OBAMAS SECRET COURT FOR KILLING
by Judge Andrew Napolitano -TENTH AMENDMENT
President Obama willingly admits he dispatched CIA agents to kill an American and his teenage son and the son’s American friend while they were in a desert in Yemen in 2011. He says he did so because the adult had encouraged folks to wage war on the United States and the children were just “collateral damage.” He says further that he’ll do this again when he is convinced that killing Americans will keep America safe. He says he knows the adult encouraged evil, and his encouragement caused the deaths of innocents. The adult was never charged with a crime or indicted by a grand jury; he was just targeted for death by the president himself and executed by a CIA drone.
International law and the law of war, to both of which the U.S. is bound by treaty, as well as federal law and the Judeo-Christian values that underlie the Declaration of Independence (which guarantees the right to live) and the Constitution (which permits governmental interference with that right only after a congressional declaration of war or individual due process) all provide that the certainty of the identity of a human target, the sincerity of the wish for his death, the perception of his guilt and imminent danger are insufficient to justify the government’s use of lethal force against him. The president may only lawfully kill after due process, in self-defense or under a declaration of war.
The reasons for the constitutional requirement of a congressional declaration of war are to provide a check on the president’s lust for war by forcing him to obtain formal congressional approval, to isolate and identify the object of war so the president cannot kill whomever he pleases, to confine the warfare to the places where the object’s military forces are located so the president cannot invade wherever he wishes, and to assure termination of the hostilities when the object of the war surrenders so the president cannot wage war without end.
But when war is waged, only belligerents may be targeted, and advocating violence against the U.S. is not an act of wartime violence and does not make one a belligerent. Were this not so, then nothing would lawfully prevent the U.S. from killing Americans who spoke out in favor of al-Qaida, and then killing Americans who spoke out against war and killing, and then killing Americans whose words became an obstacle to killing.
That’s the reason the enabling federal legislation enacted in support of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force specifically exempts expressive conduct from the ambit of prohibited criminal or warlike behavior that can provide the basis for any government prosecution or military belligerence. So, the feds can shoot at a guy with a bomb in his hands when he is about to explode it, but not at a guy with a megaphone in his hands when he is about to speak through it.
Thus, if New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been shooting at American troops at the time the government took aim at him, naturally, the troops can shoot back. But when he merely encourages others to shoot, his behavior is protected by the natural law, the First Amendment and numerous federal statutes. As well, he was 10,000 miles from the U.S., never known to have engaged in violent acts, and having a private conversation at a roadside cafe in a desert when he was killed. No law or legal principle justifies the U.S. government killing him then and there; in fact, numerous laws prohibit it.
The president’s use of the CIA for offensive killing also violates federal law. Intelligence agents may only lawfully kill in self-defense, not offensively. Only the military may lawfully kill offensively. In the al-Awlaki case, intelligence sources have confirmed to Fox News that a team of American and Yemeni intelligence agents had followed al-Awlaki and had him under continuous observation at the time of his killing and for the preceding 48 hours. They easily could have arrested him – had he been charged with a civilian crime or a war crime, which he wasn’t.
Of course, the murder of his Colorado-born son and the son’s American friend are not even arguably defensible, and the president’s spokesman who suggested that the young al-Awlaki should have “chosen a different father” shows a seriously defective thought process and an utter antipathy for the rule of law in places of power.
We now confront the truly unthinkable: a proposal to establish yet another secret court, this one with the authority to authorize the president and his designees to kill Americans. This proposal has come from Congress, which seems more interested in getting in on the killing than in upholding the Constitution. The federal government only has the lawful powers the states delegated to it. As the states cannot kill Americans without due process, neither can the feds. Congress cannot create this killing court, and no judge on such a Stalinesque court can authorize the president to kill.
The president has made a political calculation that it will be easier for him to justify killing folks he can demonize than it will be to afford them due process, by capturing, housing and trying them. Now, he has come to believe that it will be easier still if unnamed federal judges meeting in secret take the heat. Politically, the president may be correct. But he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he lacks the moral and legal basis to reject that in favor of killing.
When he kills without due process, he disobeys the laws he has sworn to uphold, no matter who agrees with him. When we talk about killing as if it were golf, we debase ourselves. And when the government kills and we put our heads in the sand, woe to us when there is no place to hide.
IT IS CLASSIFIED. TRUST US:
IT IS CLASSIFIED. TRUST US:
JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTSReplyDelete
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
I think that is the authority. I don't see any expiration date.
Much as I dislike Obama, I don't think what he is doing overseas is unconstitutional. It may be foolish, or it may not be foolish.
You could argue he is taking Section 2,a somewhat too far. Others would argue the targeted are part of the organizations or persons spoken of, and the task is an ongoing one.Delete
I recall a lot of people here were for using nukes at Tora Bora. Surely some innocent shepherd might have been killed in the process. How many innocents were killed in the fire bombings of Japan, and in the nuclear attacks there? How many at Dresden? Now one was claiming then or now that those actions were unconstitutional.Delete
Do you understand the necessity, power and limited shelf-life of “timing?”Delete
Did I miss something? Weren’t we told that water-boarding was wrong? Is this more moral incrementalism? All of this is helping us fight Al Qaeda?ReplyDelete
We have created more Al Qaeda than ever existed when 18 Saudi citizens hijacked 4 US airplanes and killed 3000 Americans and set in motion the US government destroying the constitutional rights of American citizens and beginning a global killing spree.
We have also developed a technology that is a terrorist dream-machine, the drone.
