CASUS BELLI - International Law of War vs. U.S. Criminal Due Process (the Yemen Hellfire killings)

[vets74]

Anwar al-Awlak and Samir Khan were killed in a military operation.

International law has been expanded over the past 20 years so that anti-terrorist operations are now certified and registered internationally:

1. Law of War is what applies, following a terrorism certification with the U.N.

2. Civilian criminal law is replaced by Law of War during active hostilities.

3. Following 1. and 2. being in place, that Hellfire missile strike in Yemen was military both physically and legally.

As with much of modern law, the details of legal definition for Acts of War were worked through in cases related to insurance policies and civil liability. Act of God is one thing. Act of War is another. Thus:

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances.

--- USLegal.com, defining Act of War

Your normal property insurance policy coverages explicitly limit their application to acts of men and of providence. Not of war.

Wars are so destructive by their nature that battles and bombings are excluded. Of course the English word "terrorism" has a specific seminal root with state terrorism at the time of the French Revolution. French terrorisme was developed by the Jacobins from a Latin phrase, terror cimbricus, referring to civic panic and a state of emergency in Rome in the year 105 BC. The Jacobin Reign of Terror was not a singular event in history -- Cambodia and Rwanda also experienced events where terror went over to mass slaughter.

State terrorism is usually considered to be an Act of War. Indemnity levies against the offending state, not against the victims' insurance companies. As noted above, life insurance is the exception -- those policies have had to pay out even for a Pearl Harbor.

Terrorism by non-state actors (such as political and religious groups) is similar in effect, but not in the liability status. The one element that always presents to define terrorism is use of violence against noncombatants. United Nations definition: an act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." Constitutional support for presidential and other governmental response is straightforward:

The President's constitutional power to defend the United States and the lives of its people must be understood in light of the Founders' express intention to create a federal government "cloathed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust." The Federalist No. 23, at 122 (Alexander Hamilton). Foremost among the objectives committed to that trust by the Constitution is the security of the Nation.

(1) As Hamilton explained in arguing for the Constitution's adoption, because "the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits, . . . it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficiency."

(2)"It is 'obvious and unarguable' that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation." Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981). Within the limits that the Constitution itself imposes, the scope and distribution of the powers to protect national security must be construed to authorize the most efficacious defense of the Nation and its interests in accordance "with the realistic purposes of the entire instrument." Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 782 (1948). Nor is the authority to protect national security limited to actions necessary for "victories in the field." Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 12 (1946). The authority over national security "carries with it the inherent power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict."

These acts and conspiracies related to terrorist acts can be certified by governments to be effectively Acts of War. The first World Trade bombing in 1994 and civil cases related to 9/11 have dragged U.S. Courts to a hodgepodge of politically useful nit picking on civil matters. Some victims get to sue. Others do not. For example: the airlines failed for 9/11 to comply with ICAO standards for cockpit safety as mandated in response to Al-Qaeda's suicide-hijacking action against Air France 8969 over the Christmas holidays of 1994. Yet the private law suits related to the 9/11 terrorism attack have been stymied in Federal Courts. No such logjam exists for moving terrorist groups and their plots over to military status.

Certification for Law of War treatment is established in U.S. Code:

Accordingly 6 CFR 25.2 Title 6 Homeland Security; Chapter I Department Of Homeland Security, Office Of The Secretary; Part 25 Regulations To Support Anti-Terrorism By Fostering Effective Technologies

The term "Act of Terrorism" means "any act determined to have met the following requirements or such other requirements as defined and specified by the Secretary:

(1) Is unlawful;

(2) Causes harm, including financial harm, to a person, property, or entity, in the United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States on which United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), in or outside the United States; and

(3) Uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the United States."

Note the reference to insurance coverage. As well, any individual who is deemed by the Secretary of DHS to have participated in a terrorist conspiracy -- who is on this list -- is moved over to an Act of War status with respect to government action. What ensues is nothing short of hot pursuit.

