View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 21st, 2014, 8:41 pm



Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspects 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12249
Post AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspects
I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been posted yet....
Politico wrote:
Attorney General Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspects
US Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday defended the government's use of lethal force against Americans suspected of being plotting terrorism while abroad.

The speech marked the first time a senior US official has publicly justified in legal terms the drone attacks that are believed to have killed at least three US citizens on foreign soil in recent months, including key al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki.

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," Mr Holder said in a speech at a law school in Chicago.

"In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force."

Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which "an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful."

Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" and that "capture is not feasible."

Thirdly, the "operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.

"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not... assassinations are unlawful killings," Mr Holder said.

"Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan... We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country," he added.

"Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats."

Civil rights groups have cried foul since the killing of Awlaki in Yemen in September in a US raid.

Some argued it was illegal for the US military to kill an American citizen on the battlefield, following no attempt to indict him.

US intelligence officials believed Awlaki was linked to a US army major charged with shooting dead 13 people in 2009 in Fort Hood, Texas, and to a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama said in September that Awlaki's killing was a "major blow" to Al-Qaeda's Yemeni branch, and marked "another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last month filed a lawsuit seeking the release of documents authorizing targeted drone strikes.

US citizen Samir Khan was killed in the same attack on Awlaki, and the cleric's US-born teenage son was killed in October in a separate strike in Yemen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... pects.html
So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?
Thoughts?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 6th, 2012, 2:25 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9987
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
TheRealWags wrote:
So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?
Thoughts?


In my eyes, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder and a host of others are terrorists and should be killed under these guidelines.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


March 6th, 2012, 4:03 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12249
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
m2karateman wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?
Thoughts?


In my eyes, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder and a host of others are terrorists and should be killed under these guidelines.
Exactly my point.
Also, we might want to remember that our Founding Fathers could've been (and probably were) considered terrorists by "Mother England".

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 6th, 2012, 4:39 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
Just wait till they start putting Christians, or conservatives on the hit list! And I dare you to tell me they won't!!!!

Hitler was the proof for this mindset, he utilized the Brown Party to get power then turned around and killed them off. The Ghetto's the German Officers began to accept bribes, and other "favors" to give off the semblance of protection of the Juden's, but in truth it was to build complacency, so that when they came to "relocate" them to safer areas, the Jews went without a problem, initially.

Stand in there way, and you're gonna feel the heat. Word is coming out now that the TEA party activist are being threatened by the IRS. See what I mean. It's just starting.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 6th, 2012, 4:59 pm
Profile
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
TheRealWags wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
So, IF I'm understanding this correctly, as long as the American Citizen is a 'terrorist' and poses an immediate threat, the US Govt can kill them anywhere at any time. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this policy and those like it? What happened to having the right to face your accuser? Who gets to decide whether or not someone is a 'terrorist' (TEA Party and OWS folks could both be classified as terrorists) What exactly is 'an immediate threat'? One might think that if the US Govt has the resources to track down and kill someone, then they should / could also have the resources to arrest them, no?
Thoughts?


In my eyes, Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Holder and a host of others are terrorists and should be killed under these guidelines.
Exactly my point.
Also, we might want to remember that our Founding Fathers could've been (and probably were) considered terrorists by "Mother England".



"One nation's terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter..."


March 6th, 2012, 6:10 pm
1st Round Pick

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
TheRealWags wrote:
Thoughts?

Why does the US citizen thing make a difference?

Someone is either an enemy combatant in a war, in which case the rules of war apply (which will sanction killing without a trial) or they are a suspected criminal, in which case the rules of justice apply and they should be arrested and brought to a fair trial.

That should apply, IMO, regardless of the nationallity of the person in question.

Terrorism is a tricky area, because it sits in a grey area between war and criminality. Which means there is debate as to how you should deal with terrorism suspects. But I don't see how nationality should change that picture.


March 7th, 2012, 8:55 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
UK,

After reading your post I wondered how that ties into the fact that our current leadership was demanding that US soldiers and Marines read the Miranda Act to enemy combatants captured in the course of their duties.

The Miranda Act is for American Citizens. It does not apply to, nor can it, the rest of the world, unless they become a citizen of the US through normal channels, which doesn't involve trying to kill us.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 7th, 2012, 9:18 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
A couple of weeks ago, UK Lion expressed regret and indignation that he agreed with me about something. I'm now gonna return the favor. :D

An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant, regardless of nationallity. If we use citizenship as the determining factor, should US soldiers ask for the passports of those firing at them before returning fire? I know that's an extreme example, but I think you get my point. If someone is plotting or planning to kill US citizens, kill them first. End of story.

With that said, I understand that last year's NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was rather broad and could be interpreted to include US citizens on US soil. That is a rather scary thought since Homeland Security has included anti-government, pro-gun, and right wing groups as potential terrorists in previous publications. As a result, I'm probably on their list of assassination targets on all three accounts. But somehow, I doubt that the Occupy Wall Street commies, anarchists, rapists, murderers, vandals, and general scumbags are. Oh well. I'll take my chances.

_________________
Image


March 8th, 2012, 1:43 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
There lies the problem, the military is an enforcement tool of the US Government in terms of combat. To use it as a police force is wrong, and outside of their training.

