Skip to main content

View Diary: Eric Holder says... (416 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It was never illegal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jdsnebraska

    to kill enemy combatants in a combat zone, citizens or not.

    Contrariwise, it was always illegal to kill an enemy, citizen or not, on American soil, without clear and present danger (e.g. self defense) or a guilty verdict and sentence (i.e. the death penalty)

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 07:58:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  My, we're getting loose with our definition of (39+ / 0-)

      "combatant".

      Which is precisely the problem - since the individuals in question were not clearly such on an active battlefield, the assertion that they are enemy combatants is precisely why due process is demanded.

      No matter how many times the administration's supporters cry "he took up arms against his own country!", this statement does not become more evidenced, especially since even such leaks the administration has engineered to justify the killing have made no such claim; which seems to have been manufactured by pundits who are either friendly with this administration, or inimical pundits who nonetheless love them some Imperial Presidency.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:08:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see how (0+ / 0-)

        Al-Awlaki could not be considered a "combatant" any less than Yamamoto, Rommel or bin Laden. He was tied to no less than eight violent plots or attacks against American and British interests.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:13:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "was tied" by whom? (37+ / 0-)

          Anonymous leaks to friendly pundits? Vague post-mortem insinuations?

          Due process is what we use to separate accusation from proof.

          We used to demand that, at least when the other team's guy was in charge.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:15:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  silly. the prez *said* he was so it must be (24+ / 0-)

            true...   /snark

            Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

            by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:20:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "Due process" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chipoliwog

            has no place in a theater of combat.

            It is not required by the Constitution, it is not demanded by international law, and it makes absolutely no sense to do so. Imagine if Isoroku Yamamoto had to be tried in absentia in a court of law to legally determine whether he was, indeed, in charge of Japanese forces before Operation Vengeance could be launched.

            No, OV was launched because Roosevelt told SecNav Knox to kill the man. Knox told Adm. Nimitz, who greenlit the mission. And Yamamoto was killed in a targeted attack --  and his loss crippled Japanese war efforts. It was the right thing to do.

            And it's the right thing to do to take out any enemy commander or leader who plans attacks against the US and her interests engaged in a theater of combat.

            The rules only change when it's on our own soil, and it is not during a time of invasion or rebellion.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:27:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  or their kids too (18+ / 0-)

              right?

              And it's the right thing to do to take out any enemy commander or leader who plans attacks against the US and her interests engaged in a theater of combat.

              Do good from the heart and fight like hell. ~cosmic debris

              by Lady Libertine on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:32:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You speak of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pozzo

                Abdul-Rahman Al-Awlaki.

                If he was the target of the attack, yeah, that's a whole other issue, agreed.

                But if he wasn't, but rather the al Qaeda members who were with him were, then no.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah yes, the "collateral damage" argument. (18+ / 0-)

                  "We didn't plan on killing this innocent person, but it just couldn't be helped."  Great.  This is what we've come to now.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:13:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  All war (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pozzo, jdsnebraska

                    has collateral damage. This is why we should try to avoid it where possible.

                    It's not like we're firebombing Dresden anymore, though.

                    What's the alternative?

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:24:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And, of course, the war is permanent and global (14+ / 0-)

                      Enemies and theaters of operations to be determined at the whim of whomever occupies the Presidential Palace.

                      Orwell would demand royalties.

                      If only donkeys could have elephant balls... Occupy!

                      by chuckvw on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:55:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Enough with the "collateral damage" dodge. (10+ / 0-)

                      At least have the courage to own up to what you're talking about.  You're talking about killing innocent people just because they happen to have the misfortune of being in physical proximity to someone we have concluded is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

                      I wonder how willing you'd be to sacrifice your spouse, children, or other loved ones in such a situation.  I suspect your willingness would be close to zero.  But that's because you view your own family as human beings, an status you appear unwilling to bestow on the people you euphemistically refer to as "collateral damage."

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:17:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Question repeated: (0+ / 0-)

                        In war, what is the alternative? How do you eliminate "collateral damage"? If you cannot answer that question, it is not a dodge.

