US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[xebec 195]

I work with international human rights organizations and a bunch of international law attorneys. I assure you, there is lots of debate going on about this.

It's what lawyers do. Understood. Be that as it may, this is the specific matter of an American citizen, killed by the United States government in a manner that defies the clear requirements of the Treason clause that you, yourself, pointed to earlier. A thousand international lawyers obfuscating on this for a year won't change that simple truth. International law is applicable to the much more complex situation of the U.S. government killing foreign nationals in foreign nations, with no declaration of war.

Similarly, ready4ONE's point about "enemy combatant" status is a category applied to non U.S. citizens that we wish to kill in the absence of a declaration of war. Not applicable to American citizens, as they are covered by the constitution, which recognizes no such status. The available charge is treason, which, if you read the description above, is perfectly applicable and satisfactory for the situation. There is no constitutional provision for stripping citizens of their rights by applying coining a new term, like "enemy combatant" and applying it to said citizen.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That's why there are lawyers. They are much better at finding foundations of law and precedents than most laymen, no matter how passionate or eloquent about the subject. We came to work today to examine this issue. It's not an overnight task, but it is an important one.

It's what lawyers do. Understood. Be that as it may, this is the specific matter of an American citizen, killed by the United States government in a manner that defies the clear requirements of the Treason clause that you, yourself, pointed to earlier. A thousand international lawyers obfuscating on this for a year won't change that simple truth. International law is applicable to the much more complex situation of the U.S. government killing foreign nationals in foreign nations, with no declaration of war.

Similarly, ready4ONE's point about "enemy combatant" status is a category applied to non U.S. citizens that we wish to kill in the absence of a declaration of war. Not applicable to American citizens, as they are covered by the constitution, which recognizes no such status. The available charge is treason, which, if you read the description above, is perfectly applicable and satisfactory for the situation. There is no constitutional provision for stripping citizens of their rights by applying coining a new term, like "enemy combatant" and applying it to said citizen.

yeah AND I bet the eskimos figure a lot in your work...(NOT)

I know your focus and so does everyone else

Put the bottle down and back away,Alan. It's really not good for you.

[xebec 195]

No substance to add Why_Me....you out of gas? Just came by to laugh at a personal defamatory attack? I'm glad i outed the lightweights....

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

No substance to add Why_Me....you out of gas? Just came by to laugh at a personal defamatory attack? I'm glad i outed the lightweights....

Not much to debate here imo. As for my feelings on this...Alan pretty much said it all. One more dead terrorist is no skin off my back.

[scandal 951]

The constitutional basis for this is clear (and answers the question raised by Pooky):

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason

{A portion of Article 3, sections 2 and 3)

And:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..."

(Portion of the 6th Amendment)

No mystery here.

a. Welcome to our little forum here, xebec. Looks like you'll fit right in

b. I haven't read this entire thread, way too long

c. I have one question that perhaps you've got an opinion about. On 9/11, prior to Flight 93 being intentionally crashed in Shanksville PA by the hijacked passengers aboard, the US government scrambled fighters. An order to shoot down Flight 93 was issued though only after it had already crashed. The order I believe was issued by ####### Cheney since GWB was on Air Force One and out of contact at the time. By that point the three other planes had been crashed into the WTC buildings in NY and the Pentagon. It was clear that Flight 93 was heading for Washington, probably the Capitol building. It was also clear that innocent Americans were aboard and that the flight was a commercial plane over US soil. What do you think the constitutional cover was for Cheney's order to shoot down a commercial aircraft with US citizens aboard? Now I fully grant that the situation on 9/11 was vastly different than the strike which took out Awlaki in Yemen a few days ago. But there is a parallel when it comes to the questions of Due Process and constitutional protections of the USCs aboard Flight 93. Where was their trial and due process before being shot down by Air Force F-16s, had it come to that?

