NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans

reply to post by Xcathdra


well i hope your supreame court realizes that that particular part of the NDAA is also in breach of many international law conventions including one that america is signatory to.

to attack a civil society with a military is a war crime, without the decleration of war,

the whole world is not your enemy our countries are alied,
we dont accept the designation battle field
it is against internetional law

COULD the UN operate on us soil?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Then I would refer you to the US Supreme court decision in the Head Money case and suggest you work your way forward through US case law from there to present for your answer on International treaties and how they fit into the body of Us Domestic Law.

reply to post by Xcathdra


i am not suggesting that internal understanding is required from my point of view,
i would propose that i should read up as you have suggested,
BUT i dont insinuate that internation coventions or treaties supercied your founding documents,

my point was to draw your attension to how this is seen in the rest of the world looking into america.
the point i try to make is not that the UN should,
it is to show how you would feel if you were in the position of the rest of the world,

no indefinate detention for americans, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLES OF OTHER COUNTRIES?

internally you may have president and legislation to carry out your own affairs,
which is non of my bussiness.

but to extend provitions of designations world wide is a little bit toxic for our opinion of you.
you and all americans are OUR brothers and sisters, we write no laws to force your aceptence,
as you have a civil society.

respect the world

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
i am not suggesting that internal understanding is required from my point of view,
i would propose that i should read up as you have suggested,
BUT i dont insinuate that internation coventions or treaties supercied your founding documents,

The manner in which the Constitution treated treaties the mindset at the time was international treaties did supercede US Domestic Law, including the Constitution itself. The Head Money case took that issue head on and resolved the issue. Treaties / agreements the Us is a signatory to are binding to the extent of being made a part of the US Federal Body of Law, making them valid but subordinate to the US Constitution. Understanding that application is key when discussing our signatory obligations in certain areas. The Us is not the only country who legal system has ruled in that manner, as the UK has done as well.

Originally posted by XPLodER
my point was to draw your attension to how this is seen in the rest of the world looking into america.
the point i try to make is not that the UN should,
it is to show how you would feel if you were in the position of the rest of the world,

How the rest of the world views our internal issues is not really my concern. Reason being is foreigners will have their own agenda / views / requirements / expectations when viewing the US. Its not reasonable to accept the interests of foreigners over those of US citizens.

To settle another point brought up in a different thread. The US has complied with all NPT / IAEA as well as UN inspection of those facilities requirements. Our DoE and Nuclear Regulatory Agency factor in international guidelines into the safety and security of our civilian nuclear program and we disclose all locations that are a part of that program.

Originally posted by XPLodER
no indefinate detention for americans, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLES OF OTHER COUNTRIES?

Good question... How about we apply that standard to the entire globe? Or are we just singaling out the US? If you read up on the geneva Conventions / accords / all other treaties you will find that people can be detained until they are charged with a crime, repatriated in a prisoner exchange or until such time hostilities between the belligerents end. Last I checked we are still at war with Al Queida and the Taliban, making any person captured who is affiliated with those groups subject to detention until one of the terms above is met.

By the way the Taliban still has a US soldier in their custody, using him in propoganda videos, which I notice is never brought up for whatever reason. The case law I referenced before deals specifically with US citizens and how they are to be treated, which is to say the Supreme Court, time and again, has ruled that they cannot be held indefinitely without charges, cannot be denied access to the legal system, and has a right to be notified of charges and any and all evidence against them, along with access to the legal system, up to and including the US Supreme Court, for challenges.

As far as foreigners go the Supreme Court has ruled on that issue as well, applying soe, but not all, rights under the constitution to them while in military custody and only when captured during military hostilities. A foreign national who is captured inside the US whois engaged with terrorism (active participation or passive support) can be subject to either Federal Domestic or Military Law. The NDAA allows foreign nationls to be tried uner the military system, and rightfully so when the US is engaged in hostilities. I will add that was and has been the standard since WWII when the FBI arrested Nazi spies captured on US territory who were then turned over to the military for ajudication.

Originally posted by XPLodER
internally you may have president and legislation to carry out your own affairs,
which is non of my bussiness.

As the peoples representatives sure I agree.

Originally posted by XPLodER
but to extend provitions of designations world wide is a little bit toxic for our opinion of you.
you and all americans are OUR brothers and sisters, we write no laws to force your aceptence,
as you have a civil society.

Not really when the law itself complies with International laws dealing with warfare. It also addresses one major concern raised by people who constantly invoke the Geneva convention argument. It clearly establishes a system, and who is subject to that system, while engaged in actions against the United States.

Under UN Charter - Chapter VII Article 52 the United states and any other nation has a right to defend itself from acts of agression. As I stated before, and the US has been very clear on, we will not wait until we are attacked again before responding. We will take the threat seriously, and deal with it in a manner that protects the citizens of theUnited States of America.