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:37:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  How about not go to war? (5+ / 0-)

                          "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

                          by skyounkin on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure, (0+ / 0-)

                            and in most cases (like Iraq, certainly) that's a dandy idea.
                            But sometimes war is necessary, so your answer isn't useful.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:44:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I guess you get to ask all the questions . . . (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          wonmug, The Walrus, splintersawry

                          but don't feel the need to respond to any.  Of course, that suggests that you have very little of substance to say.  

                          But since you seem to think I'm dodging your very Bush-like justification for murdering innocent people, I'll just note that I don't accept your premise that this is "war."  If I did, then there would be no boundaries whatsoever to the executive's discretion to kill anyone it chooses.  That's because the so-called "war on terror" is uniformly described as "global," and thus it has no geographical boundaries at all.  By your definition, there would be no problem with killing, say, a group of American schoolchildren in Nebraska, if they happened to be too close to some suspected terrorist.  

                          Again, I think you simply don't accord brown people who profess a strange religion the same dignity as human beings that you would accord to your own family.  You treat the former as disposable so long as there's a claim that someone in their proximity is a "terrorist."

                          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                          by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:48:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

                            You lost me because your position is so utterly bereft of merit you've now reduced to accusing me, quite unsubtly, of racism.

                            Pity this is so right margin or you could get a few HRs for your trouble.

                            As a note -- I tend not to answer questions WHEN NONE ARE ASKED.

                            End of line.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:47:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I note you haven't said I'm wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            And yeah, telling brown people in the Middle East that their children's deaths are just "collateral damage" (when you certainly wouldn't be willing to see your own children treated the same way) is pretty much racist.  

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:35:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  when Drones target funerals, weddings and first (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc, happymisanthropy

                      responders I don't see any concerns for who is or isn't a combatant.(emphasis mine)
                      http://www.democracynow.org/...

                      The CIA’s drone campaign targeting suspected militants in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to rescue victims or were attending funerals. So concludes a new report by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It found that since President Obama took office three years ago, as many as 535 civilians have been killed, including more than 60 children. The investigation also revealed that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. We speak to Chris Woods, award-winning reporter with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. "We noted that there were repeated reports at the time, contemporaneous reports in publications like New York Times, news agencies like Reuters, by CNN, that there were these strikes on rescuers, that there were reports that there had been an initial strike and then, some minutes later, as people had come forward to help and pull out the dead and injured, that drones had returned to the scene and had attacked rescuers," Woods says. "We’ve been able to name just over 50 civilians that we understand have been killed in those attacks. In total, we think that more than 75 civilians have been killed, specifically in these attacks on rescuers and on mourners, on funeral-goers." [includes rush transcript]

                      without the ants the rainforest dies

                      by aliasalias on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:47:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Tell that to the 16 Afgan civilians who were (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc

                      murdered.

                      "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

                      by skyounkin on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:47:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oy gevalt. (0+ / 0-)

                        That asshole will be tried and in all probability executed for his crimes.

                        How about trying to argue the issue at hand instead of throwing shit and seeing what sticks?

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:52:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poligirl, happymisanthropy

                    Here I go again.  I HATE that term:  "collateral damage".  How is a DEAD person damaged?  They are DEAD for God's sake, that in my opinion is way beyond damaged!!  Not yelling at you FogCityJohn, just been hearing that term to much lately on the radio.  I think it's just a way to "tidy" up things and it really really makes me sick.

                    •  That's precisely why the term is in quotes. (6+ / 0-)

                      I agree that dead people are just that -- dead.  We should at least have the decency to call them "fatalities."  That would recognize that they are no longer among the living.  

                      The fact of the matter is that both our government and far too many "progressives" don't view these victims as human.  Their lives are of no value, and we can simply sacrifice them when we kill, or attempt to kill, someone we believe to be a terrorist.  In a similar fashion, we never bothered to keep tabs on how many Iraqis died as a result of our invasion of that country, although we keep meticulous records of how many of our servicemembers have died in that conflict.  Lost Iraqi lives, it seems, just aren't important enough to count.  

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:12:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks.... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FogCityJohn

                        I did get that was why it was in quotes.  It's just a phrase that has been tossed about on the radio lately and it's always bugged me so I just had to let off some steam.  I do agree that "fatalities" is a much more decent term to use.  I also agree with the rest of your comment.  Again thanks.