Capture for criminal prosecution is possible, of course, but legally irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. Location is irrelevant. The whole world is the battlefield.

The terrorist organizations on these certification lists are cross-listed with the United Nations and with Interpol. Other nations do the same things, exactly. One can object to the phrase "War on Terror" as linguistically obtuse. Legally, however, it does make sense to recognize that terrorist organizations are at war with their victims and with their governmental opponents.

One small point to be noted is that insurance policies in the West continue to cover property damage from non-governmental terrorist acts, except when they don't.

The big change with these United States and formal international certifications is that actions against terrorist groups are moved to Act of War legal status. Due process and habeas corpus do not exist, legally, in Act of War environments. Armed combatants, bomb makers, cell leaders, recruiters, and financiers connected with terrorist groups can be named in international arrest warrants -- that much of the criminal justice system will be applied to finding them. However, there is no legal compunction to capture these individuals instead of killing them.

"War on Terror" makes a certain unique sense, here, where the terrorist participants are legally at risk to be killed as one would kill an enemy soldier in a battle during a regular war. War has its own law, its own set of accepted practices. The laws of war do not protect active combatants from death.

Anwar al-Awlak and Samir Khan made all the wrong lists. At the time of their deaths they had no legal protections at any level under national or international law. There was nothing that would have prevented them from being killed at the earliest convenience, at the first point where they presented themselves as targets for selective ordinance.

International law has caught up with international terrorism -- applying Law of War appropriately.

The United States acted as dozens of other countries have acted in similar circumstances.

[vets74]

1. U.S. Code definitions for terrorism

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331

§ 2331. Definitions

As used in this chapter —

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
-- (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
-- (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
-- (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
-- (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

----------------------------------

Defining "terrorism" is rather harder than recognizing it.

These guys in Yemen made it for the most common definitions.

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks for that detailed explanation.

Sadly, I predict you will be castigated for offering it up. Pay no attention. It is an accurate account of why what happened is lawful, if regrettable.

[vets74]

6. "The opposite to love is not hatred, but indifference."

Not sure anyone browsing the Internet is looking for an intro to international law related to terrorism.

We were 9/11 survivors out of North Tower WTC. Got a FEMA number, etc., and lost friends and co-workers. Took an interest in what has been happening with terrorism since then. Not much impressed with Bush, much more with Obama.

Btw: you DFL guys aware that MN-02 is really TX-33 ? And that's now, not 2013.

John Kline is anti-veteran, anti-99%er, a voting record from Hell/Texas. Financed originally and since out of Texas. Got money for 4 years building up to his first run. Has his ranch there, basically lives there and D.C. Very tenuous connections to MN through his wife and his office staff.

Won a couple times by generating fake scandals at his opponents' HQs. Anti-abortion fanatic shows up as volunteer, then generates mess so's the Strib has something to talk about.

Nobody in MN-02 knows his voting record. They think he's a moderate. There's a dozen states with "TX-33" congress critters.

Welcome to Texas.... ;^)

[Melinda]

17. MM - the OP did a c/p from Bush* DOJ (Yoo) memo dated 9/14/2001

My head hurts.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

42. And you happily leaped into an argument based on a Guilt by Association fallacy nt

[Melinda]

53. No leap. The argument asserted by the OP is based on this 9/14/2001 Woo memo

It's the basis of his argument... In fact, the OP distinctly called this memo (along w/its associated references upon which the memo was formed) his "casus belli" - there is no speciousness nor "guilt by association.

9/11 was the precipitating event, the memo the written justification for war and killing. It is Bush doctrine that the OP rests his support for extra-constitutional killing of US citizens.

It's not a leap, it's not an association - it's a direct line. And it's startling scary to me to see support for this action by any Democrats, much less those on DU.

[stevenleser]

61. If you didnt want to assert guilt by association, you could have just argued the points. You knew

exactly what you were doing.