If the UN or toher nations doesn't care for that response then they can deal with it in the manner that they think is best, as is there right. The days of being forced to be shot before we are able to respond is over with.

Originally posted by XPLodER
respect the world

xploder

Respect, as people constnalty point out the the United states, is earned and not just given. Its also a 2 way road, something people should start getting used to.

How the rest of the world views our internal issues is not really my concern. Reason being is foreigners will have their own agenda / views / requirements / expectations when viewing the US. Its not reasonable to accept the interests of foreigners over those of US citizens.

as a signatory to the war crimes convention surly the outside opinion holds sway?
after all any signatory can ask for investigations as this was the intentional design of the agreement,

To settle another point brought up in a different thread. The US has complied with all NPT / IAEA as well as UN inspection of those facilities requirements. Our DoE and Nuclear Regulatory Agency factor in international guidelines into the safety and security of our civilian nuclear program and we disclose all locations that are a part of that program.

the second point is out of bounds in the context of this discussion, another time on that one

By the way the Taliban still has a US soldier in their custody, using him in propoganda videos, which I notice is never brought up for whatever reason. The case law I referenced before deals specifically with US citizens and how they are to be treated, which is to say the Supreme Court, time and again, has ruled that they cannot be held indefinitely without charges, cannot be denied access to the legal system, and has a right to be notified of charges and any and all evidence against them, along with access to the legal system, up to and including the US Supreme Court, for challenges.

my heart goes out to your country men and their families
disagree with indefinate detension and or torture and or human rights violations of any kind from anyone,
i pray the us soilder is released unharmed in short order.
that said what is you opinion on bradly manning? is he getting jurisprudence?
how about an open timely trial without torture?
i do understand the nat sec policy but, consider this,
to expose a war crime and then be sentenced to death as a war criminal makes no sence, where is the justice?
i will not comment on the tribunerals precedings other than to ask how COULD this be considered a fair trail?

As far as foreigners go the Supreme Court has ruled on that issue as well, applying soe, but not all, rights under the constitution to them while in military custody and only when captured during military hostilities. A foreign national who is captured inside the US whois engaged with terrorism (active participation or passive support) can be subject to either Federal Domestic or Military Law. The NDAA allows foreign nationls to be tried uner the military system, and rightfully so when the US is engaged in hostilities. I will add that was and has been the standard since WWII when the FBI arrested Nazi spies captured on US territory who were then turned over to the military for ajudication.

americns in my country are afforeded all and every personage and privilage that even our own citizens have outside of health care and some public transport admendments,

our govenment does not treat your country men as suspects but as humans with rights granted by our queen as long as you are on our soil. our justice system is civil in nature and the seperation of criminal and milatary tribuneral is clear.

the ambigious nature of your legislation and determinations of what constitutes a non material supporter of a terrorist could include a green piece supporter, and bear in mind this is NZ and we have alot of greenies here

Not really when the law itself complies with International laws dealing with warfare. It also addresses one major concern raised by people who constantly invoke the Geneva convention argument. It clearly establishes a system, and who is subject to that system, while engaged in actions against the United States.

have you read the list of what considers you a suspected non material terrorist supporter?

Under UN Charter - Chapter VII Article 52 the United states and any other nation has a right to defend itself from acts of agression. As I stated before, and the US has been very clear on, we will not wait until we are attacked again before responding. We will take the threat serio

as is your right to self defence, as is our right to self defence,
PLEASE DEFINE,
what situations an agressive preemtive attack can be launched,
who can be designated a target and how many colateral deaths are allowed within guidlines?
can internet activists now be targeted with drone strikes?

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
as a signatory to the war crimes convention surly the outside opinion holds sway?
after all any signatory can ask for investigations as this was the intentional design of the agreement,

The United States is not a signatory to either of the ICC Protocols and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of that court. If push comes to shove though the legal term they have created, call universal jurisdiction, can be used in the other direction to validate US actions outside of our borders.

Originally posted by XPLodER
the second point is out of bounds in the context of this discussion, another time on that one

I noted it because people have a tendency to bring one issue up for one country and a secondary issue up as a comparison.

Originally posted by XPLodER
my heart goes out to your country men and their families
disagree with indefinate detension and or torture and or human rights violations of any kind from anyone,
i pray the us soilder is released unharmed in short order.

That makes 2 of us. However your response did not really come in on point. Why is the US being targeted on this when the ]exact same issue is occuring on the other side? Its ok for non US forces to hold a foreign citizen indefinitely, but when it comes to the US there is what, some special law that applies? I refer people to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The 1st and secnd gulf war - Any time entitied are engaged in hostile actions those people can be detained, indefinitely, until the 3 criteria set forth by the UN are met.

I make the argument that the NDAA solidifies International law in that regard and applies it to the US Body of Federal law. Going back to how foreign treaties are set up undser US domestic law.

Originally posted by XPLodER
that said what is you opinion on bradly manning? is he getting jurisprudence?

