Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

Anyone get the feeling that next years election will never happen? Obama will continue with his unfinished business by default. Its one thing after another for a man who once seemed to manage according to public opinion and poll numbers and who has been in campaign mode for 3 years. With his numbers in the dumps, I guess it does not matter.

Actions like this give a new meaning to Unfinished business

Raising money and appealing for votes, President Barack Obama is framing his 2012 re-election campaign as a call to complete unfinished business and as a clear choice between his ideas and those of potential rivals who he says are no different than the congressional Republicans who are thwarting him now.

www.cbsnews.com...

I don't like it!!

reply to post by Maxmars


I was thinking of responding to your post point by point, and dreading it, as I am a terrible typist, but you thoughtfully pointed out what you thought was the core of the problem:

For me, and I think this is the crux of our potential disagreement, it is about the effective Constitutional reality - Is there or is there not a guarantee of due process for all American citizens - as explicitly stated in our law? And if the mere act of 'agreeing with the enemy" (not necessarily taking up arms or offering material support) renders a person a valid "for-all-intents-and-purposes-non-citizen-target" - where does that leave our legal system.... completely out of the loop? Sorry - that is also Unconstitutional. Due process, redress, and judicial oversight are all a troubling reality that any President must contend with. "How" they contend with it is where it gets problematic, especially for those who simply see things in terms of "kill 'em all and let God sort it out later."

Again battlefield conditions are survival scenarios that are not germane to the question; much like a police killing an armed suspect who he can appropriately articulate intended to kill him.

So, if I understand you, there is not a guarantee of due process for all American citizens in a survival scenario. I agree. Doesn't the Commander-in-Chief decide when we are in a survival scenario? Of course, if nothing else through emergency executive orders.

And I'm very surprised and disappointed that you think that "agreeing with the enemy" makes someone a non-citizen and a target. I don't know of any bill, newspaper article, or anything else that makes that claim.

I appreciate ATS as an alarm to warn against all sorts of bad things. Remember, however, no alarm is perfect and one sometimes gets false alarms.

reply to post by Maxmars


Because under Domestic Law, as well as the UCMJ, there there are safeguards in place that allows a person to act before knowing all of the information based on the situation at hand. As with Domestic law enforcement, the military, when reviewing use of force that is questioned and in accordance with Supreme Court rulings, requires that review be done looking at what the person perceived at the moment force was used.

A 20/20 hindsight review is not allowed, and for good reason.

As i stated, and the reason Domestic law enforcement was used, was to point out the glaring mistake with the view of the 6th amendment and the status of being a US Citizen an perceived requirements and exceptions.

As I stated, and Supreme Court has ruled and upheld, your rights end the moment they infringe on the rights of others. If we look at the case with Major Nassal., the guy who went on a shooting spree at the base in Texas.

He was a US Citizen and as such has his constitutional rights. He is also under the UCMJ, which restricts some of those freedoms (speech and a few others). Major Nassals actions violated the rights of the people he was engaging. The Police arrived and took action to stop Major Nassals actions.

He was shot and survived. However, the police were not charged with violating his due process, nor were they charged with violating the 4th amendment (by shooting him they seized hum under the 4th).

Those same standards apply outside the borders of the US while engaged in military actions. If a US citizen is captured during combat operations against US forces, they are subject to Military justice, not domestic law. Why? Because Domestic laws have no effect outside the United States in that type of situation, with the exception of treason, which is codified in both military and civilian law.

It does not matter if a terrorist has American, French, German, Russian, Saudi or Iranian citizenship. The moment they pick up a weapon and engage another military force, they set the events in motion.

Your claim that the 6th amendment somehow protects a US citizen who is engaged in a military firefight with US forces has no base. His 6th amendment right ended the moment he engaged US forces, infringing on their rights.

charles1952 and Xcathdra, forgive me as I want to respond to clarify and continue the discuss (thank you, by the way) but I must adjourn for now.... I will return and give your comments the attention they deserve in due time.

Originally posted by Maxmars
charles1952 and Xcathdra, forgive me as I want to respond to clarify and continue the discuss (thank you, by the way) but I must adjourn for now.... I will return and give your comments the attention they deserve in due time.

Meh... You sir are a fun sponge

When ever.. Do me a favor and shoot me a U2U letting me know your back in the thread.

Thanks man.

reply to post by Maxmars

Again battlefield conditions are survival scenarios that are not germane to the question; much like a police killing an armed suspect who he can appropriately articulate intended to kill him.

But the slippery slope comes when you consider that the President's authority must be balanced by a responsibility to know (not suspect) that engaging an American person has a real "military" value because that is the only regard in which his opinion matters - as Commander in Chief. There are no other circumstances where the president can legally say "kill that person" and commit military combat resources to that task.

I see a good point about "suspicions" (based on opinion) vs "confronted eyewitness" (based on police in imminent danger).

I don't know, but

How was it determined that al-Awliki was actually a "combat" participant against the U.S.?
as in "pointing a gun". Just "talking" may not be good enough.

Was the U.S. role in Yemen a "ground" operation with U.S. troops actually in combat with al-Quada troops?

Most news stories say the U.S. has been assisting the government of Yemen with air strikes.

And, what ever happened to the other American killed along with al-Awliki ....
Samir Khan, an editor for an al-Qaeda online magazine?
Was He determined to be a combatant?