[Melinda]

64. Christ on a crutch... I defer to your greater insight and perception.

Funny thing... I was the very first person to welcome you to DU back when you joined. You and I had several very pleasant interactions at that time. Past history, indeed.

I seldom do this, but I have little patience for the game you insist on playing today, therefore - welcome to my now +2 ignore database.

[vets74]

67. He thinks that this is the infamous "Terror Memo."

In fact, this is dated September, 2001, a long long way before torture was considered.

Also, dear stevenleser, where would the Internet be without the Informal Fallacies ???

Would you believe three typed pages of web sites and a back door to BKY's calc system ?

.... ;-)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Melinda]

16. The OP posted bits of John Yoo's 9/14/2001 memo in support of expanding Pres authority...

Not even his own work. He's compiled previously written material for his composite post on DU. So much for thorough.

So, how do you feel about that now?

How long have you been a fan of John Yoo and George W. Bush?

[bluestate10]

20. I don't have to be a fan of someone to acknowledge that some of

what they believe or advocate is right. I think before I make choices, as opposed to blindly accepting an ideology because the person backs it is someone that I like or admire. I oppose much of what Bush stood for, torture was wrong and barbaric and lessened us as a people, but killing people that work every single day to murder innocent people in numbers as large as possible, IS RIGHT POLICY.

[Melinda]

21. So you stand with WOO/ Bush* DOJ then?

And a copy/past of a right-wing memo (Bush* WH Casus Belli justifying torture) is hardly thorough research.

[vets74]

31. Confuses September 2001 with the much later Torture Memo.

Different documents.

You had me going there. This is September 25, 2001. Torture wasn't even a hand-sized cloud on the horizon at that point.

[stevenleser]

37. There is a reason that "Guilt by Association" reasoning is considered a logical fallacy

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

As Nizkor points out, if Bush and Yoo agree that 1+1=2 do we need to discredit that too?

Discredit the argument, not the person, or other people who agree. To do otherwise is to use fallacious reasoning.

[Melinda]

55. 1) I know of bluestateguy well enough to know he's no Bush* fan

2) My posit was sarcastically rhetorical - the silly query was not addressed to you, and there was no underlying attempt to frame bluestateguy as "Guilty by association".

3) I stand by my position and oppose Bush* doctrine in its entirety.

4) Your concern is noted, however if bluestateguy is offended by what I wrote, I'll discuss it directly with him.

Have a lovely day.

[stevenleser]

63. If you want to speak to just one person, use private mail. This is a discussion forum

where everyone can chime in.

If you dont intend to use guilt by association, then why bring up Bush or Yoo at all and ask someone whether "they stand with Bush and Yoo on this"?

You knew what you were doing when you did it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Would your post validate the idea that the US suspended the Constitution with AUMF and that we have

living under martial law since that time?

[vets74]

7. Hamilton, Madison and Haig v. Agee (1981) made the Constitution fully fit to handle terrorism.

No need for martial law.

That is an entirely different branch of the legal tree from dealing with non-governmental combatants.

In fact, registering these combatants and their groups is an entirely routine process with full international cooperation. No mysteries. No question about how it works.

Throwing out "martial law !" is right-brain emotion. An appeal to paranoia that they're coming for you -- take your guns away and rape your sister. Not real.

[COLGATE4]

5. Interesting. Need some cites -

Please provide a cite for your assertion that "Civilian criminal law is replaced by Law of War during active hostilities"

Please provide a cite for your assertion that "Capture for criminal prosecution is possible, of course, but legally irrelevant. Citizenship is irrelevant. Location is irrelevant. The whole world is the battlefield".

[vets74]

11. 'Fess up. You didn't read the article.

[COLGATE4]

51. Yep. I read it. Still don't see any cites for what are only his

conclusions.

[Melinda]

15. His cites, his argument, are found in a John Yoo (BUSH*) DOJ memo dated 9/14/2001

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

This place is over-run.