Had Manning stayed with the illegal activity he would not be having the issues he is. The moment he accessed classified information from various agencies, circumvented the military system in place to prevent classified info from going through the E-Mail system, and given to an individual who has a personal agenda towards the US, he was no longer covered under Federal Whistel Blower Statutes. In fact he moved from losing that coverage into the espionage realm in violation of the UCMJ.

His treatment to date, and has been confirmed by his first lawyer, was Manning is being treated in the same manner any other individual in custody was. When he made comments against his self interest, he was placed under suicide watch, in compliance with the laws that govern that area for the military. I am very familiar with State law on comments against self interest. There is no leaway on whether the person is being serious or joking, its taken as serious until a Psychiatrists states otherwise.

His treatemtn and process through the Military Justice System is valid and meets all required criteria.

Originally posted by XPLodER
how about an open timely trial without torture?

Military Judicial system is not the exact same as the US Domestic System. The Constitutional safegaurds are still present but in a different form. When an individual goes to join, it is explained, in detail, about the restrictions they are voluntarily accepting on their rights.

At no point has Manning been tortured.

Originally posted by XPLodER
i do understand the nat sec policy but, consider this,
to expose a war crime and then be sentenced to death as a war criminal makes no sence, where is the justice?
i will not comment on the tribunerals precedings other than to ask how COULD this be considered a fair trail?

If you did not notice he is not being charged for releasing the information showing the crime. He is being charged for illegally accessing classified information, from various sources in and out of the military (State Department) and then turning that classified information over to people who had no authoritzation to be in possession of or to distribute it.

His prosecution had nothing to do with the release of the footage showing criminal activities. Something people need to understand. As far as fair trial goes im not sure what your complaint is. As I stated Military Justice System is not the same as Domestic. They go through an initial investigation to determine if any laws are broke. Then they move to an article 32 to determine if there is enough info / evidence to sustain the charges, then it goes to a court martial. The last part is where we are at now.

Originally posted by XPLodER
americns in my country are afforeded all and every personage and privilage that even our own citizens have outside of health care and some public transport admendments,

Which is nice and I respect that but we are dealing with US Domestic Law, which takes into account domestic US issues. If your country up and changes its requirements and the US threw a fit, people would be telling us to sit down and shut up, its none of our business and to stop interfering in other countries affairs.

again, is that a one way road applied only to the US? Why should we take into account the feelings of other countries when it comes to our own internal domestic issues? A foreign national arrested in the US for drunk driving is not under the purview of the military, or even federal law, except for the requirement that we notify their embassy that we are holding / charging one of their citizens.

Originally posted by XPLodER
our govenment does not treat your country men as suspects but as humans with rights granted by our queen as long as you are on our soil. our justice system is civil in nature and the seperation of criminal and milatary tribuneral is clear.

Our judicial system is clear as well and is clearly defined as to who goes where and for what, taking into account citizenship.

Originally posted by XPLodER
the ambigious nature of your legislation and determinations of what constitutes a non material supporter of a terrorist could include a green piece supporter, and bear in mind this is NZ and we have alot of greenies here

Its not ambuigous in the least. It clearly spells out who goes where. This goes back to my comment about case law and how its applied.

Originally posted by XPLodER
have you read the list of what considers you a suspected non material terrorist supporter?

I have.. I see no issues with it. What specifically is your concern?

Originally posted by XPLodER
as is your right to self defence, as is our right to self defence,
PLEASE DEFINE,
what situations an agressive preemtive attack can be launched,
who can be designated a target and how many colateral deaths are allowed within guidlines?
can internet activists now be targeted with done strikes?

xploder

Any individual who is conspiring to launch / assist in the attack on US citizens / military installations / civilian installations (Embassies) are fair game. If you wish to conspire to harm us, we will do our best to get to you first. If that means a trial or a drone strike so be it.

As far as your veiled reference to Alawaki - If people would read Federal Immigrantion and Naturalization laws they would find the section that specifically deals with a US citizens actions against its own country and under what actions automatically disqualify that individual as a US citizen. Our Courts have held a natural citizen cannot be stripped of their citizenship by the government, however their own actions against the US is taken as the individual voluntarily giving up his citizenship and has been upheld by the courts.

Secondly Alawaki was a dual citizen. He holds Yemeni citizenship as well, and domestic courts upheld the military action by refusing to issue an order to stop when his father filed a lawsuit. Al Awake had access to the legal system, and he chose to ignore it. He made his own bed, and sadly that of his son when he dragged him around with him while plotting terror attacks against US interest and people.

Internet activists, protestors, media are not covered under the law, unless there action falls specifically within actively supporting or engaging in actions that are terrorist related. Trying to muddy the water when the law itself is specific by using the term activists etc is nothing but a fear monger stance from an individual who has not read or does not understand the law itself or the other laws that further define established by the courts.