                    •  collateral damage=negligent homicide (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ladyjames

                      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

                      by Johnny Q on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Yamamoto was a) (12+ / 0-)

              a uniformed member of a military at which we were at war and b) not a US citizen.

              You're right that due process had no place in a theatre of combat: the problem is that right now, 'a theatre of combat' can be taken to mean 'anywhere.' And instead of 'uniformed members' and 'declarations of war' we've got citizens and authorizations of military force.

              As Geekesque keeps saying, rightly, this is an issue that Congress should handle.  But the two things aren't the same.

              "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

              by GussieFN on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:33:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is an issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GussieFN

                that Congress should handle.

                They handled it in a way that is poor.

                I agree with Geekesque on that point.

                That is very different from claiming the President has been exercising authority he has not been granted.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ya so (0+ / 0-)

                your rules of engagement are so quaint. Look, I don't like war anymore than most liberals but if you're going to fight one, then fight it.

                Guerillas have no set uniform, they have no code of battle, they have no compassion for non-combatants, they have no regard for the Geneva conventions.  

                The theatre of war is what the Guerillas have defined, the countries they occupy that give them safe harbor.  

                Many Americans are so clueless to the horror of war having not been touched personally by it.  It is not a surgical exercise, it is nasty business.  Stop trying to make this into a police action.

                --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                by chipoliwog on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:10:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  and c) flying in an enemy combat aircraft. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Ask your barista what her degree is in.

                by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 06:36:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yamamoto was a uniformed combatant (5+ / 0-)

              Can you please learn that basic fact before making this erroneous analogy again. I'm  pretty sick of hearing about it.

              It shows ignorance as to why the Military Commission's Act was written the way it was by Bush's lawyers in order to, illegally because of the Hague conventions, take away rights of non uniformed combatants or those that broke the law in a military/intelligence problem.

              What do the Al Qaeda uniforms look like? Exactly.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers! - George Carlin - Please vote to send me to Netroots Nation

              by priceman on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:30:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  When did we declare war in Yemen? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Walrus, happymisanthropy

              Seems your theater of combat argument is on the precipice of a very slippery slope.  Al-Awlaki was not killed in the mountains of Afghanistan or some slum in Iraq.  He met his demise in Yemen, a country that I am not aware we have declared war.  So I find it hard to accept the battlefield premise.

              If the President can order the killing of an American on foreign soil, why have we not seen targeted killings in Germany and England, or Canada for that matter.  Each of these countries have been central to planning attacks on American soil.

              •  Presumably (0+ / 0-)

                because those responsible could be captured alive.

                This is, of course, the problem with an overbroad AUMF.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:49:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Uh . . a formally declared war existed (18+ / 0-)

          between American and Japan.  Yamamoto was a uniformed office in the Japanese navy, flying on a military plane. He was actively involved in the pursuit of war against the US.

          Awlaki was accused of bad rapping the US and calling for resistance to the US - constitutionally protected speech unless the threat is immediate.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:30:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two things: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chipoliwog

            One - we have the AUMF (as I said above, for good or for ill). That's directly analagous to a declaration of war.

            Two - Al-Awlaki was actively involved in the pursuit of war against the US and Britain. Tied to no less than eight attacks or plots, directly credited with planning two. To say he was bad rapping the US is simply not true.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:34:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Tied" to attacks, meaning what exactly? (14+ / 0-)

              By talking about them?  How about some specificity?

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:43:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We Have to Take Baby Steps (6+ / 0-)

              as one of my law professors used to say. You're being too conclusory when you argue:

              Two - Al-Awlaki was actively involved in the pursuit of war against the US and Britain. Tied to no less than eight attacks or plots, directly credited with planning two. To say he was bad rapping the US is simply not true.
              The entire point of due process is to hold a trial so that the gov't has to prove that Al-Awlaki participated in those 8 attacks or plots you noted. All you're doing is repeating the government's allegations.

              "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

              by Aspe4 on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:36:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're trying to impose (0+ / 0-)

                a Constitutional standard where the laws of war apply.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:41:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  why? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobdevo

                  what are you doing to end this foreverwar and treat terrorism like the law enforcement problem that it is?

                  Ask your barista what her degree is in.

                  by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 06:45:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh. (0+ / 0-)

                    Well, I'm very much in favor of doing that.

