So the Windbag questioned if Bush/Cheney were war criminals

[Anonymous]

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

personally I am grateful the terrorist is dead... but doesn't this part of the comment bother you?

for a legal source,... the New York Times..

for a standard,... International law?



for reference shouldn't our government look at our LAW.

n 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities.
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

The U.S. government was the first to formulate a legal code of military conduct that was to be issued to the troops in the field. During the Civil War, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton solicited guidance and suggestions from a variety of scholars as to what form these regulations should take, but left the task of writing them to Doctor Francis Lieber, a professor at Columbia University.28 Lieber's code was reviewed, amended, and finally issued by President Abraham Lincoln in [*PG7]1863 as The U.S. Army's General Orders #100. Five thousand copies were printed and distributed to the officers of the armies of both the Union and the Confederacy.29 Article 148 of the Order states:

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

our law is clear, and has been since the Civil war.

How about FDR's authorization of the shoot down assassination of the mastermind of the Pearl Harbor attack-- General Yamamoto ?

 

[Steve]

On April 6, 2010 The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.

personally I am grateful the terrorist is dead... but doesn't this part of the comment bother you?

for a legal source,... the New York Times..

for a standard,... International law?



for reference shouldn't our government look at our LAW.

n 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities.
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

The U.S. government was the first to formulate a legal code of military conduct that was to be issued to the troops in the field. During the Civil War, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton solicited guidance and suggestions from a variety of scholars as to what form these regulations should take, but left the task of writing them to Doctor Francis Lieber, a professor at Columbia University.28 Lieber's code was reviewed, amended, and finally issued by President Abraham Lincoln in [*PG7]1863 as The U.S. Army's General Orders #100. Five thousand copies were printed and distributed to the officers of the armies of both the Union and the Confederacy.29 Article 148 of the Order states:

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism

http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

our law is clear, and has been since the Civil war.

How about FDR's authorization of the shoot down assassination of the mastermind of the Pearl Harbor attack-- General Yamamoto ?

as I said the law is clear. and has been since the civil war.. it is backed by several executive orders.

In 1981, President Reagan issued the most recent version of the ban, Executive Order 12333. This new Order, which remains in effect today, retained President Carter's wording, but added a section that prohibits indirect assassination by members of the intelligence community.

so slice it any way you want.. by law if a "military target" is destroyed by the military and a person you want dead happens to die... military and international law has you covered, as long as you are not targeting an individual..

if anyone else does it in the US government or acts on behalf of the US government.. military, international law and our code backed by executive orders strictly prohibits the assignation of an individual..

only a legitimate military target is legal.. an only as long as the target is not an individual..

 

[Whitewing]

Steve, what if the prez issuing the order to assassinate an individual has a (D) behind his name versus an (R)? Wouldn't that count for something?

 

[Mike]

an only as long as the target is not an individual

Everyone is an individual. I don't get what you're saying.

 

[Anonymous]

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, U.S. government officials named bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death. On July 13, 2007, this figure was doubled to $50 million. The Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association offered an additional $2 million reward.

So then under your definition Steve- Bush was wrong to put up a $50 million reward for information leading to Osama Bin Ladens capture or death ?

 

[Whitewing]

Duh

Bush (R) = evil
Obama (D) = brilliant & hero

 

[Anonymous]

To me this brings up another question...Should we still be allowing these folks that are US born citizens- that then leave/abandon their country and take on a new countries citizenship to keep their US citizenship?

al-Awlaki claimed both US and Yemeni citizenship.. And used passports from both countries- and claimed citizenship to whichever benefited him the most at that time.....

 

[Whitewing]

To me this brings up another question...Should we still be allowing these folks that are US born citizens- that then leave/abandon their country and take on a new countries citizenship to keep their US citizenship?

al-Awlaki claimed both US and Yemeni citizenship.. And used passports from both countries- and claimed citizenship to whichever benefited him the most at that time.....

Perhaps those who "abandon" their country for another should be put on the list.....that NSA list.....the one decided upon by the group.

Certainly opens up a world of opportunities to "deal" with them. Just sayin'.

 

[Steve]

an only as long as the target is not an individual

Everyone is an individual. I don't get what you're saying.

faceless (unknown) enemies are targets.. (such as a combatant )

by law you can shoot at the enemy combatant... because they are a military target..

but if you know who the enemy is that you are shooting at, and want him dead... then it is an assassination..

the exception is if the enemy is shooting at you, then you can return deadly force..

 

[Steve]

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, U.S. government officials named bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death. On July 13, 2007, this figure was doubled to $50 million. The Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association offered an additional $2 million reward.

So then under your definition Steve- Bush was wrong to put up a $50 million reward for information leading to Osama Bin Ladens capture or death ?

you should understand this concept???

when a person is wanted, you can capture them,.. or if they resist and die, you still get the reward..

