Free Allegiance Forums

In the video, al-Awlaki told Muslims they are free to kill American ''devils'' at will.

''Don't consult with anybody in killing the Americans,'' al-Awlaki, 39, said in the 23-minute video.

''Fighting the devil does not require a fatwa, nor consultation nor prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of Satan and fighting them is the obligation of the time.''

Al-Awlaki's vitriolic sermons have inspired several attacks against the US. Yemeni officials say he may have given his blessing to the recent mail bomb plot.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for last week's foiled bomb plot, when two bombs sent from Yemen were discovered in Britain and the United Arab Emirates.





Yep, no proof at all he was trying to kill Americans.

/sarcasm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 2 2011, 04:18 PM) I would just like to point out a couple of things. First, you are parsing that web site as if the words in it have the force of law, when they do not. the web site is merely explaining a legal principle that has been in existence for a long time. Second, the principle as it is stated in the web site I think makes clear that the party involved loses their citizenship at the time that they take arms against the US.

So first you are saying that the words on the website dont have the force of law so my first point is moot, then you state that according to the words on the website my second point is wrong too.

That notwithstanding, anything i have found talks about proceedings requiring a federal judge if a person is to lose their citizenship. Its not an automatic thing, because the person has to be found "guilty", or a judge has to agree he has committed whatever offense they are accused of. In any case there IS judicial review in the issue, which didnt happen.

Also, you may think that you could officially "infer" that a person intended to give up their citizenship by committing one of the listed acts, but in fact current DOS rules say that they automatically assume that a person did not intend to renounce their citizenship if they break one of those rules.

Lastly, noone is saying that Awlaki wasnt a US citizen. That would have been the easy route for Obama to go to tamp down any criticism about his actions, noone in the media would have made a big deal out of another terrorist being killed and he had to have anticipated the backlash against killing Awlaki without due process.

Obama's official stance is "Ya he was a citizen, so what?"


QUOTE Third, intention is almost always determined after the fact by looking at a person's actions. Take intentional murder - very rarely do people admit that they intended to kill someone. But if they point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, we can infer their intent. I think it's pretty clear that if you move to Yemin, join al queda, and plan attacks against US citizens, you are intending to relinquish your citizenship. And finally, as for his involvement in al queda and planning attacks against the US, I think the evidence speaks for itself on that point.[/quote]

Since when did the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" mean that a bunch of armchair judges on the internet determine a person's guilt? These arent the principles our legal system were built on. Guilt cant just be inferred or applied by the mob or random government agency. I agree with you that Awlaki was a terrorist, and did commit those acts, but you still have to prove it in court! (and if it was so obvious he was guilty, it couldnt have been that big of a deal)

QUOTE I would reiterate as I also said above, I think the argument that his citizenship somehow protects him is ridiculous. I agree with the reasoning the Obama administration has put out that they could target this guy even if he was a US citizen.[/quote]

Since when does the DOJ giving itself permission to do something mean anything? I was unaware the DOJ can contradict CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. You're a lawyer arent you? Cause im pretty sure the constitution trumps a DOJ memo.


"NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW" -Fifth Amendment


There arent any asterisks there TA, its clear cut. End of story! Obama can pile as many lawyers as he wants on that memo and hold it up in the courts for years, but there is no way he would win this case. Its a no brainer.


QUOTE Also, I would note that the US Supreme Court validated this rationale because they dismissed the case this clown's father made against him being targeted.[/quote]

The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the suit itself. His father didnt have legal standing. Thats a far cry from giving any legal rationale or precedence to the DOJ memo. The question wasnt even considered.

QUOTE Can we also discuss how progressive it is that this guy's father was even able to bring a case to the US supreme court to try to get the president to not target this guy? If that's not evidence that we live in a great country I don't know what is.[/quote]

I agree that the right to petition a court is progressive. I think we live in a great country too, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Waving a flag doesnt mean that is suddenly okay that Awlaki was killed without being convicted of any crimes.

And its not like it was such a big stretch there, if the evidence of his crimes and demeanor were so overwhelmingly against him why didnt Obama bother to have the DOJ press charges? I mean, how long would it REALLY take to press Treason charges?

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Oct 3 2011, 05:26 PM) Obama's official stance is "Ya he was a citizen, so what?"

Which as I said above, I agree with, and most people seem to. But that doesn't negate my arguments above, so we will have to agree to disagree.

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Oct 3 2011, 05:26 PM) "NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW" -Fifth Amendment

And how exactly does this apply to enemy combatants in war? Or maybe it's not that clear cut after all.

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Oct 3 2011, 05:26 PM) The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the suit itself. His father didnt have legal standing. Thats a far cry from giving any legal rationale or precedence to the DOJ memo. The question wasnt even considered.

Although the court did indicate that the father didn't have legal standing, they also said that it was a political question. Meaning, even if he did have standing, they would have ruled against him anyway, on the grounds that this is an issue for the executive branch and not the judicial branch. Meaning, the judge thinks your fifth amendment argument is bull@#(!.