                    But I'm also in favor of the war in Afghanistan -- well, I was. It's outlived its value thanks to not so benign neglect by Bush.

                    My task is getting the right people into office. I campaigned for Sen. Franken and that's worked out pretty well so far.

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 07:16:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Afghan war was just as stupid and just (0+ / 0-)

                      as ill-advised as Iraq.  The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden if we provided proof of his involvement.

                      We could have tried and convicted him without killing thousands of Afghans . . . . but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . .  fucktard W wanted to get his war on . . .

                      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                      by bobdevo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:22:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That is (0+ / 0-)

                        a very distorted account of what happened.

                        W was a fucktard to be sure, but the Taliban harbored Osama even though he admitted involvement in both the embassy bombings and the Cole, irrespective of 9/11 -- and that made harboring him an act of war.

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:43:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  BALONEY. (0+ / 0-)

                          The Taliban made bin Laden promise not to attack the US:

                          Further on in the memo (1997), Taliban leaders assure the American diplomats that bin Laden had promised them not to carry out any terrorist activity, but that “the Taliban had become suspicious” because the al-Qaida leader has gone off to live in the caves of Tora Bora.

                          Another memo, dating from 1998, reveals that the American administration asked the Taliban to expel Osama bin Laden. Several alternatives were suggested by the Taliban authorities, including that the United States “arrange for Bin Laden to be assassinated.”

                          After bin Laden double-crossed the Taliban, they offered:
                          President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
                          or, from the Washington Post, OCt, 29, 2001:
                          Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

                          Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

                          Afghan war = stupid and unnecessary.

                          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                          by bobdevo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:49:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Uh (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing you said contradicts anything I said.

                            Thanks for playing.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:52:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The fact that the war was unnecessary does (0+ / 0-)

                            not contradict your support for the war?

                            There are none so blind as they who will not see.  Hope you enjoy the next 10 years of Afghan misery . . .

                            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                            by bobdevo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:38:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, I'm sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'll use clearer terms so you can keep up.

                            You did not contradict that the Taliban was harboring a known terrorist.

                            You did not contradict that this terrorist was an admitted architect on multiple acts against US installations and ships.

                            You did not contradict that the Taliban was refusing to turn him over, you only provided evidence that they were insisting on various conditions for his delivery that were apparently unacceptable to both Presidents Bush and Clinton.

                            Therefore, you have failed to demonstrate that the Taliban was not committing an act of war.

                            But feel free to substitute snark and sarcasm for actual facts.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:43:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There were more 9/11 terrorists in the US (0+ / 0-)

                            than in Afghanistan. Perhaps we should have invaded ourselves.

                            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                            by bobdevo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:11:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you can show (0+ / 0-)

                            that the US government was knowingly harboring them, well then, you wouldn't have a point rather than an absurd and useless statement which frankly has exhausted my patience. I'm done here.

                            End of line.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:21:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As a matter of fact, the FBI was aware of the (0+ / 0-)

                            terror cell in LA and did jackshit about it.  As for end of line, here's the end of the line headlines from today:

                            QUAGMIRE
                            Obama Administration Considers Faster Pullout From Afghanistan In Wake Of Violence. . . Afghans Burn Obama Effigy... Taliban Threatens To Behead Americans Responsible For Killing Of Afghan Civilians... George Packer: 'It's Impossible To Imagine Any Kind Of Honorable Conclusion
                            There's that war you liked so much 10+ years and a couple trillion dollars later.  So forgive me if I question your judgment on when we go to war . . .

                            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                            by bobdevo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:30:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Has there ever been a concise... (0+ / 0-)

        ...definition of "combatant"? A lot of this discussion seems to be based on the notion that there has ever been a clear cut rule on this matter. There are always gray areas.

      •  bull Sh!# (0+ / 0-)

        The matter of his status was in fact adjudicated in a US court. Look it up! His lawyers lost that one...

        Even so, more than enough evidence for the military to take action.  War is not policing. So just get over yourselves...

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:05:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ??? My understanding is the only court (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          proceedings had to do with his father's attempt to stop the government from killing him - and the father did not have legal status to sue.  What case are you talking about?