[COLGATE4]

52. Thanks for the cite. I knew that most of the posting had been written by a lawyer

rather than the poster. This is pure John Yoo/Cheney "tell them what they want to hear" bullshit. Shame to see it cited on DU as legitimate legal opinion.

[Melinda]

59. I feel as if I've stepped through the looking glass... happens a lot here anymore.

On DU of all places. On DU! Startling scary.

It's a surreal Sunday. TC.

Melinda

[stevenleser]

62. So help Melinda attack the points then instead of equating OP with Bush/Yoo nt

[EFerrari]

8. That is the CLAIM. It is not settled law by any means. n/t

[fascisthunter]

12. THANK YOU! (nt)

[EFerrari]

19. @ggreenwald: Those praising President Obama's actions on Awlaki include

Rick Perry, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney, Dick & Liz Cheney, and Peter King.

@ggreenwald Glenn Greenwald More Awlaki praise for Obama: RT @kirstenpowers10 "@ggreenwald Dont forget Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich"

[bluestate10]

22. The people praising the action don't make it a wrong action.

I, for one, think that the action was not only right, but would like to see other americans that aligned with terrorists to kill as many innocent americans as possible, brought to the same fate. BTW, I think every single one of the people that you mention above aren't patriots, even as they yell red faced that they are.

[EFerrari]

24. Yes, I remember your call for more killing from other posts. n/t

[stevenleser]

39. Which even if true, would not impact his opinion here. nt

[stevenleser]

38. Exactly right, see my #40 nt

[Major Hogwash]

87. So, what the hell difference does that make? Glen's black & white thinking is what is wrong with him

Seriously, Glen has no clue as to what the law is concerning this attack, so him checking the pulse of the far right doesn't validate his argument -- in fact, it undermines it!!!

[nineteen50]

9. So

There was never a declaration of war by congress. These wars are illegal if you hold to the constitution. If you swear to uphold the constitution you are violating it if you give any power or responsibility to someone or something else. The power to declare war was placed with congress because it made it harder to go to war and forced a debate in a formal arena.
Peace is not a four letter word. Wars, kill and hate and bomb are four letter words. Negotiate don't decimate.

[vets74]

18. The Constitution ALLOWS a Declaration of War again a foreign nation.

That is the War Powers clause.

However, at least another 125 military actions have been carried forward without need of any such Declaration of War.

Only five wars have been accompanied by Declarations of War. Those are the War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WWI and WW II.

Little tiffs such as the Civil War and the war with the Apache Nation were fought undeclared. The Confederacy and the Apaches caused one helluvan lot more trouble than Al Qaeda.

Since Al Qaeda is not a country, it is also not clear that a formal "State of War" with a Declaration could be defined to meet conditions that match up to that term under Law of War. War does not have to involve an actual State of War, of course. We have fought a number of wars where most of the country didn't know we were doing it.

Congress can declare that a State of War exists between the United States of America and another nation state or group of states. Almost always Congress has not bothered. Such a declaration matters very, very little.

Tally ho !

[malthaussen]

10. Useful Information

But it begs a larger question, which I think is exercising people a bit more than the factual question of legality or illegality.

If your contention is that since the act was legal, there is no point in discussing it... then there's no point in discussing it.

If you are concerned with an issue larger than simple legality, then the field is wide open.

-- Mal

[vets74]

23. I am delighted that Hamilton and Madison anticipated these problems.

The other 125 wars and skirmishes that the U.S. has fought over the years came out more or less all right.

(The War of 1812 excepted, of course. We lost that one. We didn't get our major cities burned down solely because the Brits, for once, decided to go soft.)

Haig v. Agee and Lichter v. U.S. make good reading. Hamilton is always good reading.

The Greenwald piece is all the other way. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.

That is false in each detail and indeed foolish.