And you know there's a deeper point here to my argument that I guess I haven't articulated. In my opinion, if a US citizen joins a terror group and actively plans attacks against the US, they become an enemy of the country just as if they had joined a foreign military, and they should no longer be afforded the protection of US citizenship. I think that is consistent, fair, and makes a ton of sense. You don't give enemy soldiers due process. You kill them unless they surrender.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 2 2011, 08:18 PM) Second, the principle as it is stated in the web site I think makes clear that the party involved loses their citizenship at the time that they take arms against the US.

As an non-American, I'm rather curious about this point. It seems rather contrary to the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. It's my understanding that the FFs figured that the people would need to rise up against the inevitable tyrannical government (which is why the right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the Amendments - to give the means for the people to rise up).

But the above statement is saying that any such parties would lose their citizenship upon such an act.

That strikes me as being very inconsistent. After all, it's the people's country, not the government's. The government is supposed to be the servant, not the master.

You'll also note the general inconsistency in US law that pretty much prohibits citizens from armed acts against the government generally... kind of one of those things that no government allows.

also the thing said foreign military...

You are not required to obey an unlawful order.
The order is made law in some secret executive order.
???
PROFIT!

Treasonous acts must be proven in Court like anything else.

The difference is that said person wasn't in the US and was in the battlefield.

Also evading police/FBI/whatever on a felon charge and running will make it so that you can be shot on sight even in the States.

Kind of a grey area.

But this shouldn't even be being debated because we shouldn't be over there in the first place!

FreeBeer wrote:QUOTE (FreeBeer @ Oct 3 2011, 04:15 PM) That strikes me as being very inconsistent. After all, it's the people's country, not the government's. The government is supposed to be the servant, not the master.

Meh, see this is where people get all confused.

The FEDERAL Government is supposed to be the servant of the STATES... however it has since become the other way around. The People were never really the ones in power... as theoretically most of their rights were shared with the States.

...I mean that is the reason why we were a Confederacy before we had a Federal Government.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Oct 3 2011, 07:20 PM) You are not required to obey an unlawful order.
The order is made law in some secret executive order.
???
100 MILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT!!

fify

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 3 2011, 06:04 PM) Which as I said above, I agree with, and most people seem to. But that doesn't negate my arguments above, so we will have to agree to disagree.

Okay, fair enough.





QUOTE And how exactly does this apply to enemy combatants in war? Or maybe it's not that clear cut after all.[/quote]


He wasn't on the battlefield (legal litmus test)--he was in Yemen, a country with which we are not at war, and he was not engaged in active operations. And the only "evidence" we have is what the government says, because absolutely none of it was tested in a court or even before Congress. So as long as you're cool with the government killing whoever they want anywhere they want using whatever standard they want, based on evidence they don't have to share with anyone (state secrets), without any review by anyone else, then yes, this was fine. But I find it rather Orwellian.

This will obviously be swept under the rug, but what precedence are we setting for murkier and less clearly defined cases in the future? What kind of power did we just allow the president to have by not challenging this @#(!?

What bat@#(! crazy stuff is Perry going to do with those powers? Jesus man! If a (mostly) liberal president does this kind of crap, man i shudder to think.....



QUOTE Although the court did indicate that the father didn't have legal standing, they also said that it was a political question. Meaning, even if he did have standing, they would have ruled against him anyway, on the grounds that this is an issue for the executive branch and not the judicial branch. Meaning, the judge thinks your fifth amendment argument is bull@#(!.[/quote]

I saw a couple of descriptions of the ruling on that case, and i didnt see any of the subsequent stuff. I read that the case was dismissed on procedural grounds because the father did not have standing to sue, and the people he was trying to sue were immune from lawsuits anyway. Linky! (i do wanna see the opinion)


QUOTE And you know there's a deeper point here to my argument that I guess I haven't articulated. In my opinion, if a US citizen joins a terror group and actively plans attacks against the US, they become an enemy of the country just as if they had joined a foreign military, and they should no longer be afforded the protection of US citizenship. I think that is consistent, fair, and makes a ton of sense. You don't give enemy soldiers due process. You kill them unless they surrender.[/quote]


I can agree with you there, but my point is that this ISNT the current state of the law. At the end of the day, how can we say we are a country that values and upholds the law when we don't do it if its not convenient? There are perfectly reasonable ways of giving the executive the tools to strip a person of his citizenship should they turn out like Awlaqi, they just didnt. They went about it in some BS underhanded way that i feel undermines people's faith in the highest office of the land to act within its legal and constitutional mandate.

Its this slope i feel we have been on since 9/11 where they have tried to, under the guise of providing security, erode freedoms we used to enjoy and the fact that the USA has immunized itself from criminal action in matters of war, while giving itself the right to pretty much what it wants, when it wants, Geneva Conventions be damned.

You know AlQaeda uses authoritarian moves like these to underscore their arguments that we arent some freedom loving law upholding country with the best interests of the world at heart. I remember seeing Al Qaeda recruiting media with pictures of Guantanamo bay on em and feeling like a big $#@!ing douchebag because there was more than a grain of truth there.