Obama Admin: Legal Theory for Whacking US Citizen "classified."

[Fitz]

In addition, I apologize for my hostile assertions. Some of my posts have not been quite on "the high road."

This is a very personal subject to me. I've seen the carnage that those of his ilk cause, and I have had to deal with, on more than one occasion, the murderous philosophy he spent his adult life spewing


Interesting side note: he was arrested several times in the US for prostitution... funny how someone can ignore their religion one minute and use it to justify and encourage murder the next

[roo_ster]

Again, fitz- how do you know for certain who is a terrorist until the government's claims are tested and independently verified?

When the guy has made videos and tape recordings admitting to and boasting about his activities, I don't need to rely on gov't being run by angels.  That is the sort of thing I am willing to take folks' on their word.

This is a piss-poor case in which to make such an argument, what with all the facts beating the argument like a red-headed step child.

You're reading his statements how you want to read them. 

He's pretty plainly stating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the government deciding in secret how it differentiates between US Citizens it just hunts down and kills and those who stand trial for crimes.


The "War on Terror" is about as broad of a brush stroke as you can paint with. 

Like I wrote, re-read DS.  He is not making only that simple point (which I happen to agree with).  As with CAIR and others, he is an advocate of lawfare against America in general and our troops in particular.

[freakazoid]

When the guy has made videos and tape recordings admitting to and boasting about his activities

A murderer could do the same thing and still would get a trial.

[Fitz]

Murderer: isolated dude, give him a trial


This guy: member of an armed force we are AT WAR WITH


We DON'T need permission to kill someone we are AT WAR WITH.

You guys are aware there were americans who left america to go fight for the germans during WW2....

You think we gave them a trial before bombing the *expletive deleted*it out of them?

[Tallpine]

We seem to be at war with about half the world these days....   

[Fitz]

We seem to be at war with about half the world these days....   

I'm going to go ahead and revert to the "they started it" argument

Maybe we wouldn't be at war with them if, I dunno, they hadn't massacred thousands of innocent people. In fact, our idiot leadership was PERFECTLY happy to appease and and arm these maniacs for quite some time.

[freakazoid]

We DON'T need permission to kill someone we are AT WAR WITH.

Is it ok to kill someone who is surrendering? After all, we are at war with them.

[TommyGunn]

Is it ok to kill someone who is surrendering? After all, we are at war with them.

Yes.  It was done in WW2 when the soldiers couldn't realistically be expected to complete their missions and maintain prisoner security at the same time.

[De Selby]

Yes.  It was done in WW2 when the soldiers couldn't realistically be expected to complete their missions and maintain prisoner security at the same time.

A host of war crimes were committed - this is one of them and is recognized as such by the united states and all civilized nations. 

The important thing to remember here is that when, who, and how we decide the evidence is overwhelming is an important question.  It isn't just for show that we hold trials even when there's a video tape of the crime - having an independent assessment of the evidence is vital even where the purpose is to declare that there's overwhelming proof.

If you don't do that, the government will simply assert that the evidence is overwhelming whenever it wants to kill someone, and then do it.  You may not agree next time - it's important in either case that the decision about the evidence is independent.

Note that we did find al qaeda units taking up arms against the us and fought them in battle- I've seen no reasonable objection to that.  This killing is a completely different scenario.

[TommyGunn]

It was not considered a war crime in WW2 if done under those circumstances, DeSelby.  It probably would be considered one now, though.

[De Selby]

It was not considered a war crime in WW2 if done under those circumstances, DeSelby.  It probably would be considered one now, though.

Not the case Tommy, shooting surrendered people was a crime in any circumstances other than after a trial. 

[Tallpine]

It's not a "war crime" when you win 

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Not the case Tommy, shooting surrendered people was a crime in any circumstances other than after a trial. 