Might be foolish, but not unconstitutional.Delete
If Congress wants to stop it, they can do so.
Weren’t we told that water-boarding was wrong?Delete
I recall you saying 'what's a little water up the nose' or something just like that.
out for the evening
Once again, Bob, you seem unaware of the distinction between legal and constitutional.
I won't bother going through the explanation again. You can't seem to grasp the concept.
We are to respect the law when our rulers in Washington, twist and change it to mean whatever they say it means? To my mind that makes any and all laws meaningless. It has no foundation in practice, morality or constitutional basis. They are just magic words that pop up on a governmental document.ReplyDelete
One magic law allows Obama to kill Americans without a trial, another allows a billionaire supporter of Obama to earn billions without paying taxes (Facebook).
trishSat Dec 29, 12:47:00 AM EST
"The interrogators who waterboarded Zubaydah were breaking the law."
Aaaaaaaargh! They had special, operation-specific dispensation, somewhat paradoxically after it was determined by General Counsel that waterboarding does not constitute torture; that dispensation has rendered them immune to any subsequent prosecution, though not to exposure (hence the destruction of the tapes under the applicable authority). AFAIK.
bobalSat Dec 29, 01:13:00 AM EST
What's that overhead? Track Your Favorite Satellite Here Courtesy of NASA.
bobalSat Dec 29, 01:18:00 AM EST
Whether waterboarding is torture all depends on one's definition of torture. Even if there is a legal definition generally accepted, somebody has to decide if the action fits the definition, which usually means a jury.
trishSat Dec 29, 01:33:00 AM EST
There's an unavoidable element of subjectivity, bob. No doubt about it.
Congress is seeking to ban waterboarding specifically, a truly juvenile act. It's not like coercive interrogation hangs on this one method.
2164thSat Dec 29, 02:47:00 AM EST
We are ruled by fools whose ambitions went beyond being on school boards. They are seduced into thinking they are both wise and necessary, by overly grand buildings, regal pomposity and rituality. As a body they are more likely dangerous and foolish, than thoughtful and wise.
bobalSat Dec 29, 03:38:00 AM EST
Well wouldn't you know it. As you know, I am in favor of building some nuke energy plants, and have been following the proceedings of the proposed plant in south Idaho with a great deal of interest. I heard on the radio tonight there is some doctor so and so that is wanting to put the issue up to a vote of the people on some sort of referendum, and has hired legal council to help him out. I am trying to figure the odds on such a vote, and I just don't know. Hopefully, the good ol' Idaho legislature will someow nix the doctor's idea. They are generally pro anything that gets up off its ass. I do know govnor Butch is for the idea of building the plant.
I believed then that water-boarding and other forms of force was preferable to getting attacked and then responding.ReplyDelete
and at The Belmont ClubReplyDelete
We are having a debate on torture because of the torture that has been done to plain speaking. Words are so distorted they have no meaning and we think in words or images. Distort the words, and you distort the images.
Torture is being drawn and quartered. That means having your belly sliced open, your intestines pulled out and your body severed by an expert who will keep you alive while it is being down.
Rough coercive interrogation is not torture and save the pablum about it not working. That is simply horsehit, it works in spades. Grow up or give it up.
11/05/2006 08:22:00 AM
John McCain has his own private devils to deal with over his ordeal. None of us can truly know what that is. But the injustice and harm done to one man is irrelevant in making decisions that can affect the survival of millions.
11/05/2006 08:25:00 AM
"John McCain has his own private devils to deal with over his ordeal. None of us can truly know what that is."Delete
Is that the case w/Wretch?
Few of us could stomach the argument that if someone knew how NYC was going to blow, we could not "torture" him to find out how and avoid.
Trish added in the Lifer True Believer line that "torture" does not work.
Trish, as in so many cases, was right.
Waterboarding saved innocent lives!!!
Grow up Doug. You've been listening to you government again.
The only people who believe torture is effective are the people caught doing it and the sheeple who accept their justification that it 'has saved innocent lives'.
And what innocent lives are we talking about?
Oh, can't tell you that. It's top secret, telling could put innocent lives in danger.
Yes, this circular argument makes sense to some. They accept it without question.
Buddy Larsen said...
Hey, if there's a nuke ticking away in a Denver warehouse, please let 2164 handle the interrogations--not Ash or Teresita. OK?
11/05/2006 09:26:00 AM
Hopefully, you have had a change of mind since those intoxicating days of Jack Bauer, Deuce.
I have. The sense of urgency and consensus is gone. The danger is greater and the collateral damage to our own freedoms by our own government is much worse. The simple responses and answers have dissipated.Delete
The Muslim world has turned on itself. We need to leave them alone. Go home. Fix ourselves and let the barbarism of the ME do what it will do. Let Israel take care of itself. Our misguided focus and priorities have left us unable to save either Kabul or Detroit.
All this from a time when none of us would have believed that an era of Obama would be possible. Thank you George Bush.ReplyDelete
It is my understanding that the "Collateral Damage" of the child occurred in a SEPARATE Drone Strike.ReplyDelete
Bob figures a 12 gauge packing salt crystals could act as a homegrown Iron Dome against the Drone when the local Ideehoe Poolice lock on to the dead farmer Bob walkin.
Hey, that might be a good idea, pass a state law allowing the locals to shoot down domestic drones.Delete
Iron Dome against the Domestic Drone Law
Real Estate WaWhere'd My User Name Go?ReplyDelete
February 14, 2013 at 4:02 pm
While i don’t know the overall picture, I can tell you my condo story:
Bought in 2005. Came from the east coast. Just thought things were more expensive in LA, and the realtor told me no different. Had dial up internet at the time, so no Zillow or market following for me.