[xebec 195]

a. Welcome to our little forum here, xebec. Looks like you'll fit right in

b. I haven't read this entire thread, way too long

c. I have one question that perhaps you've got an opinion about. On 9/11, prior to Flight 93 being intentionally crashed in Shanksville PA by the hijacked passengers aboard, the US government scrambled fighters. An order to shoot down Flight 93 was issued though only after it had already crashed. The order I believe was issued by ####### Cheney since GWB was on Air Force One and out of contact at the time. By that point the three other planes had been crashed into the WTC buildings in NY and the Pentagon. It was clear that Flight 93 was heading for Washington, probably the Capitol building. It was also clear that innocent Americans were aboard and that the flight was a commercial plane over US soil. What do you think the constitutional cover was for Cheney's order to shoot down a commercial aircraft with US citizens aboard? Now I fully grant that the situation on 9/11 was vastly different than the strike which took out Awlaki in Yemen a few days ago. But there is a parallel when it comes to the questions of Due Process and constitutional protections of the USCs aboard Flight 93. Where was their trial and due process before being shot down by Air Force F-16s, had it come to that?

I can only speculate...this question would only go before the courts if there were someone with standing to petition. (presumably families of those killed by the military). I would guess that the ruling would look to the German Constitutional Court's 2006 ruling, and reach a similar conclusion:

"The hopelessness and inability to take evasive action which marks the situation of the passenger victims on the aircraft also extends to those who order and carry out the shooting down of the aircraft. The flight crew and passengers cannot evade this action by the state due to conditions outside their control, but are helplessly and defencelessly at its mercy, with the consequence that they and the aircraft will be deliberately shot down and they will almost be certainly killed. Such an action ignores the status of the persons affected as subjects endowed with dignity and inalienable rights. By virtue of their killing being used to save others, they are treated as objects and at the same time deprived of their rights. Given that their lives are disposed of unilaterally by the state, the persons onboard the aircraft who, as victims, are themselves in need of protection are denied the valuation which is due to a human being for his or her own sake"

[scandal 951]

I can only speculate...this question would only go before the courts if there were someone with standing to petition. (presumably families of those killed by the military). I would guess that the ruling would look to the German Constitutional Court's 2006 ruling, and reach a similar conclusion:

"The hopelessness and inability to take evasive action which marks the situation of the passenger victims on the aircraft also extends to those who order and carry out the shooting down of the aircraft. The flight crew and passengers cannot evade this action by the state due to conditions outside their control, but are helplessly and defencelessly at its mercy, with the consequence that they and the aircraft will be deliberately shot down and they will almost be certainly killed. Such an action ignores the status of the persons affected as subjects endowed with dignity and inalienable rights. By virtue of their killing being used to save others, they are treated as objects and at the same time deprived of their rights. Given that their lives are disposed of unilaterally by the state, the persons onboard the aircraft who, as victims, are themselves in need of protection are denied the valuation which is due to a human being for his or her own sake"

Thank you. I'm not sure what the context of that German ruling was. Was it in regards to Flight 93, or a different incident? I didn't know there were any German citizens aboard Flight 93.

The question this raises in my mind, and the parallel to Awlaki, is the military chain of command.

On 9/11 Cheney issued an order which was dutifully accepted and followed by the chain of command, presumably down to the F16 pilots.

Similarly, Obama issued an order which resulted in the Yemen drone attack on a USC.

In both cases senior command officers who are trained to disregard an illegal order did not do so, presumably because in both cases they did not consider it illegal. On 9/11 it did not result in action, in Yemen it did. In both cases the senior commanders however reached similar conclusions about the constitutional standing of the order. I don't know if the same reasoning was applied but the net effect (transmitting and obeying the order) was.

[sandinista! 1,816]

t is a false deduction that one thousand human beings are worth more than one; that would be tantamount to regarding men as animals. The central point about being human is that the unit "1" is the highest; "1000" counts for less.