To allow the UN and World Court to charge and attempt to try American Soldiers, shows how cowardly the US Government has become. An American Soldier is operating at the request of his commander in chief. ANY violation of the UCMJ is a military matter, and MORE strict than civilian law.

The World Court system is biased, and untrustworthy. Just as I wouldn't put American troops under foreign control. It's not a pride thing, it's a training thing. American troops use small unit leadership, especially the Marine Corps. The mission is communicated and the leaders get it done, but mistakes and evil will happen, it's war, and it is a breeding ground for such violence.

However, I want someone to have the stones enough to step up and illustrate and report all of the GOOD stories our troops have done. How many lives have we saved? How about the prison filled with Children in Baghdad that we liberated? How about the medical care, and many other things that we've done? Afghanistan has REAL roads now in some areas. But you don't hear those stories, how come?

If Holder wants to target people, he can start with these two:

1. Soros
2. Mayer (the terrorist friend of obama)

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 8th, 2012, 9:51 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12249
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
WarEr4Christ wrote:
However, I want someone to have the stones enough to step up and illustrate and report all of the GOOD stories our troops have done. How many lives have we saved? How about the prison filled with Children in Baghdad that we liberated? How about the medical care, and many other things that we've done? Afghanistan has REAL roads now in some areas. But you don't hear those stories, how come?
Just a thought, but why don't YOU do this? What is stopping you? Start a blog and roll with it...
/just a thought...

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 8th, 2012, 10:31 am
Profile
1st Round Pick

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.


March 8th, 2012, 10:43 am
Profile
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
UK Lion wrote:
WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.


Soldiers are subject to international law. No one is disputing that. However, only jus cogen laws are punishable in an international court tribunal, and there is only one jus cogen law that is recognized - genocide - which was the basis of the Nuremburg trials.

This really is unprecedented. This is the U.S. government saying that our own citizens are not protected by our Constitution where they are deemed (arbitrarily I might add) to be an enemy combatant. They're saying that we have no "rights" as soon as they say that we don't. That's scary. Further, you can be an "enemy combatant" right here in the U.S. It use to be that you STILL had rights, but they could try you for treason for "crimes against your country." Apparently that is no longer the case. Now they can literally label someone, round them up, and lock them away (or worse) under fairly arbitrary means.


March 8th, 2012, 3:14 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12249
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
wjb21ndtown wrote:
UK Lion wrote:
WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.


Soldiers are subject to international law. No one is disputing that. However, only jus cogen laws are punishable in an international court tribunal, and there is only one jus cogen law that is recognized - genocide - which was the basis of the Nuremburg trials.

This really is unprecedented. This is the U.S. government saying that our own citizens are not protected by our Constitution where they are deemed (arbitrarily I might add) to be an enemy combatant. They're saying that we have no "rights" as soon as they say that we don't. That's scary. Further, you can be an "enemy combatant" right here in the U.S. It use to be that you STILL had rights, but they could try you for treason for "crimes against your country." Apparently that is no longer the case. Now they can literally label someone, round them up, and lock them away (or worse) under fairly arbitrary means.
Doesn't the PATRIOT Act give them ability as well? Say someone is a 'terrorist' or 'providing material support' for terrorists, send them to GITMO, not to be heard from again....

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 8th, 2012, 3:47 pm
Profile
Post Re: AG Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspec
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
UK Lion wrote:
WarER - what's your view of the Nuremburg trials?

As I understand it, they rested on 2 important principles:

1. soldiers are subject to certain international laws, and able to be held accountable by international bodies for breach of those laws; and

2. that whilst "I was following orders" will excuse many otherwise illegal acts, there are certain acts so morally repugnent that "I was following orders" will not get you out of them (eg genocide).

If you take away either of those two principles, you take away the legal foundation for the Nuremburg trials and therefore the basis for holding Nazi war criminals accountable for their actions.

If you hold to those principles, then you accept that your own troops may have to face trial someday if they commit war crimes of sufficient magnitude that "I was following orders" doesn't cut it.


Soldiers are subject to international law. No one is disputing that. However, only jus cogen laws are punishable in an international court tribunal, and there is only one jus cogen law that is recognized - genocide - which was the basis of the Nuremburg trials.

This really is unprecedented. This is the U.S. government saying that our own citizens are not protected by our Constitution where they are deemed (arbitrarily I might add) to be an enemy combatant. They're saying that we have no "rights" as soon as they say that we don't. That's scary. Further, you can be an "enemy combatant" right here in the U.S. It use to be that you STILL had rights, but they could try you for treason for "crimes against your country." Apparently that is no longer the case. Now they can literally label someone, round them up, and lock them away (or worse) under fairly arbitrary means.
Doesn't the PATRIOT Act give them ability as well? Say someone is a 'terrorist' or 'providing material support' for terrorists, send them to GITMO, not to be heard from again....



No the PATROIT Act only gives the govt. an unfettered right to wire tap without a warrant in emergency circumstances (which, admittedly, are arbitrary), but it does not give the government the power to send U.S. Citizens to GITMO without due process, to the best of my knowledge.


March 8th, 2012, 4:09 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 14 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.