Went in 255K on a 980 sq.ft. 1 bed/1.5bath, two story townhouse in a good neighborhood. Previous owners were getting a divorce, so they HGTVed the place up with a jacuzzi bath, walk in tiled shower, new tile and cabinets for the kitchen, pergo flooring downstairs, etc. They had previously gone into escrow at 275 or 280K, but the deal fell through, so I thought I was getting in on the cheap.
I didn’t want to spend more than 180K on a starter place. The realtor strategically demoralized me by showing me a 180K condo in a trashy, gang-ridden neighborhood, then a series of small, 1 bed condos in the 250 to 350K range.
Around 2006 and 2007, watched another unit like mine (but not HGTVed up) sell for 330K after 5 days on the market. Watched a unit in my complex that was 2 bed/2.5 bath sell for 500K to a young lady whose brand new Land Rover held a personalized vehicle license plate: ‘STARTRANR’ or some such nonsense.
Then stuff went bust. I watched it happen and did not sell. Didn’t think it would be as bad as it was. Plus the only thing worse than equity loss is renting a box with paper thin walls and people jumping up and down on a floor above you. I originally put 50K down. Incrementally, I was paying the principle down: 5K here, 7K there; at one point, whilst thinking about refinancing, I dropped 25K in. Wish I would have dropped it in the SPY in retrospect, but had to get out the interest only ARM loan the realtor and her broker friend had pushed on me (‘You’re not gonna stay in the place forever, right? Appreciation will make up the difference..’).
Watched the star trainer lady go bust. Watched the 330K guy go bust, then die. Watched my net worth shrink about 100K (mostly due to loss of equity in my CA condo, but also lost a lot on an east coast beach condo that I bought in 2001). Including opportunity cost, interest, and appreciation, my net worth has probably shrunk 150K+. If you include the pretend equity at the height of the the bubble, I’ve ‘lost’ more than that.
If I had just shown up a few years earlier, I could have bought the same place for 130 to 150K. I would have had the thing paid off here in a few years. Most of my condo neighbors bought in the 1990′s for prices of 60K to 100K. (They don’t mind the exorbitant HOA hikes, secondary to the zero interest rate policy that keeps funds from appreciating in the bank, and secondary to control freaks on the HOA board that enjoy playing with large sums of money, etc…).
So am I gonna be a move up buyer? Nope. I’m gonna rent this place out. In a few years I’m gonna go live rent free in a 3 bed, rental property my father owns in full. Do that for a few years to regain part of my net worth. I’ve also been teaching myself woodworking, and am going to trim my condo out with custom frames, wainscot, etc. to make it look more enticing, if I ever I do need to sell my place.
Oh, and the 330K condo in my complex? It was purchased at auction, but has since gone delinquent (perhaps a HELOC after purchase?), and is sitting on the market for 160K. I feel sorry for whoever buys it, as the lady next to it has a dog that she puts on the back porch that loudly barks all night long.
rs, courtesy of OE infinity:
Doctor Housing Bubble Blog.
al-awlaki's son killed in separate drone strikeReplyDelete
It's like the Khmer Rouge.. Wack the whole family so there is no resistance...
Can't you just hear the wheezing asthmatic CIA or whatever guy advising that this young man in a revenge culture would surely be promoted to avenger of his father, and should thus be snuffed out the way the MacBeth's used to deal with their rivals the MacDuff's and the way the Sicilians do it in the Godfather.
In honor of Lady MacDuff I cry "Murder!" HIllary Clinton looks particularly wild-eyed these days, like a Lady MacBeth if there ever was one.
This boy's murder should bring someone to the Hague and soon
Robert Gibbs Says Anwar al-Awlaki's Son, Killed By Drone Strike, Needs 'Far More Responsible Father'ReplyDelete
...good old Gibbsy,
Gibbs had initially attempted to wave off a question about the boy. "I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki's son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship, did great harm to people in this country." Anwar Al-Awlaki, born and educated in the U.S., was a senior al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist, American authorities have said.
But the reporter pressed him, noting that the teen had not renounced his citizenship and was underage. The Atlantic suggests that if Gibbs is giving the genuine rationale for the killing, it's grounds for impeachment.
"Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father," writes The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf. "He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment."
Friedersdorf also notes the distinction that al-Awlaki's son was not killed as a consequence of the strike against the father, but was hit separately. Esquire's Tom Junod covered the son's killing:
"Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization "working to expose corruption."ReplyDelete
(still getting bookmarks straight on new computer, thus the SLOW progress)ReplyDelete
Tis better to drone the son than pour water on the father's head.ReplyDelete
Simple Logic dictates.
QuirkSat Feb 16, 08:35:00 AM ESTReplyDelete
Trish, as in so many cases, was right.
Amen, better that thousands of innocents be slaughtered, than one scumbag has water poured on his nose.
Better to murder the son than to Waterboard the father.ReplyDelete
AND, we get ZERO Intel!
If it had been Detroit instead of NYC, would Quirk feel the same?ReplyDelete
(even tho euthanizing Detroit might be a blessing in disguise)
Lordy, Doug. Get a grip. You are losing it.
Drone Program Poll: The Public Does Not Uncritically Embrace Targeted KillingsReplyDelete
Michael Isikoff's Feb. 4 report on the "white paper" -- a 16-page memo that laid out, in part, the legal underpinnings that guide the Obama administration's policy of carrying out what they call "targeted killings" with drones -- ushered the use of drones back into the public consciousness.