The due process, here, is the registration process where terrorists and their groups are identified/published. You certainly did not hear Anwar al-Awlak and Samir Khan complain that they were not active combatants, trying to kill people in the West. Quite the contrary.

The world is the battlefield. Read Mao or any modern terrorist writings if you disagree.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

14. US citizens are to be bound by international law and the UN, not the Constitution

Do I understand you?

[vets74]

33. The Constitution works perfectly well with international law, Interpol and the U.N.

That is how the world works every day of the week.

These guys moved themselves outside U.S. criminal law when they joined a foreign paramilitary/terrorist organization and got listed internationally.

No one ever objected to the certification-and-listing accuracy. They were proudly, openly guilty.

[jpgray]

36. Our soldiers and politicians as well, then, are subject to international law

What do the UN and relevant international laws have to say about the commission of extraordinary rendition? Torture? I assume you believe there is no conflict there with US policy?

[stevenleser]

41. Interesting subjects that have nothing to do with whether what was done was legal nt

[jpgray]

45. Appeal to authority as it harms our enemies, deny and reject it as it threatens our friends

To rationalize our actions, we will recognize a whole galaxy of authorities as it suits us. To restrict our actions, we recognize very few.

[stevenleser]

49. True or no, still has nothing to do with whether what was done was legal.

I think it is not true, but that is another discussion.

[Gregorian]

28. Only if we're always at war.

[vets74]

30. Yes, indeed.

So far there have always been crazy people, plus the huge invasion/migration wars of history.

The Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the Binladens....

[msanthrope]

34. Any congressperson can introduce a resolution to supercede the AUMF.

Why hasn't it been done?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

47. You don't understand what ad hominem means

Voters with msanthrope's view of things are why civil liberties lost after 9/11 have not been clawed back. Similar attitudes kept Obama from closing Guantanamo, ending extraordinary rendition, etc., etc.

[stevenleser]

48. You used an attack on that poster as part of your reasoning. Clearly ad-hominem nt

[jpgray]

56. I merely pointed the results of that reasoning when shared by so many

I attack the belief that rejecting the increased powers of the executive since 9/11 amounts to being weak on terror. How is that an attack on a person? Is it an attack if I point out a person holds those views?

[stevenleser]

65. The mods clearly agreed with my assessment that your post was ad-hominem. nt

[jpgray]

66. People agree to what is wrong all the time. It's why we're in this thread.

[stevenleser]

68. Keep telling yourself that. nt

[msanthrope]

44. Do you really think I am preventing Dennis Kucinich from doing anything?

I don't have that kind of power.

[jpgray]

46. Fear of voters such as yourself does have that sort of power.

It's why Obama extends the Patriot Act to this day.

[msanthrope]

50. Re-election before principle? Not that I blame Dennis....nt

[stevenleser]

54. What I find amazing is, that person accuses some Democrats of having such amazing power

by our mere thoughts and opinions, pronounces us guilty for that, but thinks that terrorists half way around the world should not be taken seriously when they say they are declaring war on us and their organization commits several acts of war against us.

That is the interesting part here.

[COLGATE4]

57. For the same reason the Patriot Act is still on the books. Because

no politican would ever withstand the RW firestorm that would be whipped up against him/her by Fux and all the RW radio mouthbreathers. Hardly a good reason to view it as acceptable legislation.

[msanthrope]

29. I would only add to your excellent and informative post that the AUMF of 9/18/01 invokes the WPA

specifically.

I don't know why so many DUers have failed to realize that we did declare war on 9/18/01. Not one congressperson--not the sainted Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders, has ever introduced a resolution to supersede the AUMF of 9.18.01.

Because we are still at war with these people.

[vets74]

32. Yep. Text follows :::

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- 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 September 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-

(1) 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.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

--------------------------------

Supersede gets misspelled. They were in a hurry. Lord knows if anything in TPA was spelled right.