Perhaps Obama jumped the gun so to speak.

reply to post by xuenchen

This is only a partial answer to one of your questions but this CBS article does seek to explain why al-Awlaki was targetted

Obama's justification

reply to post by xuenchen


Plotting to rob a bank and plotting to kill Americans for the sole purpose of killing them is the difference.

If a cop is dealing with a kidnapping type situation where time is of the essence (someone will die) actions can be taken that under normal circumstances would be a violation of a persons rights. The courts recognize those scenarios exist and have very specific guidelines for actions taken.

The Military is the same way.

It does not matter if an American, Russian, German or Al Queida is pointing a gun / weapon at some one. That person does not have to wait for an action to defend themselves. In the battle field its understood its a war and not a single encounter. A situation in this area is related to a situation in that area, linked to a plan in Khyber pass, when put together can result in.....

Military forces dont have to wait to be attacked before engaging the enemy. Combat and Policing are completely different ordeals, and the rules that apply are also completely different. This is one of the PRIME reasons for the condition of the Geneva convention. Specifically detailing the requirements for an individual who is engaged in combat and to be covered under the conventions.

Uniform
Chain of Command
Not mixing with civilians in combat
Not dressing as civilians in combat.

Would it be nice to identify a person during combat? Absolutely.

Is it realistic? - Nope.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

It comes from here:

US Citizens who are overseas who engage US forces -
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

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—

..........

(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

......

(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.

If engaged in hostilities against the US on foreign soil -
Captured - subject to US domestic law or the UCMJ.
Killed = no violation of law or civil rights due to death occurring in combat while engaged against US forces.

If you are going to play stick ball in Brooklyn you best know the rules.

edit on 1-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

and under the regulations you quote thats after a fair trial in court or a courts martial.
which is as it should be.

whats got people riled up is that now it can be and has been done with NO TRIAL and NO COURTS MARTIAL just because the president felt like someone should die that day.

Everyone has right to a fair trial and recourse under the law. But the laws have now been subverted and rewritten taking that away.

reply to post by Expat888


Actually its not. The very last part of the law states

if and when

US citizenship does not protect and individual from the use of deadly force, whether in domestic law or military actions.

If the target citizens then they will lose the war simply because american citizens will not have it. They are not like people in other countries who run scared and scream their lungs out, most Americans own guns and they will fight until the last person standing if it means surviving.

Originally posted by demonologist842012
If the target citizens then they will lose the war simply because american citizens will not have it. They are not like people in other countries who run scared and scream their lungs out, most Americans own guns and they will fight until the last person standing if it means surviving.

There was a time when I wouldn't have doubted that. I would have believed that a large % would do something meaningful to resist if it came to that. That was well over 10 years ago when the real downward spiral began though. Things already have gotten bad enough in other areas though. This is just the latest outrage, not an entirely new direction they're taking.

Unfortunately, as one radio host I listened to pointed out.... Americans can't even be bothered to get out once every 4 years and spend a bit of time to vote for the most powerful elected office in the world. The idea that Americans will actually resist or demand change in a meaningful way before it's already beyond the point of no return and too far gone to argue with even the most dense person around is wishful thinking, IMHO.

We'd already have seen it... At least OWS is active. Whatever else I think, they deserve credit for that.The Tea Party, isn't even visible or doing anything to remind people they exist outside of the immediate run-up to election time. Worthless....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So the government gets to decide who is the enemy....let's take a look at a FBI flyer from a few years back and get an idea of what kind of domestic terrorists the military will begin cracking down on:

- "Defenders of US constitution against federal government and the UN"
- "Groups of individuals engaged in para-military training" (AKA militias)
- People who "make numerous refrences to the US constitution"

Welcome to America.

Im at a loss. Now it appears I cannot promote my distaste for the government, for fear id unwittingly be declaring war.. I mean.. Seriously? This has gotta be a joke.. Well.. Good bye 1st amendment, and all there after.. What year is this? Is this still america?

reply to post by Myendica


What you're describing does not happen to be the case. I've learned that there is a pattern to some forums on ATS. Take a small piece of news, reinterpret it, and declare that it marks the end of civilization. The majority of posters then become extremely agitated, start thinking about heading for the country with weapons and supplies. After a while they return to discuss the next little piece of news that's been reinterpreted.

Pick any dramatic crisis on ATS supposedly resulting in the death of the United States or the slavery of all its citizens and follow it back to the first misinterpreted piece of news.

You may now, and will continue to be able to criticize the government. You may not declare war on the United States and take warlike actions against it. Read the article, not just the OP.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Because, their bills aren't legal. Nothing but common law, basic virtues is legal. All their roman law, corporate law, fascism, and things ARE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, TREASON, FRAUD, SLAVERY AND ILLEGAL.

The only single law of real consequence, in fact the "true" "natural" law in its entirety, is that the man with the biggest stick makes the rules. If he choose to make up a collection of sub-rules that bind him until he chooses otherwise, that's entirely up to him.

Don't like it? Be the person with the bigger stick. Until then, his ability to stomp you into the ground gives him every right in the world to make you do as he says. That is the only "natural" law. After all, isn't that exactly what the "founding fathers" did when they were unhappy with England? Isn't an important part of the constitution built around making sure "the people" have a stick as big or bigger than "the government"?

Any person who talks about common law versus roman law, corporate law etc is naive and/or cherrypicking whatever suits them. Common law is simply the law not yet contradicted by the man with the biggest stick. Don't like it? See above for the solution.