See here for an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order

[De Selby]

See here for an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order

How is this an example of legal execution???  The article tells you on it's first page that this practice was held to violate the laws of war at Nuremberg

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'm gonna say that introducing this particular jackass to Allah via missile-armed drone is entirely OK with me.  If anyone has earned it, I believe that he has.  This is due to his stated and proclaimed affiliation with Al Qaeda, and encouraging war (if not direct engagement of war) against the US.  I believe his actions fit solidly within the definition of Treason, and as such merit death.  Furthermore, he is a self-professed enemy combatant, and as such, unless he is in the act of surrender, is fair game.

HOWEVER the .gov refusing to disclose the reasoning and justification for putting a Hellfire up his fourth point of contact is NOT OK.  

[TommyGunn]

Not the case Tommy, shooting surrendered people was a crime in any circumstances other than after a trial. 

Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe.  Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially,"  but it happened.
In reality, POWS were only rarely taken by patrols and then only when they were specifically tasked to get one, which would usually be an officer of rank, who would have important knowledge.

[De Selby]

Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe.  Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially,"  but it happened.
In reality, POWS were only rarely taken by patrols and then only when they were specifically tasked to get one, which would usually be an officer of rank, who would have important knowledge.

Not sure how this matters then - you acknowledge it was a crime, and recognized as such. 

Because someone did it before isn't a good reason to commit the same crime again.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

How is this an example of legal execution???  The article tells you on it's first page that this practice was held to violate the laws of war at Nuremberg

Where did I say it was legal? I quoted your post and said "see example" not "counterpoint" or "au contraire, mon frere." You're a lawyer, you're supposed to notice the fine print. 

Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe.  Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially,"  but it happened.

It happened extremely often in the Pacific, not so frequently in Europe - though Patton once complained about it:
"The Eleventh Armored is very green and took unnecessary losses to no effect. There were also some unfortunate incidents in the shooting of prisoners. I hope we can conceal this."
Concealment was important to prevent German reprisals on Allied POWs.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Having spoken to WW2 vets who were THERE, I know for a fact it was done under the circumstances I describe.  Perhaps it was frowned upon "officially,"  but it happened.
In reality, POWS were only rarely taken by patrols and then only when they were specifically tasked to get one, which would usually be an officer of rank, who would have important knowledge.

the word of the day is war crimes

[TommyGunn]

Not sure how this matters then - you acknowledge it was a crime, and recognized as such. 

Because someone did it before isn't a good reason to commit the same crime again.

Ok,  I think the thing everyone (including myself  ) is missing is that there is no obligation on the part of anyone to accept the surrender of enemy combatant troops.
If surrender has not accepted, then firing on them is OK.
If terms have been made and accepted, then the terms have been accepted and at that point, they may not be shot.
In the incidents I was refering to above surrender was not accepted.
I apologize for not more thoroughly explaining the matter in the above post.

[Perd Hapley]

Ok,  I think the thing everyone (including myself  ) is missing is that there is no obligation on the part of anyone to accept the surrender of enemy combatant troops.
If surrender has not accepted, then firing on them is OK.
If terms have been made and accepted, then the terms have been accepted and at that point, they may not be shot.
In the incidents I was refering to above surrender was not accepted.
I apologize for not more thoroughly explaining the matter in the above post.

You're saying that, if an enemy combatant approaches a U.S. soldier in the field, hands up and waving a white flag, saying "I surrender," the soldier is allowed to shoot the guy at whim?

If his unit were in the middle of assaulting the objective, and he thought the "surrender" might be a ruse and he didn't have time to sort it out, then yeah, I could see that. But that's about the only way I could see that being legal.

[TommyGunn]

I'm saying it was done.  
And yeah, I'm sure a lot of times the Germans may have been attempting a ruse.
Also consider that in a moment where a soldier thinks there's no way to survive except surrender, he may do so, only to begin to see ... "possibilities" as time goes on.