The "targeted killing" policy, famously and controversially, extends to American citizens, and the release of the white paper brought all of those attendant controversies to new bloom -- so much so that President Barack Obama was compelled to (glancingly!) mention the policy during his State of the Union address this week.
Yet somehow, two days after Isikoff's story blew up, Chris Cillizza put up a post at the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog that strongly suggested the matter was a settled issue, at least where the American people were concerned. Titled "The American public loves drones," it presented some compelling poll findings, conducted by the Post and ABC News, in which they found that "eight in ten Americans (83 percent) approved of the Obama Administrations use of unmanned drones against suspected terrorists overseas -- with a whopping 59 percent strongly approving of the practice," and that "two-thirds of people in the survey" expressed an approval for "using drones to target American citizens who are suspected terrorists."
Cillizza also included similar findings from a Pew poll, dovetailing with the Post's own, and this was apparently sufficient to suffuse this report with language that connoted a certain finality:
But, it’s also important to remember as the drone debate gains steam in Washington that there is little public appetite for an extended look at how unmanned attacks fit into our broader national security policy. Minds are made up on the matter.And, if the public has anything to do with it, drones are here to stay.
Ahh, but here's the rub: The two polls Cillizza mentions are from February 2012 (Washington Post/ABC News) and September 2011 (Pew) -- both well before Isikoff's actual news broke and re-ignited the debate.
So I have no idea why Cillizza would say something like, "It's important to remember as the drone debate gains steam in Washington that there is little public appetite for an extended look" at the issue. Temporally speaking, this is illiterate: His examination of the public's appetite is based on ancient history. (You'd think he would also be able to handle the whole concept of newly broken news reopening a debate and reshaping public opinion.)
As it happens, The Huffington Post, in conjunction with YouGov, has poll results on the matter from a survey conducted after Isikoff's story broke, and guess what? Blind support for drones is not nearly as monolithic as Cillizza contends, and it pretty much all depends on who is getting transformed into charred human remains.
"Who in their right mind would want to allow a single branch of the government to decide who lives and who dies?ReplyDelete
All in favor of a dictatorship government speak out now so we can get you help and take your guns before you hurt someone. "
A little more caution in Drone targeting and more oversight on their use may be in order but Anwar al-Awlaki was mostly certainly fair game.ReplyDelete
Clinton was faulted for not getting bin-Laden when the opportunity presented itself but Obama is criticised for getting a traitorous al-Awlaki?ReplyDelete
That being said, targeting Americans on American soil is another matter altogether.
Obama is not being blamed for getting al-Awlawki.
He is being blamed for gutting the Constitution in doing so.
What exactly do the Constitution and the related court cases say about an American who actively takes up arms against the country and his fellow citizens from overseas, professor?Delete
Say an American fighting for Tojo or Hitler? If there were any, and there might have been a few, who knows.Delete
There was at least one American who went over to the Viet-Cong and fought for them, IIRC.
a 16 year old American kid?Delete
Too young to buy cigarettes, a beer or have sex with an adult but just fine for killing by the government.Delete
Doesn't look or sound good. On the other hand, he is old enough to pull a trigger, many a juvenile is charged as an adult, and the Hitler Youth fought well enough.Delete
It's a sad gray world out there, very hard to reduce to a few words on a legal document, or an authorization to use force.
New York TimesReplyDelete
Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011, by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.
Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, with his message carried extensively over the Internet. His online lectures and sermons had been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of shooting 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009, had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki before the deadly rampage. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab met with him before he failed to blow up an airplane with a bomb hidden in his underwear in December 2009. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.
The drone attack also killed Samir Khan, an American citizen born in Pakistan traveling with Mr. Awlaki. Mr. Khan edited Al Qaeda’s online jihadist magazine. A month later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado, was part of a group of people killed by a drone strike in Yemen.
Mr. Awlaki, whom the United States had been hunting in Yemen for more than two years, had been identified as the target in advance and was killed with a Hellfire missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. The strike appeared to be the first time in the United States-led war on terrorism since the 9/11 attacks that an American citizen had been deliberately targeted and killed by American forces.
His influence has survived his death. A 21-year-old Bangladeshi man charged in October 2012 with trying to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in Lower Manhattan in a sting operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation told an undercover agent that he had formed his jihadist views listening to Mr. Awlaki’s sermons.
Decision to Target
In 2010, the Obama administration had taken the rare step of authorizing the targeted killing of Mr. Awlaki, even though he was an American citizen — a step that had provoked lawsuits and criticism from human rights groups. He had survived at least one earlier missile strike from an American military drone.
The administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Mr. Awlaki found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive. The drone attacks had been part of a clandestine Pentagon program to hunt members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group believed responsible for a number of failed attempts to strike the United States.
The American military had stepped up its campaign of airstrikes in Yemen earlier in 2011. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said in July that two of his top goals were to remove Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s new leader after the death of Osama Bin Laden, and Mr. Awlaki. A senior administration official in Washington said the killing of Mr. Awlaki was important because he had become one of Al Qaeda’s top operational planners as well as its greatest English-language propagandist.
In July 2012, a wrongful-death lawsuit was by relatives of Mr. Awlaki and Mr. Khan. “The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law,” the complaint said.
But the new lawsuit may face other procedural impediments before it would reach any substantive ruling on whether the strikes violated the Constitution — or even a public acknowledgment that the United States government did carry them out and an explanation of the evidence and decision-making behind them.