Before accusing the Us government of engaging in illegal activity would it not be prudent to understand all of the issues involved?

the us is not a sig well i aploigise

I noted it because people have a tendency to bring one issue up for one country and a secondary issue up as a comparison.

fair call i am guilty of this from time to time

That makes 2 of us. However your response did not really come in on point. Why is the US being targeted on this when the ]exact same issue is occuring on the other side? Its ok for non US forces to hold a foreign citizen indefinitely, but when it comes to the US there is what, some special law that applies? I refer people to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The 1st and secnd gulf war - Any time entitied are engaged in hostile actions those people can be detained, indefinitely, until the 3 criteria set forth by the UN are met.

so this would mean no indefinate detention unless during war time? a delcleared war?

I make the argument that the NDAA solidifies International law in that regard and applies it to the US Body of Federal law. Going back to how foreign treaties are set up undser US domestic law.

look i have no problems with providing for the national defence of your nation,
and i see your point on how the law applies in reguard to domestic law,
but what about international law? geneva convention, we as sigs of the human rights convention,
do these factor into the equation?

His treatment to date, and has been confirmed by his first lawyer, was Manning is being treated in the same manner any other individual in custody was. When he made comments against his self interest, he was placed under suicide watch, in compliance with the laws that govern that area for the military. I am very familiar with State law on comments against self interest. There is no leaway on whether the person is being serious or joking, its taken as serious until a Psychiatrists states otherwise.

His treatemtn and process through the Military Justice System is valid and meets all required criteria.

ok so procedural milatary justice is strick and followed to the letter,
does that take into account some of the political structure judging the man in the media, and if the comander in cheif of the milatary makes a statement on the case in the media how can the milatary not find guilty?
as he would be their superior,
is there an active investigation into the alegation of calateral murder video as released by wikileaks?
although he blatently broke with his responcabilaties which without doubt is a crime,
would the context of the material ie war crimes not be considered emotional?

His prosecution had nothing to do with the release of the footage showing criminal activities. Something people need to understand. As far as fair trial goes im not sure what your complaint is. As I stated Military Justice System is not the same as Domestic. They go through an initial investigation to determine if any laws are broke. Then they move to an article 32 to determine if there is enough info / evidence to sustain the charges, then it goes to a court martial. The last part is where we are at now.

i think i understand what you have said, and in the context i will trust the system of justice finds justice for the crimes commited, if prooven before the court, but that said how would we know if all or most the trial is classifyed?

and on the flip side is there an on going investigation into the helicopter attack video?
from the persepective of war crimes?
and i do understand that it is not all the milatary at fault,


xploder

reply to post by Xcathdra

Any individual who is conspiring to launch / assist in the attack on US citizens / military installations / civilian installations (Embassies) are fair game. If you wish to conspire to harm us, we will do our best to get to you first. If that means a trial or a drone strike so be it.

as is your right in a milatary sence, but what about an annoying journalist?
a protestor? would you harm these people? a future politician?

As far as your veiled reference to Alawaki - If people would read Federal Immigrantion and Naturalization laws they would find the section that specifically deals with a US citizens actions against its own country and under what actions automatically disqualify that individual as a US citizen. Our Courts have held a natural citizen cannot be stripped of their citizenship by the government, however their own actions against the US is taken as the individual voluntarily giving up his citizenship and has been upheld by the courts.

i dont condone of the actions or situations involved with this particular case,
but what did the guy do (i dont expect an answer)
how would we know that this is not a war crime other than the say so of a press release,
i realise there is no answer but a closed court can be seen as biased,
i have no doubt in this case he was a bad guy and deserving of justice but how can we see it being done in this case?

Secondly Alawaki was a dual citizen. He holds Yemeni citizenship as well, and domestic courts upheld the military action by refusing to issue an order to stop when his father filed a lawsuit. Al Awake had access to the legal system, and he chose to ignore it. He made his own bed, and sadly that of his son when he dragged him around with him while plotting terror attacks against US interest and people.

i am a little concerend,
anyone plotting harm should be taken into custody if at all possable as soon as possable.
using your own son as a shield would be a pretty low thing to do,

Internet activists, protestors, media are not covered under the law, unless there action falls specifically within actively supporting or engaging in actions that are terrorist related. Trying to muddy the water when the law itself is specific by using the term activists etc is nothing but a fear monger stance from an individual who has not read or does not understand the law itself or the other laws that further define established by the courts.

acually the only war crime i refer to was the heli in iraq with the reporter "wiki release"
weather al whats his name was a ligitamite target i guess ill never know

Before accusing the Us government of engaging in illegal activity would it not be prudent to understand all of the issues involved?

i am trying my best to understand your law and position on these matters,

and i thank you for answering most of my questions




xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
the us is not a sig well i aploigise

No worries...

Originally posted by XPLodER
so this would mean no indefinate detention unless during war time? a delcleared war?