Soren Kierkegaard

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

t is a false deduction that one thousand human beings are worth more than one; that would be tantamount to regarding men as animals. The central point about being human is that the unit "1" is the highest; "1000" counts for less.

Soren Kierkegaard

I'm sure that was in the thoughts of the peeps on the air planes right before they went into the Twin Towers.

[xebec 195]

Thank you. I'm not sure what the context of that German ruling was. Was it in regards to Flight 93, or a different incident? I didn't know there were any German citizens aboard Flight 93.

The question this raises in my mind, and the parallel to Awlaki, is the military chain of command.

On 9/11 Cheney issued an order which was dutifully accepted and followed by the chain of command, presumably down to the F16 pilots.

Similarly, Obama issued an order which resulted in the Yemen drone attack on a USC.

In both cases senior command officers who are trained to disregard an illegal order did not do so, presumably because in both cases they did not consider it illegal. On 9/11 it did not result in action, in Yemen it did. In both cases the senior commanders however reached similar conclusions about the constitutional standing of the order. I don't know if the same reasoning was applied but the net effect (transmitting and obeying the order) was.

The ruling was in response to the 2005 Luftsicherheitsgesetz which was, in turn, a response to 9/11. I simply pointed this out, because it's the only precedent for a constitutional ruling on the scenario you describe. Granted, this deals with article 1 of the German constitution, But, the basic similarities to the U.S. Constitution on issues of inalienable human rights would offer this a an indicator of how our courts might rule.

I certainly can't answer to the qualifications, loyalties, or morality of any of the officers involved at any level of that decision-making process. All I can say is that they are not vested with any constitutional authority in the matter. What you are referring to is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[xebec 195]

I'm sure that was in the thoughts of the peeps on the air planes right before they went into the Twin Towers.

I agree....I'm certain also, because it is fundamental to human nature- so much so that the natural right to self preservation is an inseparable part of the modern democratic systems that flowed out of the enlightenment. This was duly and properly recognized by the German court.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

a. Welcome to our little forum here, xebec. Looks like you'll fit right in

b. I haven't read this entire thread, way too long

c. I have one question that perhaps you've got an opinion about. On 9/11, prior to Flight 93 being intentionally crashed in Shanksville PA by the hijacked passengers aboard, the US government scrambled fighters. An order to shoot down Flight 93 was issued though only after it had already crashed. The order I believe was issued by ####### Cheney since GWB was on Air Force One and out of contact at the time. By that point the three other planes had been crashed into the WTC buildings in NY and the Pentagon. It was clear that Flight 93 was heading for Washington, probably the Capitol building. It was also clear that innocent Americans were aboard and that the flight was a commercial plane over US soil. What do you think the constitutional cover was for Cheney's order to shoot down a commercial aircraft with US citizens aboard? Now I fully grant that the situation on 9/11 was vastly different than the strike which took out Awlaki in Yemen a few days ago. But there is a parallel when it comes to the questions of Due Process and constitutional protections of the USCs aboard Flight 93. Where was their trial and due process before being shot down by Air Force F-16s, had it come to that?

That does it! I am going to change this! I am not voting for Bush OR Obama. No way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree....I'm certain also, because it is fundamental to human nature- so much so that the natural right to self preservation is an inseparable part of the modern democratic systems that flowed out of the enlightenment. This was duly and properly recognized by the German court.

Are you going to beat a dead swine or are you going to do something about it? I mean, "and what?"

Either file a lawsuit or don't vote for Obama. What else are your choices? When you do not like something an elected official does, what do you do?

I hope Obama continues to p*ss people off by exploding Islamic terrorists whenever he can until they get fed up and un-elect him next year.

[Penguin_ie 5,996]

***** Post containing personal attack and those quoting same removed. This is a really interesting discussion, please keep it civil *****

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Constitutionally they blew up the Yemeni Al-Whacky. His US half was simply collateral damage. As was his fellow US passenger in the vehicle.