Obama (the most beautiful sound in the world is the call to prayer, my muslim faith, when the political winds change I will side with the muslims) might realize he is creating more jihadis with each drone strike......and thinks it's a good thing, so ahead he goes.......??ReplyDelete
Such thoughts almost seem normal when thinking about foreign policy these days.
Still can't decide whether he is a bumbling fool, an evil genius, or a little of both.
Copper Thieves Darken Detroit Freeways...drudgeReplyDelete
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Following controversy over its purchase of around 1.2 billion bullets in the last six months alone, the Department of Homeland Security has put out a new solicitation for over 200 million more rounds of ammunition, some of which are designated to be used by snipers.
A series of new solicitations posted on the FedBizOpps website show that the DHS is looking to purchase 200 million rounds of .223 rifle ammunition over the next four years, as well as 176,000 rounds of .308 caliber 168 grain hollow point boat tail (HPBT) rounds in addition to 25,000 rounds of blank .308 caliber bullets.
As James Smith over at the Prepper Podcast website highlights, “It is the type of ammunition and not necessarily the quantity that is troubling.”
Smith points out that the DHS’ acquisition of .308 rounds is of concern because they are set to be used by well-trained snipers.
“All of the sniper grade ammunition is being used by trained, or in-the-process-of-being-trained snipers,” writes Smith, noting that the math adds up to 135,384 potential kills for the snipers to make, using the 176,000 rounds of ammunition, basing the figures on the fact that United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill.
The Praetorian guard is locked and loaded.ReplyDelete
Fools and crooks rule from DC and have done so for many decades. It is amazing that the country has survived this long. The time for the free ride has to be over for Europe, Israel, the Arab kleptocracies, and most of the rest of the world. This country is bankrupt and can't afford to be daddy protector for all these countries. Truth be told most of these people are sick to death of us in their nations. Bring all the troops home, to their families, to defend these borders and shores, not those of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The cold war is over and we make more trouble then we prevent. The whole Middle east isn't worth one drop of American blood or treasure. Let the Middle East be the problem of China, India, Japan, Europe, and Korea. They need the oil. We have plenty right here, if Obama would let us develop it.ReplyDelete
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has said he will issue a decree banning Afghan forces from calling for assistance from NATO airstrikes. It follows the death of 10 civilians in a NATO- Afghan strike on Wednesday.ReplyDelete
Addressing a conference at Kabul's National Military Academy, Karzai said on Saturday that Afghan forces would be forbidden from requesting strikes in residential areas "under any conditions." The president said he planned to issue a decree outlining the ban on Sunday.
“I issue a decree, from tomorrow none of the Afghan forces are allowed to ask for foreign air support under any conditions," he told an audience of young officers.
“Our forces ask for air support from foreigners and children get killed in an airstrike," he said.
His comments come three days after 10 civilians, including women and children, were killed in a joint NATO-Afghan airstrike in the northeast Kunar province. Ground forces were reportedly targeting a Taliban hideout in the region. Afghan officials said three Taliban commanders, including an al Qaeda-linked militant were killed in the raid.
Defined to death in the WOT. A "high-level", "informed" dark immimence said so. There are death panels and there are death panels.
We were told al-Quaeda was dead. Now we are told it is responsible for every terrorist act in the world.
We were told al-Quaeda was dead.Delete
That was during the campaign. The campaign is over.
There is AC, After Campaign, and DC, During Campaign.
Think of it as electricity, or sex, or something.
What exactly do the Constitution and the related court cases say about an American who actively takes up arms against the country and his fellow citizens from overseas, professor?
Constitution: Article 1, Section 9
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Today, habeas corpus is mainly used as a post-conviction remedy for state or federal prisoners who challenge the legality of the application of federal laws that were used in the judicial proceedings that resulted in their detention. Other uses of habeas corpus include immigration or deportation cases and matters concerning military detentions, court proceedings before military commissions, and convictions in military court. Finally, habeas corpus is used to determine preliminary matters in criminal cases, such as: (i) an adequate basis for detention; (ii) removal to another federal district court; (iii) the denial of bail or parole; (iv) a claim of double jeopardy; (v) the failure to provide for a speedy trial or hearing; or (vi) the legality of extradition to a foreign country.
The sources of habeas corpus can be found in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law. The Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), states: “The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Although the Constitution does not specifically create the right to habeas corpus relief, federal statutes provide federal courts with the authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners. Only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the Executive. The Executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ.
In the First Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress explicitly authorized the federal courts to grant habeas relief to federal prisoners. Congress expanded the writ following the Civil War, allowing for habeas relief to state prisoners if they were held in custody in violation of federal law. Federal courts granted habeas relief to state prisoners by finding that the state court lacked the proper jurisdiction. Post-World War II reforms further expanded the writ: through the incorporation process by which the Bill of Rights was applied to the states, habeas corpus became a tool by which criminal defendants sought to uphold their civil rights against illegal state action. The Warren Court further paved the way for broader habeas corpus rights.
In 1996, Congress narrowed the writ of habeas corpus through the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). AEDPA has three important aspects: first, it imposes a one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions. Second, unless a United States Court of Appeals gave its approval, a petitioner may not file successive habeas corpus petitions. Third, habeas relief is only available when the state court’s determination was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) further narrowed the scope of habeas relief, providing that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay may not access the federal courts through habeas corpus; instead, they must go through the military commissions and then seek appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court. However, the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) expanded the territorial reach of habeas corpus, ruling that the Suspension Clause affirmatively guaranteed the right to habeas review. Thus, alien detainees designated as enemy combatants who were held outside the United States had the constitutional right to habeas corpus.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
The Fifth Amendment:
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase due process (also found in the 14th Amendment) both trace their origin to Magna Carta.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
The fourteenth amendment was actually written to assure that states allow individuals the same rights as guaranteed under the federal government b ut in doing so it too mentions "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
A court may rule that none of this applies in the cases we are talking or they may rule that Congress delegated its responsibility and waived these rights and that the proper conditions were met for Congress to indeed waive them; however, we will never know.