Another common misconception. The US Congress is not required to use the term "war" in order for something to be a war. For Afghanistan as well as Iraq, both military actions were authorised by Congress under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMA). Indefinite detentions during war time is authorised under International law as I stated before.

Originally posted by XPLodER
look i have no problems with providing for the national defence of your nation,
and i see your point on how the law applies in reguard to domestic law,
but what about international law? geneva convention, we as sigs of the human rights convention,
do these factor into the equation?

They do, and I explained how that worked when I suggested a quick read on the Head Money case and how that decision applied international treaties to be part of the US body of federal law. Because of that, international treaties can be modified / reviewed by Congress, The US judicial system, and can be challeneged by US citizens who are affected by them. Part of the Geneneva convention protocols are written into the UCMJ.

Those same protocols though allow for the detention of individuals engaged in hostilities with the US. If people bothered to read the conventions and protocols, they would also notice that it is forbidden to attack civilian targets intentionally. It is forbidden to engage an enemy force by purposely placing non combatents / civilians in harms way in order to drive up a civilian body count.

The conventions also allow for reprisals of equality when one side or the other purposely violates the protocols.

Yet for some reason those sections are ignored.... why?


In this regard International Law can affect my country as much as international law would affect yours if the Monarchy form of government were all of a sudden outlawed by UN Resolution. Article 52 specifically states nothing in the UN Charter can prohibit a nation from defending itself.

The UN is NOT a governing body nor is it a legislative body, nor is it a world government. People seem to forget those facts whenever they do or say something.

Originally posted by XPLodER
ok so procedural milatary justice is strick and followed to the letter,
does that take into account some of the political structure judging the man in the media, and if the comander in cheif of the milatary makes a statement on the case in the media how can the milatary not find guilty?
as he would be their superior,

Comments from the Commander in Chief (President) can be used by the defense if a course of action is suggested and the defense succesfully argues those comments prejudiced the proceedings. The legal term for the military is called undue command influence. Aside from that the US has a free media, and they can report on those issues as they see fit. IF the media is being fed information from one side or the other in an attempt to prejudice proceedings, a judge can issue a gag order that forbids either side from discussing the case in any manner to the media.

Originally posted by XPLodER
is there an active investigation into the alegation of calateral murder video as released by wikileaks?
although he blatently broke with his responcabilaties which without doubt is a crime,
would the context of the material ie war crimes not be considered emotional?

Last I saw an investigation was conducted and the military persons invovled were cleared of any criminal wrong doing (Collateral Murder - Wiki). Reason being is a term called war. The group of people attacked were armed, and the media invovled were with the group and were targeted as insurgents, not media.

Originally posted by XPLodER
i think i understand what you have said, and in the context i will trust the system of justice finds justice for the crimes commited, if prooven before the court, but that said how would we know if all or most the trial is classifyed?

If he is found guilty, the verdict will be released. If there is an appeal the media will follow it. If there are sections that deal specifically with classified information there are options to clear the courtroom of everyone but those directly involved and the members (jury). Once the classified portion is done, it can be reopened ot the public. Its no different in the civilian sector when proceedings deal with trade secrets etc...

Originally posted by XPLodER
and on the flip side is there an on going investigation into the helicopter attack video?
from the persepective of war crimes?
and i do understand that it is not all the milatary at fault,

From what I ahve seen a investigation was done when it occured as well as a follow up when the info was leaked. As far as I have seen the people invovled were cleared because members in the group that were attacked were armed. War is not easy nor prcise, no matter how hard we try. What occured is no different than the media persons who were killed when they decided to go out on a balcony directly below an enemy location. A US tank took out the enemy position, and as a result, the media present just below were killed as well.

We dont get to call a time out in comabt to ensure targets. You identify as best as you can and go from there. Mistakes will be made.. It may sound callous but I dont know how else to explain it. Its war.

Originally posted by XPLodER
as is your right in a milatary sence, but what about an annoying journalist?
a protestor? would you harm these people? a future politician?

Of course not... even when dealing with potential terrorists the goal is to take the person alive. That is weighed agains the situation and the specifics. In case people are not understanding, the protest coverage on TV has absolutely nothing to do with the FEderal Government / Federal Agencies. Even though the protests revolved around Federal oversight and lack there of for financial sectors, the responsibility to police those protestors was and still is the responsibility of local and state police. During the protests people were not being arrested for protesting, contrary to the way people like to spin it. They were arrested for a multitude of reason, including destruction ofpublic and private property, blocking the flow of traffic into and out of public areas, refusing to leave private property they were illegally occupying etc etc etc.

Protesting is designed to allow people to congregate in large groups in concenterated areas to show support and solidarity for a common cause / purpose. It is NOT protesting when the above items I mentioned occur. With that being said protests, by their very nature, is a way for people to vent frustration, which is why some things are over looked (where if it were just one person it wouldnt be overlooked) and other actions are quickly nipped in the bud, where if it was one person it might be ignored or dealt with as a warning / ass chewing with no charges).