[msanthrope]

35. I wonder that no congressperson has ever introduced a resolution to supersede this one?

Not even the saintly Sanders or Kucinich?

They could, of course.

[DCBob]

58. good question.

+1

[DCBob]

60. clear as a bell.

thx for posting

[vets74]

77. Went back and looked at it.... Looks more like Vietnam war powers authorization.

War powers were fully authorized for both conflicts.

But a State of War was never declared to exist between the United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

A Declaration of War names an opposing nation-state. This 2001 AUMF thingie describes the 9/11 perps but doesn't name anyone.

Are we "at war" ??? By authorization, yes. As a State of War with a Declaration, apparently not.

It's #$%*&^%$ Vietnam all over again.

[sabrina 1]

69. So Bush was right after all and we DO owe him an apology?

Is that what you are saying? When we disagreed with granting the POTUS such powers, WE were wrong? Then let's do that, the man has been vilified for nothing. Why didn't people to to all this trouble to defend HIM back then?

[vets74]

70. Certifying and registering terrorists for U.S. & international response...

might be the one and only area where George W. Bush attracted no criticism.

He did feed the dog, right ??? Give him two Bungle Free Areas.

This has nothing to do with torture. Or Iraq. Or the tax giveaways. Or Katrina. Or global warming. Or stripping SEC enforcement. Or sitting on his butt while the 9/11 plot matured.

International registration for terrorists and their groups developed over a 20 year period. The U.S. Constitution and our current laws are fully compatible with that system, with Law of War, and with local statutes in the G20 and other countries that have advanced legal systems.

Basically, Glenn Greenwald's piece displays legal ignorance.

[sabrina 1]

71. Giving the POTUS the powers of a king was a huge issue

for democrats back when Bush was claiming them. Now I see a change on the left regarding that issue. It's important to know what our principles are. To me anyhow.

[vets74]

73. We notched that "king" stuff up to his personal narcissism.

Nothing short a Personality Disorder. Plus that Cheney was even worse -- he was addicted to lying. Cheney went up to The Hill and lied to Congressional Republican leadership despite that telling the truth would have been better for him than the lie he told.

Dick Armey related how BushCo's relations with Congress were not quite sensible.

In practice, this business of certifying and then registering terrorists works to limit executive power. No one wants the embarrassment of listing someone who is not a terrorist. Easily a hundred countries get the lists from U.N. and Interpol.

This is not a PR system.

There's no Colin-Powell-at-the-UN extravagance.

We could always see a King David use the system to murder his modern Uriah, Bathsheba's husband. I'm not saying that's likely.

Due process internationally and in the U.S. has been moved way up the line. Terrorists get process when they are moved from civilian to military status. Then they get Law of War. That is how all of the G20 and more do it -- nothing to do with George Bush.

[sabrina 1]

79. The ACLU and other Civil Libertarians and Constitutional lawyers

disagree with you. We all disagreed with you when this exact same power was claimed by Bush. Bush supporters argued vehemently also, to defend him on this issue, and they used laws and twisted facts, sometimes quite convincingly, to do so.

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent

“The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent,” Jaffer told Need to Know. “It’s a profound mistake to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”

Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war. In the past, the authority to kill American citizens has been restricted to fixed geographical boundaries of conflict and to periods in which the U.S. was at war with a clearly defined enemy.

“The authority the administration is claiming is not an authority that is limited to the battlefield. In their view, the battlefield is anywhere, therefore terrorists can be found anywhere,” Jaffer said. “That’s dangerous.”

[DCBob]

81. "use lethal force against its own citizens" ... that's a bit a stretch in the case of al-Awlaki.

Hard to classify this guy as an American citizen considering the circumstances.

[sabrina 1]

84. He was born here. That makes him a citizen and as such he has

the rights of any other US citizen. Read the requirements to remove citizenship from an individual who was born here. They are pretty clear.

He could have had his citizenship rescinded, but that was not done. To do so would have required a lot of evidence to be presented to justify that action. I would like to have seen that happen.