The Executive has refused to officially admit that they played any part in any specific assassination of an American citizen even while taking credit for the great job they are doing in fighting terrorists.
That is the problem Congress and the American people are faced with.
Everyone agrees the President has no right to drone American citizens in the United States.Delete
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require itDelete
That is the problem Congress and the American people are faced with.Delete
A big problem. Congress can solve it by rescinding the authorization to use force. The democrats aren't going to turn on the One, and the republicans don't have the votes and aren't inclined anyway, so that's out.
The Supreme Court should have taken Donofrio's case, and ruled on whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. But they didn't, by one vote, IIEC.
So, here we are. At least Rufus is happy. He voted for the guy.
The video made one interesting point.
As counterterrorism czar, Brenner is assumed to be the 'high-level, informed' official who makes up the kill list. Of course, we don't know that for sure since, like everything else coming out of the Obama White House, the info is 'Top Secret' and no one is talking. However, if true, we have a case where a political appointee, never having been confirmed by Congress and with no judicial review or for that matter without review of any kind is making life and death decisions on the lives of American citizens. Judge, jury, executioner.
Andrew C. McCarthy below mentions the Brenner situation as well.Delete
What changed after 9/11 was not our rhetoric or the unremarkable fact that we had enemies. What changed, what took the nation to war, was the formal Authorization for Use of Military Force by Congress.ReplyDelete
It was the 2001 AUMF, an act of Congress’s constitutional war power, that vested the commander-in-chief with authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force.” It was the 2001 AUMF that triggered combat operations in Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda was then headquartered. The AUMF is what rendered legitimate such wartime tactics as subjecting enemy combatants to drone strikes, indefinite detention, and military commissions.
Moreover, because the AUMF spelled out no geographical boundaries, it authorized combat operations anyplace in the world where the enemy could be found. Here, however, is where things get fuzzy because of the vast difference between our war rhetoric and what the AUMF actually says about the enemy.
February 16, 2013 4:00 A.M.
Are We Still at War?
Congress should update its military-force authorization.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Fellow argues that the Congressional approval to wage war on terrorists needs a little updating. A little more tuning, and better definitions, etc. Probably true. We could also use a new Commander in Chief that knows what he is doing and is unequivocally on our side.
Here's another interesting question: Senator Bob Menendez helped pass a law making it a felony for an American citizen to have sex with a minor in the Dominican Republic. I don't have any idea if this is constitutional or not, but it seems odd to me that a law can be passed governing our behavior in another country. Menendez may get hoisted on his own petard, as that is exactly the behavior for which he is being investigated. If so, this is called poetic justice.ReplyDelete
Should have droned Roberto and his 14 year old consort, just to be consistent in the Western Hemi.Delete
Odd how the Obama-MSM consortium has us discussing the murkier case of the father more than the apparently crystal clear case of the son.ReplyDelete
Tilting at Drones, as it were.
Alinsky is proud.
"abort, airport, amort, aport, assort, athwart, backcourt, bellwort, birthwort, bistort, blood sport, Bridgeport, carport, cavort, cohort, ..."Delete
The droning by the consortium avoided a birthwort in the consort
"an agreement, combination, or group (as of companies) formed to undertake an enterprise beyond the resources of any one member"Delete
Fits MSM Obama alliance like a glove.
Given that shit, we must acquit.
Please refer to me as "James" rather than "Joyce"Delete
A 10-year-old pit bull named Baby rescued a family and its dogs not once, but twice, during a house fire.ReplyDelete
On Tuesday, Rhonda Westenberger and her sister, Evelyn, were sleeping when their Wellston, Okla., home of 17 years began filling with smoke and flames, KOCO reports.
Immediately, their pit bull, Baby, began barking and pounced on them until they woke up.
"There were flames shooting down the hallway," Westenberger told KOCO in the video above. "If Baby hadn't woken Evelyn up, I don't think either one of us would have come out of it."
The sisters managed to run out, but five dogs were stuck inside the house. Baby rushed back inside and rescued them.
"There was one hiding underneath the bed," family member Charles Land told KOCO. "Baby actually went in there grabbed it by the neck and drug it outside."
Despite losing everything, the family says the pit bull is keeping them hopeful.
"It brings my spirit up a lot to see the dogs," said Westenberger. "I'm so proud of her. She is my hero. She's the hero for all of us."
Protesters show support for DornerReplyDelete
Dozens of protesters gather outside LAPD headquarters, holding signs of support for the fired police officer suspected of killing four people.
•Dorner likely died of self-inflicted gunshot
Should have Droned Dorner.
Neighbors declared collateral damage.
A novel idea -ReplyDelete
A sister as pope could also resolve what might seem a contradiction in Catholic theology. More than Protestants, Catholics are profoundly devoted to the Virgin Mary — and few were as devoted as the late Pope John Paul II, who declared that Mary “sustains the spiritual life of us all, and encourages us, even in suffering, to have faith and hope.” A church for which the Blessed Mother plays such an important role should certainly be comfortable with female leadership.....