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:01:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  nope (0+ / 0-)

            His lawyers not his fathers...

            --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

            by chipoliwog on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:27:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OH, really? What case are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl

              I'm talking about this case:

              In July 2010, his father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, contracted the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to represent his son in a lawsuit that sought to remove Anwar from the targeted killing list.[220] ACLU's Jameel Jaffer said:

                  the United States is not at war in Yemen, and the government doesn't have a blank check to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are in the world. Among the arguments we'll be making is that, outside actual war zones, the authority to use lethal force is narrowly circumscribed, and preserving the rule of law depends on keeping this authority narrow.[221]

              Lawyers for Specially Designated Global Terrorists must obtain a special license from the U.S. Treasury Department before they can represent their clients in court. The lawyers were granted the license on August 4, 2010.[222]

              On August 30, 2010, the groups filed a "targeted killing" lawsuit, naming Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as defendants.[223][224] They sought an injunction preventing the targeted killing of al-Awlaki, and also sought to require the government to disclose the standards under which U.S. citizens may be "targeted for death". Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit in an 83-page ruling, holding that the father did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit...

              Awlaki was never given due process.  He was never indicted or formally charged with any crime. So - please educate us all as to a case in which Awlaki was represented by his own counsel.

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by bobdevo on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 02:37:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  this is not war. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobdevo, poligirl

          Sane people must not tolerate the existence of Foreverwar.

          Ask your barista what her degree is in.

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 06:46:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  well, technically, we aren't at war in Yemen... (26+ / 0-)

      so battlefield, not really.

      unless of course, you buy into George W Bush's never-ending MIC-feeding GWOT; that's the only way to see Yemen as a battlefield - to BushCo, the whole ME region (including assorted African countries) is a battlefield.

      never thought i'd see Democrats supporting Bush's GWOT, but yet, there you are...

      sigh...

      Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

      by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:15:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll see your sigh (0+ / 0-)

        and raise you rolled eyes.

        See, I can be melodramatic too.

        Like I said to PhilJD -- if you don't like the authority the AUMF grants, work to get it altered or withdrawn. I'm all for that.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:01:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's great. my biggest problem however (12+ / 0-)

          is that Obama doesn't seem to think the AUMF is a bad thing.

          if i thought something was bad, like the AUMF, i certainly wouldn't do things where it was essentially my justifier for those things. and there's nothing that says Obama has to use the AUMF.

          so here we have this travesty - the AUMF - and the president is using it to justify doing some pretty bad things. now, if the president thinks the AUMF is a bad thing, yet he is still using it to justify actions, then i have a problem.

          i can advocate getting it altered or overturned as much as i want, but that still doesn't warrant its usage imo, at least not its usage by someone who thinks it is a travesty too. and if president doesn't think the AUMF is bad, then i still have a problem.

          Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

          by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:58:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What pretty bad things? (0+ / 0-)

            That's a serious question. I have zero problem with killing bin Laden or al Awlaki. They were both legitimate military targets and douchebags and the world is improved by their removal from it.

            But I'm curious what "pretty bad things" you mean. There's a plural there, so either you mean both of those killings were bad, or you're talking about something else. So please elaborate.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:26:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the NDAA for one. the assassination of al-Awlaki (9+ / 0-)

              for 2. plural. did you think i was just talking without knowing what i meaning?

              and i'm not saying al-Awlaki was a good guy, or that we're better off that he's dead. his actual guilt or innocence isn't the issue here.

              the issue is the unfettered power granted to the executive to do something like order the assassination of a US citizen without actual due process and no oversight, save for the president's word.

              hypothetically, what happens when i become president and deem you a terrorist who plans to harm us and orders you killed? cuz what you're arguing is that would be perfectly legal for me to do.

              what? you say i don't have evidence? we'll i do. and i would never target someone who wasn't guilty.

              what? you say you don't believe me? well, tough luck, cuz i'm the executive and i'm the only arbiter of what is considered good enough evidence. you're just gonna have to take me at my word.

              sorry - i don't want anyone having that kind of power over me and i'm pretty sure you don't want the hypothetical me having that kind of power over you. so i'll stick with my constitutionally granted rights, provided we can find an executive who still respects them.

              Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

              by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 11:57:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The NDAA (0+ / 0-)

                is not a consequence of the AUMF so it's not applicable. It is a separate but related piece of legislation. (And a separate conversation.)

                "did you think i was just talking without knowing what i meaning?"

                No -- which is why I asked for elaboration. No need to be defensive.

                As to the rest, well, forgive me, I've already talked about the specifics of al Awlaki ad nauseam so don't want to rehash, but I do have a counterquestion:

                In an armed conflict, under what circumstances is it okay to kill American citizens who have joined enemy forces who are engaged in violent combat with America? Is judicial process always required or are there cases where we can say "He's fighting alongside the enemy, he IS the enemy. BANG"

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 12:04:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  when they are actively engaging in violent (5+ / 0-)

                  combat on officially recognized battlefield - and by official, i don't mean Bush's and Obama's widely held definition that everywhere our enemies are is a battlefield.

                  and the NDAA is very much related to the AUMF in that the NDAA codifies powers that are said to be implied by the AUMF.

                  at least that's the argument many pro-Obama folks were using in response to folks like me who had an issues with the NDAA.

                  Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                  by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 12:15:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you going (0+ / 0-)

                    to entertain my question?

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i did. didn't you read my first paragraph? nt (0+ / 0-)

                      Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                      by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:30:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh - I thought (0+ / 0-)

                        that was a question, not a response. sorry.

                        Then my next question is this:

                        What constitutes an "officially recongnized battlefield"?

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  i've got an answer for you, but i'm too tired (0+ / 0-)

                          at the moment to put it into understandable sentences... i will get to it in the morning...

                          good debate btw... :D

                          Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                          by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:58:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Likewise. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's nice that we can, in fact, disagree without being disagreeable.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:32:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  an officially recognized battlefield... (0+ / 0-)

                            would be a country we have essentially declared war on officially. hence, (as much as i don't like it) Afghanistan is a battlefield. Iraq was a battlefield. Yemen is not a battlefield. Pakistan is not a battlefield. Libya is not a battlefield.

                            even if a country harbors a terrorist that we want, and we tell them we need them to get him/her for us, through official channels, or we will come in and apprehend him/her forcefully, that still does not make that country a battlefield.

                            now if we go in to apprehend the suspect and they shoot at us, then sure, return fire. but you don't send drones into a country we're not at war with to kill a US citizen. we send our guys in to apprehend him if he's important enough to us.

                            Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                            by poligirl on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:30:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's the problem. (0+ / 0-)

                            We haven't declared war since Dec. 8, 1941.

                            The AUMF in Iraq declared Iraq as the enemy, and hence, the battlefield.

                            The AUMF for Afghanistan did not specify Afghanistan as the battlefield, and only indirectly fingered the Taliban (as those who harbored bin Laden).

                            So if you accept Afghanistan as a battlefield, but not Yemen or Pakistan,  the basis for your distinction cannot be any official declaration because no declaration that I'm aware of exists that makes such a distinction. (Libya is an entirely different issue, unrelated to either AUMF, and I don't believe Obama tied it to the AUMF either.)

                            So there must be something else.

                            BTW -- again, thank you for discussing this calmly with me. I have another guy calling me a racist elsewhere in the thread. The difference between your demeanor and his makes me appreciate yours all the more.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:08:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thank you and me too. and actually, June 5th (0+ / 0-)

                            1942 was the last time we officially declared war.

                            the reason i used the term 'essentially', is because though there were no formal declarations for Korea (we were part of a UN police action) and Vietnam, which was our own police action under fishy circumstances. the Gulf War as well, was a UN action we were part of.

                            replacing declarations of war now are AUMFs, which brings me back to my problem with the AUMF of 2001. it seeks to make anywhere an enemy is a battlefield. using it to make Afghanistan a battlefield, while questionable, at least was the place where the ruling authority was directly in bed with Al Qaeda. but using the AUMF of 2001 to make essentially the whole world a battlefield is going way waaaaay overboard.

                            while Afghanistan and Iraq were clear to the world that they were battlefields, the rest are not. we now have endless war on so many fronts i cannot count. and it. will. never. end. ever.

                            so, no, i don't consider the whole world a battlefield and i don't think many people in the world would either. the only people who seem to want to have the leeway to have the world be a battlefield are our congress and these past 2 admins.