The bulk of people arrested faced charges (in a generic term) of disorderly conduct.

As far as harming people goes that is not the intent. The goal is to allow them to do their thing while at the same time trying to protect their rights to protest and protect the rightts of those people who are not protesting. A persons position is not an overriding factor to be honest. Politicians, when it comes to civil disobedience, are not immune from arrest or charges at that level of a crime. Immunity varies from state to state and generally speaking the laws are specific. The intent is to protect law makers from spending their entire time in court because people dont like them. It is not to make them immune for personal gain, and state as well as federal legislatures can revoke that immunity at any time.

Originally posted by XPLodER
i dont condone of the actions or situations involved with this particular case,
but what did the guy do (i dont expect an answer)
how would we know that this is not a war crime other than the say so of a press release,
i realise there is no answer but a closed court can be seen as biased,
i have no doubt in this case he was a bad guy and deserving of justice but how can we see it being done in this case?

The domestic legal system was used first, and arrest warrants were issued for him. We have no extradition treaty with Yemen for starters and he holds dual citizenship. Eventually the warrants were canceled and the situation fell to the military. The argument people are making in that area, honestly, make no sense to me. As a law enforcement officer, if a US citizen / non US citizen points a gun at me, I dont have to wait for them to shoot me before taking action. If I shoot and kill the person, Its still logged as a homicide - justifed. Its a seizure under the 4th amendment and is reviewed accordingly. It would not be any different than a swat team sniper taking a kill shot in order to stop an individual who is refusing to comply with police commands to stop their action (while engaged in acitvities that pose an immediate and serious threat to the public at large).

In this case, considering what Alwaki was involved in, fell under the purview of the military, not law enforcement.
Anwar Al Awlaki - wiki

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Then I would refer you to the US Supreme court decision in the Head Money case and suggest you work your way forward through US case law from there to present for your answer on International treaties and how they fit into the body of Us Domestic Law.

Hi X,
I really appreciate the linearity of a subject.
I am fasinated by history and origins.
It's all there, you must just sort it out for yourself.
And of course try to get some sort of consences for your ideas.
That being said could you grasp the idea that population alone is the driving element in this whole mess??
If you care to reply I will try to verify my reasoning.
the best ljb

reply to post by Xcathdra

The posts btw are my own positions and not that of any group etc etc etc. I know you know that, but I wanted to restate it for those who might be following / skimming along. Ask 10 more Americans the same quesiotns and you will get 20 more positions.


anyways... again thanks for asking and engaging in debate and conversation. If you dont mind me asking which country are you from? I know there is more than just the UK with a monarchy?

i reconfirm these positions qestions and answers reflect personal con ceptions (and missconceptions) by me personally and i dont speak for any group ect ect,

acually the queen of the uk is also our queen i am a new zealand citizen,
god bless the queen

i realise that most americans would be against a monarcy but we have a very pieceful stable country and a very high standard of law with a rich and complex history stemming directly from the UK.
the queen cares for us much as a mother would her childeren,
not in the classical tyrant way many view historical monachs

although i really do like the democractic republic model of the united states
xploder

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Then I would refer you to the US Supreme court decision in the Head Money case and suggest you work your way forward through US case law from there to present for your answer on International treaties and how they fit into the body of Us Domestic Law.

Hi X,
I really appreciate the linearity of a subject.
I am fasinated by history and origins.
It's all there, you must just sort it out for yourself.
And of course try to get some sort of consences for your ideas.
That being said could you grasp the idea that population alone is the driving element in this whole mess??
If you care to reply I will try to verify my reasoning.
the best ljb

please explain your thoughts as this may help with the complexities of your domestic law,
that are harder to fathom
i would be interested
xploder

reply to post by Xcathdra

The NDAA] provisions create a greater sense of fear since now the federal government will have a tool with which to incarcerate me outside of the normal requirements of the criminal law. Because of this change in the legal situation, I am now no longer able to travel to the US for fear of being taken into custody as as having ‘substantially supported’ groups that are considered as either terrorist groups or their associates.

Bolen and Ellsberg did not testify on Thursday, but Hedges, O’Brien and Wargalla each appeared in person to testify. Harris reported that Hedges said he ”feared he might be subject to arrest under the terms of NDAA if interviewing or meeting Islamic radicals could constitute giving them ‘substantial support’ under the terms of the law.” O’Brien described in detail how a private intelligence firm was trying to link US Day of Rage to “Islamic fundamentalists.” And, Wargalla testified on how the City of London had listed Occupy London alongside al Qaeda and extremist groups from Belarus and Colombia.

link to source

so if occupy london is concidered or listed as a terror group,
does that mean ALL occupiers are ALSO considered the same?
and as a journalist supporter of the aims and philosophy and the non violent actions of occupy,
am i py showing my alegence materially supporting a terrorist group,

and how would the average citizen know if this is the case,

it would look to me that the city of london has label occupy london a terrorist group
does this mean to provide food or donations to this group is now "support" or material support, for a terror group that then allows indefinate detention?