Somewhat aside from everything, there was a scene in the 1960 movie "The Longest Day" that provoked a great deal of controversy in its day.  Just after much of the American soldiers managed to surmount the cliffs and begin to make progress, a few German soldiers come out of a bunker.  One gets to say "Bitte Bitte" in the second or two before the American soldiers gun them down.  As the American G.I.s leave, one remarks "I wonder what 'bitte bitte' means?"   Well, what the German soldier was trying to say in English would be "please ---."  We don't know what he was asking as of course he was so rudely cut off.  Maybe it would be "Bitte, bitte, nicht shießen,"  which would be "please don't shoot."  If this incident were true, would the American G.I. be considered guilty of a war crime?
Probably not, IMHO, as he was confronted by an enemy soldier in the heat of battle, obviously didn't understand the question or imploration the enemy soldier was making, and did what was expected of a soldier in a war at the time.
Yet it created a fireball of a controversy because "somehow" he was supposed to have "known" the German was trying to surrender.
There is also the true story of American soldiers at the Battle of the Bulge who were cut off and running out of ammo and tried to surrender to the Germans.  One soldier who thought he knew a little German yelled "nicht shieß" (leaving off the last two letters "EN").  Unfortunatly this means, in German, "don't s**t."  Apparantly even the Krauts didn't leave their sense of humor at home in WW2, so the krauts all broke out laughing, and accepted the surrender.  It didn't do anyone of them any good because this was toward the end of the war.
I suspect things might have played out differently depending upon the scale too.  A large scale matter involving officers might involve a great deal more formality than on a squad or platoon level.
But remember, in war, cr@p happens.  It's nice to say there are rules of war, and of course there are.  It would be nice if war itself was illegal and could be stamped out but that seems too "pie-in-the-sky" to ever happen.  And  just as it's impossible to preclude wars through the law, it probably will always be as hard to keep everyone playing by the rules -- especially when they interfer with survival.
The Roman Cicero said, "inter arma enim silent legges," meaning, "in war the law falls silent."   When following rules makes you dead/defeated, there's an enormous almost insurmountable ambition to violate them for ones' own good, or that of the country you're serving.
That's why it's war, not pinochle.  

[De Selby]

How would following the rules in this situation cause more deaths than following the rules in the war on drugs?

It's without question that drugs have killed more people, and ruined far more lives, than terrorism.

Why isn't everyone jumping up and down for the government to start targeting dealers, to prevent "national suicide"? 

Or is a whole generation afflicted by drug use, drug murders, and the family destruction that comes with it less of a threat than some guys with homemade bombs who have struck America twice in 20 years?

[TommyGunn]

How would following the rules in this situation cause more deaths than following the rules in the war on drugs?

It's without question that drugs have killed more people, and ruined far more lives, than terrorism.

Why isn't everyone jumping up and down for the government to start targeting dealers, to prevent "national suicide"?  

Or is a whole generation afflicted by drug use, drug murders, and the family destruction that comes with it less of a threat than some guys with homemade bombs who have struck America twice in 20 years?

What are you trying to do, come up with reasons to ignore terrorism?   I'm no big rah-rah fan of how this country is handling the drug problem, but IMO we ignored AQ and terrorists for twenty years.  They attacked the USS Cole, they bombed embassies, they tried to attack the Trade Towers in the early '90s and we basically ignored it ---until they succeeded and 2,973 human beings lost their lives on American soil.
That's more than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor cost.
I suppose you think we should have ignored the Japanese after 12/7/41 as well.  

When the *&&%^^ terrorists start "following the rules" I will happily argue we should enact the Marquit de Queensbury's rules in our fight against them.  

The last thing we need is a bunch of ******** conflating our ***** "war on drugs" with the war against Jihadi driven terrorists.  

[De Selby]

Tommy, the point is one of comparison - you're saying that we need to set aside our liberties to fight terrorism because if we don't, there's no way to win.

I'm pointing out that the drug war has killed far more people than terrorism, and ruined countless more lives, yet no sane person on this board would argue that we need to suspend our right to trial in order to fight drugs. 

If terrorism is such a lethal threat, why don't you support doing away with trials and allowing Government assassinations for the drug war, which is far more dangerous to America than terrorism will ever be?