But it didn't, therefore whether or not you think he should not have been a citizen, the law says he was.

[DCBob]

88. technically of course you are correct.

[fascisthunter]

76. it depends.... being on DU is not the same as being on the "left"

but yeah... too bad anyone excuses that much power. I guess we need to repeat history a few more times so people learn a lesson Sabrina 1.

[sabrina 1]

80. Thank you, sometimes I have to look around to see where I am

lately. I know one day all these Bush era laws will be rescinded. I like many others, thought that was what was going to happen when we threw Republicans out in 2008. But it looks like it's going to take a while longer. Nothing this wrong can remain part of a Democratic system for long. As Jonathan Turley said, these periods do occur but they are usually corrected within in a few years.

When they are corrected those who made use of them will not be treated kindly by history though nor will those who supported them for purely political purposes. But it won't be within the next few years no matter who wins the WH, unless we can elect a truly progressive Congress in 2012 which is probably the only hope we have at this point.

[saras]

72. That international law scares the shit out of me

The cavalier inclusion of "financial harm" changes EVERYTHING.

By this law, any strike with both A. any illegal component and B. any harmful financial effect - is terrorism. Likewise a boycott or other protest. Bush stated this explicitly more than once, and pushed hard and with some success for environmental protests to be treated this way.

So this is the 'terrorism' people are advocating extrajudicial murder for.

Anwar al-Awlak was such a flaming shithead in so many ways that he's a really bad example to generalize about international law from, and certainly a bad example to make policy from. ANY sort of law would include him, so the laws should be written to be precise about the real edge cases. And the real edge cases include the worst rulers making the decisions as well as the most difficult calls as to criminality.

[vets74]

74. Nuking a server farm...

takes on a different tone.

Merrill had a System Admin jailed for sabotage. Dummy. Now, maybe, that would be "terrorism" ??? I have no idea what USAO would do.

[Melinda]

75. Respectfully requested: Please, please, please provide the U.N Statutory (law) code you cite here:

You said:

"United Nations definition: an act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

As you didn't provide the cite to said Satutory authority, I went looking for it. What I discovered was this:


"The UN has no internationally-agreed definition of terrorism." at http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?1=1&p=61 which is quite evidently a right-wing organization.

So I kept looking.

I went to UN.org, did a search and came up with this results page: http://search.un.org/search?ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=utf8&q=Definition+of+terrorism&Submit=Go

I clicked on the first link and found that there was no U.N. Definition of terrorism as of December 2010. (http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/101201_CTED.doc.htm

I found several proposed drafts of this law perusing for documents, pdf's, and the like at the UN site, as well as at undoc.org (eg; www.unodc.org/unodc/search.html?site=unodc&proxyreload=1&q=definition+of+terrorism&entqr=0&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1, the most recent proposed definition here: www.unodc.org/pdf/ED%20speech%20to%20OSCE.pdf)

I feel I have done due diligence, but can not verify your claim that there is an accepted legal definition of Terrorism at the United Nations.

And so, I ask again... would you please provide the legal citation for, or at the very least a link to, the United Nations Definition of Terrorism.

Pretty please. TIA,

Melinda

[vets74]

82. That's funny. Try google for Interpol, UNODC, [UN + terrorism] and the Conventions...

and the various agreements will pop up.

The Convention on Terrorism is a treaty. Maybe that's what stymied you.

Enjoy: -- UNTC

Taking a course in international law is the right answer to a better question.

[Melinda]

86. Your link is non-specific; there is no definition to be found

Could that be why you didn't post the link in your OP? It should be easy for you to provide the cite if it exists. And please, funny to you or not, this isn't a game. I am sincerely trying to learn here.

[vets74]

89. LOL ! n/t

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Major Hogwash]

92. He backed up everything he said in this thread. The President acted legally.

And that's all there is to it.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exilednight]

78. When did we declare war in Yemen? Technically, we have not declared since Daddy George invaded Iraq

the first time.

