quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nice op ed. Senior officials.......... uh, anyone with guts thats got a name, or...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Firm, when US field commanders summarily executed US citizen German soldiers who infiltrated US lines during the Battle of the Bulge was that illegal?

quote:

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.


Full article here

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nice op ed. Senior officials.......... uh, anyone with guts thats got a name, or... here is some more 'credible proofs' of something...

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Firm, when US field commanders summarily executed US citizen German soldiers who infiltrated US lines during the Battle of the Bulge was that illegal?

Well, depending on the laws at the time.  I'd have to go back and research the facts.

But, based on current law and my understanding, if the US citizen German soldiers were in uniform, and actively fighting the Americans, then there is no question that they could be "targeted". 

As far as the "summary execution" part, if they were POW's, then that would be a war crime.

If they were not in German uniform, but in US uniforms working a false flag operation/infiltration operation, then they would have been classified as spies, and under the then existing law of war, could be summarily executed, I believe.

In other words, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean, and I'd have to go back and research the law at the time to give a more definitive answer.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nice op ed. Senior officials.......... uh, anyone with guts thats got a name, or... here is some more 'credible proofs' of something...

The only "non-anonymous" name in the article is:

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

Maybe he is lying?  (He is a Democrat, yanno).  [8D]

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nice op ed. Senior officials.......... uh, anyone with guts thats got a name, or... here is some more 'credible proofs' of something...

The only "non-anonymous" name in the article is:

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

Maybe he is lying?  (He is a Democrat, yanno).  [8D]

Firm

So they weren't denied due process after all? So what precisely were you complaining about again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Firm, when US field commanders summarily executed US citizen German soldiers who infiltrated US lines during the Battle of the Bulge was that illegal?

Well, depending on the laws at the time.  I'd have to go back and research the facts.

But, based on current law and my understanding, if the US citizen German soldiers were in uniform, and actively fighting the Americans, then there is no question that they could be "targeted". 

As far as the "summary execution" part, if they were POW's, then that would be a war crime.

If they were not in German uniform, but in US uniforms working a false flag operation/infiltration operation, then they would have been classified as spies, and under the then existing law of war, could be summarily executed, I believe.

In other words, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean, and I'd have to go back and research the law at the time to give a more definitive answer.

They wore US uniforms over German uniforms and it was an operation intended to cause chaos in out ranks. Those that were captured were in general executed by the unit that captured them. Their orders were to not shoot at US troops while wearing US uniforms, hence the german uniforms underneath, but to commit acts of sabotage and to spread false orders while in US uniform.

So it is ok to summarily execute US citizens when captured on the battlefield but it is not ok to kill one as part of a military operation? Your logic seems to be faulty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

I am sure obamas lawyers are at least as adept at law as ws regarding the okaying of torture.

So, what do we really have?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nice op ed. Senior officials.......... uh, anyone with guts thats got a name, or... here is some more 'credible proofs' of something...

The only "non-anonymous" name in the article is:

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

Maybe he is lying?  (He is a Democrat, yanno).  [8D]

Firm

So they weren't denied due process after all? So what precisely were you complaining about again?

Due process generally means the judicial branch is involved, DK.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Firm, when US field commanders summarily executed US citizen German soldiers who infiltrated US lines during the Battle of the Bulge was that illegal?

Well, depending on the laws at the time.  I'd have to go back and research the facts.

But, based on current law and my understanding, if the US citizen German soldiers were in uniform, and actively fighting the Americans, then there is no question that they could be "targeted". 

As far as the "summary execution" part, if they were POW's, then that would be a war crime.

If they were not in German uniform, but in US uniforms working a false flag operation/infiltration operation, then they would have been classified as spies, and under the then existing law of war, could be summarily executed, I believe.

In other words, you'll have to be more clear about what you mean, and I'd have to go back and research the law at the time to give a more definitive answer.

They wore US uniforms over German uniforms and it was an operation intended to cause chaos in out ranks. Those that were captured were in general executed by the unit that captured them. Their orders were to not shoot at US troops while wearing US uniforms, hence the german uniforms underneath, but to commit acts of sabotage and to spread false orders while in US uniform.

So it is ok to summarily execute US citizens when captured on the battlefield but it is not ok to kill one as part of a military operation? Your logic seems to be faulty.

You assumptions about what I said is faulty, DK.  Better go back and reread it.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

I am sure obamas lawyers are at least as adept at law as ws regarding the okaying of torture.

So, what do we really have?

So, to be consistent, you'll either have to say that Bush's method was ok, or that Obama's is faulty.

You wanna choose one, Ron?  [8D]

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

First off we were at war with Germany, as far as I know we are not at war with anybody, Congress has not enacted that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You said it was ok to execute them because they were captured in US uniforms but that it isn't ok to kill other enemy US citizen through military action on the battlefield. I'm not seeing what is missed.