                            given that congress had a knee jerk reaction and gave us a much too broad AUMF which government has now used to make many many places a battlefield, is exactly why i have a problem with it. it essentially left open and our government is now using it to make battlefields everywhere, which means that any protection i had as a US citizen is gone. all that needs to happen is travel anywhere out of country, have a run in, even accidentally, with some not so savory people, and the president can now have me killed on his say so, no evidence required. cuz everywhere is a battlefield. the broad powers of the AUMF are allowing government to circumvent the Constitution, which now seems to be a dead document.

                            Goethe said: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

                            Indeed it seems to have come to that.

                            Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                            by poligirl on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:11:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

                            But we wipe the floor with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they move to Pakistan. We follow them there, they move to Yemen and the Sudan. One of al Qaeda's strongest bases of operation is in Yemen.

                            Further complicating matters is the fact that Yemen's government allowed US forces in to conduct operations and in fact coordinated and cooperated with them. Obviously, it's a far different concern when the US DOESN'T have that dispensation and goes in anyway (unless the government, like Afghanistan's, was actively collaborating). National sovereignty issues come into play.

                            But as I said before, I agree with you that the AUMF was overbroad and was, in fact, a fairly cowardly maneuver by Congress to avoid its responsibility going forward. I believed we needed to act against the government of Afghanistan, and I still believe it was the right call to do so -- they committed an act of war and it would have been foolish in the extreme to not respond accordingly. But the AUMF handed the President a blank check, which he took full advantage of. And while Obama certainly took far less advantage of the same mandate, he also took liberties, most notably in Yemen and Pakistan.

                            I think, however, you grossly overstate matters when you say the Constitution "now seems to be a dead document." I think you also overstate matters when you say that "the president can now have me killed on his say so, no evidence required" -- there certainly are many avenues by which a President who did something like that, even in foreign territory, can be held to account. There is a very wide gulf between the legitimate Constitutional concerns you may have about the AUMF, the NDAA, and their consequences, and declaring the death of the Constitution.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:44:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  The NDAA (5+ / 0-)

                  contains AUMF language and therefore creates a perpetual state of war.   AUMFs should be repealed when wars are over.


                  "Justice is a commodity"

                  by joanneleon on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 12:26:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  it was cited (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy, poligirl

                  http://www.freepress.org/...

                  Citing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, the NDAA states that those detained may be detained "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The NDAA also allows trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country or any other foreign entity." This last practice is known as "rendition."
                  (my emphasis mine)

                  without the ants the rainforest dies

                  by aliasalias on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:15:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, that's why I said (0+ / 0-)

                    it was a separate but related piece of legislation. It was not a consequence of the AUMF, as poligirl had suggested.

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 03:18:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i did not suggest that it was a consequence... (0+ / 0-)

                      of the AUMF. i said the AUMF was being used to justify doing some pretty bad things...

                      the language in the AUMF was part of the justification for signing the NDAA. after all, it was the AUMF that gave the perception of the powers that were codified in the NDAA...

                      Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                      by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:57:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think (0+ / 0-)

                        that's a bit of a reach, at least in the context of the argument. But I understand where you're coming from.

                        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                        by raptavio on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:31:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Assasination? (0+ / 0-)

                That word implies a political murder. That is inappropriate terminology in this case.  This is getting like an abortion debate.

                --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                by chipoliwog on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:15:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no it's not. look it up. assassinations can (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy, splintersawry

                  have political undercurrents, but that is not required for it to be an assassination.

                  now, you may not like the term, but it is appropriate in this case.

                  Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                  by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:52:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  He's the executive (0+ / 0-)

            He's doing his duty.  The Congress has yet to rescind it.  

            --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

            by chipoliwog on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:14:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so you were ok with Bush doing it then? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              cuz what Obama is doing is what Bush was doing - exercising the raw executive powers grabbed by the Bush Admin. matter of fact, Obama's even gone further than Bush in not only codifying it, but in exercising the extrajudicial killing of a citizen. and all we have is his word on it. what happens with the next president? or the president after that?

              Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

              by poligirl on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:43:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What's the difference (0+ / 0-)

                The President executes the laws the Congress lays out.  Do you acknowledge that Al-Queda attacked this country on 9-11-01?  Do you acknowledge their many other attacks on US assets, citizens and resources?  Do you acknowledge that the Congress authorized and mandated that the President and Commander in Chief pursue and destroy this enemy?  

                Leaving aside the stupid side show that was Iraq, even President Bush was making some token attempt to corral Al-Queda. President Obama simply finished the job. Part of that job was identifying those elements in the command structure of Al-Queda that were directing attacks.  This person you're so concerned with was identified as part of that command structure.  His citizenship was immaterial.

                --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                by chipoliwog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 01:17:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the only proof you have is the president's (0+ / 0-)

                  say so. there is no oversight.

                  if i was president, i could say that about you, and you know what - you would have no recourse. that is a problem. any future exec can use it to do what they want.

                  this isn't about al-Awlaki specifically; it's about the policy. he just happens to be the catalyst that started the conversation.

                  you're being shortsighted. you need to think it all the way through. the implications of it. the possibilities for misuse. not just the consequences during the Obama years, but the consequences in the future.

                  for the record, i think Congress was being shortsighted too when they passed the AUMF. they had a knee jerk reaction and passed something full of flaws...

                  Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

                  by poligirl on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:07:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have news for you (0+ / 0-)

                    Any living person on earth is subject to being eliminated in covert operations.

                    You can't fathom that countries operate this way. They always have.

                    --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                    by chipoliwog on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:59:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Good question: Why isn't Obama fighting to (3+ / 0-)

            overturn the AUMF and NDAA?

            We delivered. They failed us. We have moved on. (h/t to my good friend)

            by gooderservice on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 02:22:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not quite that simple, I'm afraid. (13+ / 0-)

      An American citizen shares the protections of the US Constitution with all other "persons" withing the US.  However, an American citizens is entitled to all his/her constitutional rights vis-a-vis the American government anywhere he/she is in the world.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 08:28:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not so. (0+ / 0-)

        It didn't protect American citizens who joined the Nazis and took up arms against the US and it doesn't protect al-Awlaki.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:18:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Joined the Nazis and took up arms". (11+ / 0-)

          Again, you like to play fast and loose with the facts.  #1, a state of war existed between the US and Germany, and as you noted, they "took up arms" against the US.

          There is no proof I know of that Awlaki personally has ever fired a gun at Americans.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 09:48:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, (0+ / 0-)

            you like to play fast and loose with the facts.

            The AUMF and a declaration of war are, for legal purposes, a distinction without a difference (please cite something that says otherwise as regards to this rule) and being a commander of enemy forces vs. being the guy with the gun is also, in warfare, a distinction without a diffference. I'm pretty sure Yamamoto never shot a gun at Allied soldiers in WWII either.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:21:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •   (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, gooderservice

              US citizen, and was hence not protected by the 5th Amendment.

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:28:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The 5th amendment (0+ / 0-)

                does not apply to enemy combatants involved in an active armed conflict. Please cite any SCOTUS decision that says otherwise. Please review ex parte Quirin, which is not directly applicable but the words of the justices delineate what constitutes an enemy combatant, citizen or otherwise.

                But barring your citing any actual legal opinion beyond your own bare assertions, I'm done here.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:40:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The question is what proof was used to (4+ / 0-)

                  establish Alwaki's combatant status in an active armed conflict. As for Quirin?????

                  President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened a secret military tribunal on July 2, 1942 which sentenced the eight men to death.
                  Get it? - they got due process.  They were tried, convicted and sentenced to death, not assassinated without due process.

                  LEARN TO READ.

                  I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by bobdevo on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 11:42:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Learn to read, yourself bub. (0+ / 0-)

                    I said "Please review ex parte Quirin, which is not directly applicable but the words of the justices delineate what constitutes an enemy combatant, citizen or otherwise."

                    You're just being dickish now. And you still have offered no evidence of your own.

                    End of line.

                    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                    by raptavio on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 11:59:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Define the terms: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poligirl, happymisanthropy

      "Enemy combatant"
      and
      "combat zone"

      "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

      by Hayate Yagami on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 12:38:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  but never before (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poligirl, splintersawry

      was the entire planet, including the entire United States, considered to be a combat zone.

      Ask your barista what her degree is in.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 06:32:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site