[vets74]

83. The U.S. has not declared war since WW II. Authorizing war powers is different.

Congress does the authorization trick like opening pop-top beer cans. (125 times, more or less.)

[Exilednight]

85. Well, if that's the case, then the OP is even less credible. Let's be honest, the

war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan used to drum up support. We've also declared a war on drugs, but we don't go around killing every person smoking weed.

[Bonobo]

91. Here.

[vets74]

94. Welcome To New York !

And the George Anderson Era.

(Google < florence cioffi > for explanation.)

[Melinda]

95. Providing a quasi-legal brief w/out controlling authorities is invalid. Your opinion only; not law.

Legal memorandum are documents containing argument in support of a parties position. For those who aren't aware, what you have posted has been done in the style of a "legal memorandum" or "brief", but without the requisite issue (question(s)) to be settled, and without defined parts. Legal memorandum contain both "points" (which you've covered) and "authorities" (which you refuse to provide).

Because you refused to do so, I have chased down cites/authorities/history that should be part and parcel of your "brief". The results are:

Your assertion there is a UN definition of "Terrorism" is unsupported.
Your Interpol claims are unsupported.
Your claims of a UN "Terrorism Certification" is unsupported.

I don't understand why you didn't/won't provide verifiable cites/links to those particular claims. You'd rather have a verbal clash instead of a discussion on the merits of and evidence in your argument, and I don't wish to participate in that.

You've conflated and mixed and matched common law, international law, and U.S. statutory/case law with insurance regulation, policies/procedure, regardless the country/state/organization/agency.

You've provided a quasi-legal memorandum. There isn't a court or attorney anywhere that would accept your opinion as a legal argument because you have failed to add legal citations and controlling authorities. You could have posited your OP as opinion which would have been fine... but you instead post it as fact. And much of what you write is just opinion.

My hope is that DU users won't accept your opinion as some kind of settled law - because it isn't. And yes, I could have written a book about what constitutes a brief, ie; part and parcels, however I really am done here. And so with that, I am out of this thread.

Have a lovely day,

Melinda

[vets74]

96. Shill-troll "Melinda Barton" ? Start out objecting to everything, sets records as a Concern Troll.

Author of this:

1. Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in modern history and his VP running mate is an ignorant buffoon. Yes, Palin has much to learn but, according to those who have worked with her, including Warren Buffet, she's an extremely impressive woman and is being "misunderstimated." After reviewing her real Alaska record rather than the Obama-backed internet myths, I'm seriously impressed.

2. Obama has never looked beyond himself as candidate and seriously considered what it'll take to lead. This may have something to do with the fact that he's spent his entire political career running for some other office. Not once has he completed a term without running for higher office. Anyway, far too many questions result in Obama talking about his campaign rather than his record, a record he has taken great pains to conceal. What kind of person destroys his entire record as a State Senator, leaving no documents to be reviewed?

3. As a candidate, Obama is seriously corrupt in a way only a Chicago politician can be. From getting opponents kicked off the ballot to forcing the release of sealed divorce records, his campaigns in Illinois were Chicago corrupt all the way. During the primaries, he went even further, embracing Rovian tactics. There are widespread accusations of vote suppression, voter intimidation and vote fraud in caucus states around the country. The Texas Democratic Party has called Obama's actions criminal and requested a full investigation. Having reviewed the accusations carefully and discussed the caucuses with friends who were there, I find the accusations have weight and are truly frightening. The ACORN doesn't fall far from the Obama-tree.

Melinda the RW hero and fake girl

The Concern Troll act gets painted on with a 6-inch brush.

One lie after another. Nothing but sabotage aimed to make leftie sites unpleasant. Leadership Institute shill-pattern all the way.

No idea whether this is the same person, or just a shill-troll idolizing the damage done/time wasted by "Melinda Barton."