is any group that the finacial elite doesnt like a terrorist group?
is any group exposing govenment corruption able to be labeled as a terrorist?

this has the effect of silencing political and econmic free speach for fear of being labeled as a terrorist,
protest orginizers could be considered terrorists if they use the name occupy?

it would seem like anyone speaking outunder first amedment protections could simply be labeled as a terrorist and have their first amedment rights removed.

these are valid concerns ?

xploder

You know what they say — Ignorance of the Secret Law is No Excuse.

and ignorence of seceret interpretations of secret laws is not excuse either,

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Then I would refer you to the US Supreme court decision in the Head Money case and suggest you work your way forward through US case law from there to present for your answer on International treaties and how they fit into the body of Us Domestic Law.

Hi X,
I really appreciate the linearity of a subject.
I am fasinated by history and origins.
It's all there, you must just sort it out for yourself.
And of course try to get some sort of consences for your ideas.
That being said could you grasp the idea that population alone is the driving element in this whole mess??If you care to reply I will try to verify my reasoning.
the best ljb

please explain your thoughts as this may help with the complexities of your domestic law,
that are harder to fathom

i would be interested

xploder

Hi X
Thanks for the opportunity.

Most any law that, everyone complies to is usually changed.
A tighting of the belt so to speak.
Never helpful for the individual but another nudge towards power and control of said individuals.(citizens) (tribal member) perhaps family, originally.

So in that manner you need to start from one ( first law ever) and work your way forword. Or back from the laws that can be most modern and complexing.

Yeah I know the guy's nuts.

So, unless I am misstaken, I think you state that you are somewhat complexed by US law???? And why wouldn't anyone be.

Let me give an example and if you understand, I will try to link you backwards so that you may see how law may just be a bi product of population expansion.

We citizens have guns in the US. Canadian citizens used to own guns also. (might have something to do with the Crown) not population.
Austrailia, Kiwis too??

My point to this, is that in Malaysia, if you own a bullet it is a capital offence punishable by DEATH.

Don't get me wrong and think I am trying to trivialize what you are trying to accomplish. I think what I am trying to say is that population drives it all not just law. And using that model it could help understand how current law, no matter what law, has arrived on your doorstep or on the steps of my home here in the ole USA.
the best ljb
Crap that's more like a rant.
cheers

Originally posted by XPLodER
although i really do like the democractic republic model of the united states

xploder

Winston churchill said it best...

Democracy is the worst form of government, except when compared to all others. The American political model is a dangerous one to export. I believe that had our revolution occured later than it did, we would have a very different style of government than the one we have today. The potential for abuse is extreme, even more so when you make 3 branches of government equal with thier own check sand balances.

However, I wouldnt trade it in for all the money in the world.

As far as the US, her citizens, and how we view the Queen, I think you might be surprised. We have always enjoyed it when Her Royal Majesty comes for a visit. The relationship between the US and UK is special and I think we took that for granted. Luckily the Queen had presence of mind to remind us why its special -



I think this also sums it up nicely -
To Britain with Love

Now, moving on from the patriotic chatter and back to the topic

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
That being said could you grasp the idea that population alone is the driving element in this whole mess??
If you care to reply I will try to verify my reasoning.
the best ljb

I think certain segments of the popularion are the catalyst, and by that I mean the people who are hell bent on death and destruction. Terrorism has always been present, even before the US was a country, which is proven by the terrorist attack launched in Boston that dealt with Tea.

I think governments are unsure of how to deal with entities who have no concern for targeting. They dont discriminate when it comes to people killed... Adult, child, man, woman, military, police, etc... Not one segment is targeted, which begs the question how does one defend against that?

How does one classifiy a group / entity of people whose actions don't readily fall under domestic law because of chosen tactics? The Government is charged with protecting the people, and we have arrived at a cross roads, That crossroads is esentially what Ben Franklin talked about - giving up freedoms for temporary security.

The Government is going to have wild knee jerk reactions. The goal is to take those knee jerk reactions and tone them down into something that works to an extent because rights were taken into account.

The Government, and the people, are going to have to come to the realization that living in a free society is not easy, its not cheap and its not safe. Everytime we allow a reduction in rights, the other side wins a battle without ever firing a shot.

My argument regarding Posse Commitatus is 2 fold, and people seemed to have missed both points. That law was in response to the people demanding the Federal Government remove themseleves from the every day events of the people. They wanted local authority restored and they got it.

Whats important in that comparison is -
A. There is no law / nothing in the Constitution that prevents Federal military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions at the time.
B. Congress was under no olbigations to craft a law that prevented the use of military in civilian law enforcement because of the manner the war occured and how southern states were readmitted to the Union.

Congress could have just as easily requested the President just withdraw troops from the affected areas.