Electing a nun as pope would electrify women all over the world. And those who think that Catholics in the developing world would object to a female pope should note that women have been elected to lead governments in, among other places, India, Chile, Brazil, Liberia, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Argentina and Dominica.
E.J. Dionne Jr.
The best choice for pope? A nun.
She wouldn't be the first -Delete
So all is not divine harmony within the Vatican, but a cursory reading of the 2,000-year history of the papacy suggests it was ever thus – schisms, factions and even, some stories go, a woman in disguise on Saint Peter’s throne. Yet it is a very big leap indeed from “individualism and rivalry” to the Pope having been forced to resign.
Pope Benedict XVI's resignation: A drama that beats any Dan Brown plot
The Vatican is awash with conspiracy theories about why the Pope is resigning, but Benedict has had the last word
But the internal rumblings go further than a personality clash. They even stretch to money. The Vatileaks papers revealed that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the cleric Benedict had appointed to turn the Holy See’s annual deficit into a profit, felt he had been ousted in 2011, possibly at the behest of Bertone.
And there have also been repeated suggestions that the Vatican Bank – which has a murky recent history of alleged involvement in financial dodgy deals and the mysterious death of the Italian financier Roberto Calvi – has once again been getting itself into unholy waters of money laundering in its dealings with a troubled Italian bank, Monte Paschi di Siena.
Money, the devil's currency.
He was being too modest. If there were ever any doubt that he has claimed that particular crown, the events of this week have nailed them. By resigning Benedict has ensured his own place in history – but not in the annals of infamy.
Vaporizing asteroids, and accelerating to warp speed too -ReplyDelete
System to vaporize dangerous asteroids is in the works
Mary "“sustains the spiritual life of us all, and encourages us, even in suffering, to have faith and hope.”"ReplyDelete
Being the well-known misogynist that I am, I've always given those credits to Job.
You're not really a misogynist though.
What about using that asteroid vaporizer on the terrorists? Homeland Security is always seeking improvements.Delete
I do have occaisional tendencies, however, fueled by my past, and anger at my loss.Delete
Wow, just watched the video. (sorry)ReplyDelete
Had no idea 45 might have died in that ONE strike.
Obama unleash heap big shit.
All so disfunctional:
Should have begun with CAREFULLY TARGETED retribution for the Cole.
Instead we have this mess.
Bob's Japan analogy is out of place, because the Japanese were so UNIFIED in their opposition to us, and the immediate large scale lethality of that opposition.
...and we were going for the kill, which we have not done for ages.Delete
Better to futz around in endless, meaningless, killing and sacrifice.
Playing the bad advocate here, how do we know there were 48 dead and lots of women and children among them?Delete
Because of an old grizzled farmer with maybe a gun to his head told us so on a propaganda video?
And do our munitions really have Made in the USA stamped on them?
THAT GUY WAS AUTHENTIC.Delete
...and my Tundra P/U cushioning the crippled Jetliner.Delete
And the fallout for me throwing Bob to the Wolves.
What a gentle, peace-loving Soul.Delete
Playing the bad advocate here, how do we know there were 48 dead and lots of women and children among them?
We don't for sure. You saw the post Deuce put up a few days ago showing videos where the evidence had been doctored.
It would be nice if you showed a little of the same incredulity with some of the posted info you put up.
Incredulous about MY Shit?Delete
...it never has stunk, never will.
"You saw the post Deuce put up a few days ago showing videos"Delete
Actually, I was spending 12 plus applying updates to my "new" previously unused, laptop.
Microsoft rushes toward Senescence.
At least I have Company.
12 plus hours.Delete
...trying to learn to type on this "keyboard" w/ 1/4 inch "stroke"Delete
...and a numb left little finger.Delete
We'll smoke out Quirk w/word count, Bob.Delete
Bob is MIA, so I courageously stepped in.Delete
Why does Russia attract more than it's share of meteor hits?ReplyDelete
Size, plus latitude, attitude, or alcohol?
The Gods of Fire wanna show the Gods of Ice who's the Real Deal.ReplyDelete
Rufus would credit ethanol.ReplyDelete
If you were a meteorite, wouldn't you want to come to earth in Mother Russia?Delete
I would like to come in Putie's mouth, whilst pulling out his nipple rings.Delete
...and rape his soul w/my death stare through his retias.Delete
How does W live w/that shit.Delete
DeNile is a powerful narcotic.
You just don't look deeply enough, Doug. Behind those blue eyes and that murderous exterior there is the beating heart of a lamb.Delete
He's taken to wearing the Cross, you know.
...and repeat his claim that 1939 Chevies run fine on pure alky.ReplyDelete
Not to mention mowers, chainsaws, and etc.
The second video was good. Lady says we get targeting from the Pakistanis and the Yemenis sometimes, ending up whacking their own internal enemies, not ours.ReplyDelete
I get direction for my life from our local Swami.Delete
You are in good hands. The turbaned swamis are only rarely turbulent. There is more to life than blowing people up.Delete
I read that one of the killers of Mumbai signed up for the job because he was bored.
"Never give a rifle to a melancholy bore."
I've been watching -ReplyDelete
Never dip your dick in a melancholy whore.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
A moment of steel a dry-eyed house
Did he say goodbye to you or did you kick him out?
I know you're not afraid to go alone
But this was a marriage of spirit, flesh, and bone
Now what you gonna do when the planet shifts?
What you gonna do, gonna slit your wrists?
