actions actually fitting these criteria would be entirely legal under the Geneva Convention cited above.

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

Outright joining al-Qaeda? Yes. You've enlisted in the army of the opposing power, even if you're not directly participating in military actions. That makes you a combatant.
Has Al-Awlaki done so? Has he participated in their activities, in training combatants or planning attacks? Is there evidence that he has done so?

We, the public, have seen none.

We, the public, have not been assured by the Obama administration that such evidence exists, even in classified intelligence data.

We, the public, have not been assured by the administration that a competent military court, subject to the rules for handling such classified intelligence data, has reviewed such evidence, as is provided for by the Geneva Convention.

(Note, by the way, for those who like to spout off about the US' treatment of other detainees: The Geneva Conventions do specify a military court to rule on such matters, NOT a civilian court, and that "being an enemy combatant" and thus subject to internment as a prisoner of war is NOT a crime for which a person can be charged in the civilian court system.)
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Ayiekie]

Strange bedfellows. I dispute your point about al-Qaeda being "the army of the opposing power" (the US is not at war, and even more so is not at war with a non-state actor), but otherwise we're disturbingly close to agreement.

[ECSNorway]

One could argue that point as well, Ayie.

First off, the Geneva Conventions do explicitly apply to states of armed conflict absent a formal declaration of war. The UN intervention in Korea, for example, had no declaration and was never formally a war, despite the fact that it is generally recognized by the public and by history as having been one.

Additional protocol I, Article 43, paragraph 1:

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Al-Qaeda is certainly an authority, and it is certainly not recognized as a legitimate government by the United States, and it is certainly engaged in armed conflict with us. I therefore assert that it constitutes an opposing power under the legal definition of the Conventions, and therefore (as the conventions are a Treaty which the United States has ratified) have the force of law.

Speaking of the Conventions... Article 48:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Do the 9/11 attacks constitute an attack on civilian persons and objects?

Article 49, paragraphs 1 through 3:

Art 49. Definition of attacks and scope of application

1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.

2. The provisions of this Protocol with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted, including the national territory belonging to a Party to the conflict but under the control of an adverse Party.

3. The provisions of this section apply to any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air.

Note that paragraph 1 does not specify only such acts committed by uniformed combatants.

Article 51:

Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Has Al-Awlaki participated in attacks on military or civilian targets? No.

On the other other hand, Al-Qaeda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor does it act in accordance with their tenets. A legitimate argument could be (and has been) made that its associates enjoy no legal protection provided by the Conventions whatsoever.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Epsilon]

Al-Queda is not organized, nor is it an authority. People claim it is, but saying it doesn't make it so.
Al-Queda is like Anonymous. It's a snake without a head. The term is used by generic Muslim extremists terrorists cells less as a declaration of allegiance and more a decleration of intent.
----------------
Epsilon

[Bob Schroeck]

Although I think Al-Queda may be a bit more organized than Epsilon suggests, he's also right about one thing -- every half-wit with a rusty rifle who takes a potshot at a Westerner declares himself to be part of Al-Queda, regardless of whether the local cell leader has heard of him or not. It's like suburban kids claiming to be Crips or Bloods without ever getting out farther than the mall.

Not that this doesn't serve Al-Queda's interests, of course. Like Anonymous, the image of being omnipresent helps them immensely.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.