 

[hypocritexposer]

 

[Whitewing]

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, U.S. government officials named bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death. On July 13, 2007, this figure was doubled to $50 million. The Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association offered an additional $2 million reward.

So then under your definition Steve- Bush was wrong to put up a $50 million reward for information leading to Osama Bin Ladens capture or death ?

you should understand this concept???

when a person is wanted, you can capture them,.. or if they resist and die, you still get the reward..

He does know better Steve. He's trying to nuance himself out of the hole he's dug. Perhaps if he just stood on that mountain of BS he's built he could save his fat ass.

 

[Anonymous]

an only as long as the target is not an individual

Everyone is an individual. I don't get what you're saying.

faceless (unknown) enemies are targets.. (such as a combatant )

by law you can shoot at the enemy combatant... because they are a military target..

but if you know who the enemy is that you are shooting at, and want him dead... then it is an assassination..

the exception is if the enemy is shooting at you, then you can return deadly force..

So then you believe FDR's authorization to seek out and kill General Yamamoto was illegal :???:

 

[Steve]

To me this brings up another question...Should we still be allowing these folks that are US born citizens- that then leave/abandon their country and take on a new countries citizenship to keep their US citizenship?

al-Awlaki claimed both US and Yemeni citizenship.. And used passports from both countries- and claimed citizenship to whichever benefited him the most at that time.....

we have treason laws and laws where a person forfeits his citizenship..

As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state or service in foreign armed forces

It is also possible to forfeit U.S. citizenship upon conviction for an act of treason against the United States

so all we really have to do is apply the existing law...

 

[Whitewing]

Had I been alive in FDR's day, I'd have had more of a problem with his forced encampments for anyone with slanty eyes.

 

[Steve]

Everyone is an individual. I don't get what you're saying.

faceless (unknown) enemies are targets.. (such as a combatant )

by law you can shoot at the enemy combatant... because they are a military target..

but if you know who the enemy is that you are shooting at, and want him dead... then it is an assassination..

the exception is if the enemy is shooting at you, then you can return deadly force..

So then you believe FDR's authorization to seek out and kill General Yamamoto was illegal :???:

the law is clear. it doesn't say if the guy is the devil himself you can kill him...

shall I re-post it?

 

[Whitewing]

It is also possible to forfeit U.S. citizenship upon conviction for an act of treason against the United States

Uh Steve, the use of the word conviction implies some sort of trial and we've already established that such foolishness is unecessary.

Please try to keep up.

 

[Steve]

So then you believe FDR's authorization to seek out and kill General Yamamoto was illegal

in a war decisions are made that are controversial and sometimes illegal..

they may be the right decision.. a decision that saves thousands of lives.. and decisions I agree with...

I went and read two different accounts.. on specifically said an unnamed high level officer.. and the group was targeted..

a second on Operation Vengeance stated the specifically targeted the three bombers..

so I would say that the officers and troops involved in the mission did not break the law, yet the higher ups and FDR did...

A squadron of Lockheed P-38 Lightning aircraft were assigned the task as only they possessed the range to intercept and engage. Select pilots from three units were informed that they were intercepting an "important high officer" with no specific name given.

First Lieutenant Rex T. Barber engaged the first of the two Japanese transports which turned out to be Yamamoto's plane. He targeted the aircraft with gunfire until it began to spew smoke from its left engine. Barber turned away to attack the other transport as Yamamoto's plane crashed into the jungle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto

if you read the passage, it sounds as if the Admirals understood the law
and issued a lawful* order.





*the order would be lawful.. (unnamed) but those who knew the name.. (Admiral Nimitz and above) would also know that FDRs order was not a lawful order.

 

[Steve]

It is also possible to forfeit U.S. citizenship upon conviction for an act of treason against the United States

Uh Steve, the use of the word conviction implies some sort of trial and we've already established that such foolishness is unnecessary.

Please try to keep up.

sorry, I was busy researching lawful orders.. but looking at my answer it was in response to OT suggesting we just strip away the rights..

I just wanted him to know there was a legal way to do it.. (which is now totally unnecessary if the guy is already buried in the sand box out back)..

 

[Whitewing]

It is also possible to forfeit U.S. citizenship upon conviction for an act of treason against the United States

Uh Steve, the use of the word conviction implies some sort of trial and we've already established that such foolishness is unnecessary.

Please try to keep up.

sorry, I was busy researching lawful orders.. but looking at my answer it was in response to OT suggesting we just strip away the rights..

I just wanted him to know there was a legal way to do it.. (which is now totally unnecessary if the guy is already buried in the sand box out back)..

OT is a strict Constitutionalist (as long as the prez is a pub) so it's hard for me to imagine him wanting to strip away anyone's rights (unless the prez doing the stripping is a donk).