And bleed all over the milky way
The stars in your eyes look red today
Cry love, cry love
The tears of an angel,
the tears of a dove
Spilling all over your heart from above
Cry love, cry love
The trust of a woman in his hand
But he was a little boy, not a man
You loved him stronger than he could feel
Yeah he was wrapped up in himself like an orange peel
Now what you gonna do with the booze and the blush?
What you gonna do when there's no rush?
You cop a little misery at the corner store
Well one day that train of pain won't stop no more
Cry love, cry love
The tears of an angel,
the tears of a dove
Spilling all over your heart from above
Cry love, cry love, cry love
Throwing up ashes on the floor
If this is a lesson in love, well what's it for?
The heart will remember the burning fire
The next time you feel the flame of desire
Cry love, cry love
The tears of an angel,
the tears of a dove
Spilling all over your heart from above
Cry love, cry love
Cry love, cry love
The tears of an angel,
the tears of a dove
Spilling all over your heart from above
Cry love, cry love, cry love
Cry love, cry love, cry love
Cry love, cry love, cry love
- JOHN HIATT
In refutation of the charge made by hostile critics in the international community that Israel is a racist society, this ceremony of a non-white Asian woman was a dramatic illustration of Israel's achievement in creating a society free of discrimination and racism. The Bnei Menashe tribe, a small people of about 9,000 in India, has only recently made its appearance on the world stage. The members of the tribe claim their ancestor was Menasseh, the son of Joseph, and that they have descended from one of the ten lost tribes of Israel who were exiled around 720 B.C. by the Assyrians who had invaded the northern kingdom of Israel. The southern kingdom was not invaded, and most Jews in the world are descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south of the kingdom.
February 17, 2013
A Homecoming in Israel
By Michael Curtis
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/a_homecoming_in_israel.html#ixzz2L9BuSdyo
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I wonder what Obama had to say about "due process" in his "Constitution" class?ReplyDelete
...or in church with the Rev W.
re: Lost Tribes, and all that.ReplyDelete
What does Bob know about what is now widely regarded as myth in academic circles, ie large numbers of Jews in Africa?
Posted at the Doctor Housing Bubble Blog.ReplyDelete
(still plumbing for Internet Censors)
As long as The Bernanke is at the contreols in command central, how can anyone lose?
On a different note, some beautiful pictures of Morro Bay taken from a 2 million dollar starter in Los Osos.
Be sure to see the rainbow over Morro Bay
Once a sleepy very small bedroom community, only now talking about a sewage system.
...a mosquito's heaven atop impereable clay.
Courtesy of a tireless Enviro who we sold our farm to, who carefully Collects his urine, then calls for a sewage pumping service.
We need skeptics, not septics at this time.
...previously known as Inventor of The DickMobile
...he had a great handout brochure aping Road and Track/Car and Driver jargon.
Somewhere I have a photo of my dearly departed wife standing next to it on what once was our pasture.
Interesting times, indeed, in CA.
Hanging Rubber Testicles on Hitches - IllegalReplyDelete
Good thing I kept my receipt.
RICHMOND, Va. - It's one thing to dangle fuzzy dice from a rear view mirror, but decorating a trailer hitch with a large pair of rubber testicles might be a bit much in Virginia.
State Del. Lionel Spruill introduced a bill Tuesday to ban displaying replicas of human genitalia on vehicles, calling it a safety issue because it could distract other drivers.
Under his measure, displaying the ornamentation on a motor vehicle would be a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $250.
He said the idea came from a constituent whose young daughter spotted an example of the trail hitch adornment and asked her father to explain it.
"'I didn't know what to tell her,'" Spruill said the constituent told him before Spruill vowed to stop such displays.
"I said, 'Sir, I'm going to be a laughingstock, but I'm going to do it,'" he said.
The Virginia General Assembly has some experience with offbeat bills. Three years ago, it drew widespread attention with an unsuccessful effort to outlaw baggy pants worn so low they expose underwear.
Spruill, 61, said the indignity of the "droopy drawers" debate wouldn't deter him. He said he won't hesitate to bring a set of $24.95 trailer testicles with him for a legislative show-and-tell.
"I'm going to do it," Spruill told a handful of reporters after Tuesday's House session adjourned. "I'm going to bring them out here and show them to you till they tell me to stop."
"I'm going to do it," Spruill told a handful of reporters after Tuesday's House session adjourned. "I'm going to bring them out here and show them to you till they tell me to stop."Delete
Please Stop, Mr. Menendez!
Mendez Strikes BackDelete
Senators from both parties are very hesitant to weigh in on the matter, although Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other top Democrats remain solidly behind Menendez at this point.
“With these things, honestly, one, I haven’t paid a lot of attention to it, but second of all, that’s not something that I can make judgments about,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Foreign Relations Committee member who is also trying to cut an immigration deal with Menendez. “I don’t know enough about the situation. I really have no judgment to make.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said: “I think it’s pretty serious if it’s true. If it’s not true, it’s not a problem at all.”
Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wouldn’t take a shot at Menendez.
“My recollection is when issues like this have arisen in the past, the party leadership — in this case Sen. Reid and his leadership — would deal with those, which I would think would be the first step,” Cornyn said. “Beyond that, I leave it up to the ethics committee to do their work.”
...gotta hook up an external keyboard.
Or stop drinking.
"'I didn't know what to tell her,'" Spruill said
Nice post. Ӏ leаrn somethіng tοtally neω and challenging on blogs I stumblеupon on a dаily basiѕ.ReplyDelete
It's always helpful to read content from other authors and use a little something from their websites.
Here is my site private blog network