In that instance, the military was used because of the public, and the military was withdrawn because of the public. A balance was found, eventually.

What we have going on now is more severe but the same. How does the government protect the people from individuals who act in a manner that ignores the rules of war (dont get me started that we even have rules for war)?

We have confirmed cases where US Citizens have engaged in activities against the people of the United States. Local and State laws are not adequate enough to be used against people who ignore all the rules to warfare. When you have people strapping homicide bombs to themselves and heading to the mall, how do you classify that? How to you counter that mindset with laws that prevent us from essentially shooting first and asking quesitons later?

I understand why they want the military involved. People in the US engaging in terrorism stand a good chance of being connected to entities outside the US, where US domestic law is not applicable. That leaves the military and rightfully so.

As far as the NDAA and Americans, there are safeguards in place by way of Supreme Court rulings. Its already being challeneged by 7 or 8 people if I remeber right. Just the fact we have people pissed about the law and are challenging it in court serves as an example our system is still working.

I will make this post seperate because the quesitons / confusion comes up a lot about US Domestic law.

The United states is one country made up of 50 soveriegn states, territories and commonwealths.
The Federal government and a State government are seperate sovereigns. The constitution spells out what the Federal government is responsible for and anyhting not specifically stated is reserved to the states.

In general there are various overlapping levels of government. From lowest to highest -
* - Municipality (city - Law Enforcement is able to enforce city ordinances and state law).
* - Townships (not all states use this - the County is subdivided into 10-20 smaller zones who have their own township government and in some places, police).
* - County (the largst form of government just behind the State. Sheriffs departments / townships can only enforce state laws. They cannot enforce local ordinances of a city).
* - State - Made up of counties, responsible for the day to day operations . long term planning of the state.

Then we bump up to Federal Level
* - Federal government - 3 branches, checks and balances, in short - responsible for promoting the well being of the Union, representing all citizens on the world stage as the United states of America, tasked with protecting US citizens / interests etc.

When it comes to relations between countries, like the US and the UK, its rese4ved to the Federal level. States are prohibited from engaging in foreign policy / signing treaties etc as its reserved to the FEderal government.

Now, with that being said, how is a city, township, county or state law applicable when the person its being applied against has conspirators in a foreign country? Domestic law is spotty when it comes to filing charges against individuals who are engaged against the United States but never set foot on US territory.

The laws we had in place were inadequate to deal with it. its one of the reasons the Patriot Act came about, which allows Federal / military intel sources to be shared with each other as qwll as the states. Prior to that it was pretty much illegal for agencies whose mandate is collecting intel outside of the US to share that info with agencies mandated towork in the US.

the CIA is not chartered to operate in offical functions within the US. Hence the reason for the FBI and NSA.

Currently the only laws we have that are applicable to the situation, whether its on US territory or foreign, is the military.

The question that needs to be asked is - Are terrorists engaged in a war with the United States?
If the answer is yes, aside from the US military, there is nothing else that falls within that box.

the military can be used overseas as well as within the US. People are goign to extremes in my opinion because they dont understand the laws or the setup. Posse Commitatus only applies to Federal Active military units. It does not and has not ever applied to State guard units, whcih is they they can be activated during times of national emergency / disasters etc.

The NDAA allows for the detnetion of people engaged in terrorism. The reason for that in my opinion was because it does allow for the indefinite detention of individuals who are captured while enagging in operations against the US. It allows the military to hold people until such time that -

1. The war ends and peoples are transfered back.
2. A prisoner exchange occurs
3. A person in cusotdy is charged with a crime and is prosecuted for it.

Make the law intentionally broad, like they did, to account for the fact that its going to be challeneged by US citizens / groups. If you pass a law that is specific and strict, and it goes to the courts, there is no wiggle room. Its either upheld or struck down. By making it overly broad it allows for the courts to interpret the law. The courts can say the law is valid however if a US citizen is arrested they must follow this criteria and we go from there.

Hope this helps some. If notlet me know andI will try it again and try to stream line it more.

reply to post by XPLodER


The NDAA is specific in terms of what it covers, which is terrorism. People seem to rush to the conclusion that protest groups can be labeled. The issue with that mindset is the fact we have milities in this country who advocate a change in government. We have Neo Nazi groups who want to see a new reich come about in the US. We have communist parties, socialist, facists etc...

What does it say when the government goes out of its way to respect and defend groups that are actively trying to bring it down / destroy / change it?

The government cannot pass a law that specifically punishes one group over another (domestic law). Any attempt to label protestors, or Storm Front, or the communist party as "enemies" will be thrown out of court before the ink is dry.

It would violate those entities 1st amendment rights.
It would violate the 2nd amendment since members of those groups own weapons independent of the affiliation.
It would run into 4th, 5th 6th, 8th, 9th etc...

People have a tendency to latch on to a specific law while ignoring the other elements that directly affect it.