quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Who can or cannot be targeted by The United States, in an undeclared war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Executive Order 11,905 stated that “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassinations.”

Political not national security. That means no shooting national leaders or political party leaders. It has absolutely nothing to do with exterminating al Qaeda.

So you are saying religious leaders are then fair game?

Define national leaders. Are you talking about those in power or in opposition? What in your mind defines political party?

Who can or cannot be targeted by The United States, in an undeclared war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Thats the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of Conservatism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Who can or cannot be targeted by The United States, in an undeclared war?

How about someone conspiring to murder American citizens, while living abroad and being outside of the reach of US law.

Anyone you know who fits that bill ?

BTW good to see you getting concerned about peoples rights now GWB is out of office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Executive Order 11,905 stated that “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassinations.”

Political not national security. That means no shooting national leaders or political party leaders. It has absolutely nothing to do with exterminating al Qaeda.

So you are saying religious leaders are then fair game?

Define national leaders. Are you talking about those in power or in opposition? What in your mind defines political party?

Who can or cannot be targeted by The United States, in an undeclared war?

If the religious leader is not involved in politics then yes they can be targeted by the strict wording of EO 11,905.

Since the rule is against political assassinations I'd say any national leader in power or in the opposition. A political party is a group working for common goals inside the political structure of the country they are in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

I'd kinda avoided this topic because I had mixed feelings on several aspects and was trying to sort them out myself. But then I stumbled across a post by a Canadian friend on another board that summed up so nicely where I found myself leaning, so, I'm going to plagiarize her here hehe:

"Look, it doesn't matter what he's accused of, or even how obvious it is that he is guilty. None of us are shedding a tear for Al-Awlaki. Good riddance to him and his ilk. That's not the point. The simple issue is whether or not the government should be allowed to execute its own citizens without any regard for due process at all. His case is not somehow an "obvious exception." Any exception at all opens the door to allow the government to do the same to anyone else they find inconvenient."

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Executive Order 11,905 stated that “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassinations.”

Political not national security. That means no shooting national leaders or political party leaders. It has absolutely nothing to do with exterminating al Qaeda.

So you are saying religious leaders are then fair game?

Define national leaders. Are you talking about those in power or in opposition? What in your mind defines political party?

Who can or cannot be targeted by The United States, in an undeclared war?

If the religious leader is not involved in politics then yes they can be targeted by the strict wording of EO 11,905.

Since the rule is against political assassinations I'd say any national leader in power or in the opposition. A political party is a group working for common goals inside the political structure of the country they are in.

Not involved who's politics? Our's? Their's? Someone else's? So a religious leader of hundreds of thousands could be targeted for execution by the United States but a crack pot who form a political party with eight people in it is protected?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

I'd kinda avoided this topic because I had mixed feelings on several aspects and was trying to sort them out myself. But then I stumbled across a post by a Canadian friend on another board that summed up so nicely where I found myself leaning, so, I'm going to plagiarize her here hehe:

"Look, it doesn't matter what he's accused of, or even how obvious it is that he is guilty. None of us are shedding a tear for Al-Awlaki. Good riddance to him and his ilk. That's not the point. The simple issue is whether or not the government should be allowed to execute its own citizens without any regard for due process at all. His case is not somehow an "obvious exception." Any exception at all opens the door to allow the government to do the same to anyone else they find inconvenient."

quote:

I think the point here is that al Awlaki and Khan were very much outlaws in the old sense of the word. That is they were people who had put themselves beyond the reach of the law. The fact that the laws they sought to destroy were not stretched to protect them seems completely reasonable to me.

I will contrast it with the obviously unacceptable treatment of Jose Padilla who was a US citizen under the control of the US government for years and denied all of his constitutional rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

I think the point here is that al Awlaki and Khan were very much outlaws in the old sense of the word. That is they were people who had put themselves beyond the reach of the law. The fact that the laws they sought to destroy were not stretched to protect them seems completely reasonable to me.

I will contrast it with the obviously unacceptable treatment of Jose Padilla who was a US citizen under the control of the US government for years and denied all of his constitutional rights.

Two quick points I guess.

1) Not sure how following the law would be "stretching" it, and

2) Jose Padilla's treatment was unacceptable as well, but two wrongs don't make a right, yadda yadda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Which appears to have been overturned.

"political in the common meaning" Now what the heck does THAT mean???

And who gets to make the call on whether or not a particular religious leader is political or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

I think the point here is that al Awlaki and Khan were very much outlaws in the old sense of the word. That is they were people who had put themselves beyond the reach of the law. The fact that the laws they sought to destroy were not stretched to protect them seems completely reasonable to me.

I will contrast it with the obviously unacceptable treatment of Jose Padilla who was a US citizen under the control of the US government for years and denied all of his constitutional rights.

Two quick points I guess.

1) Not sure how following the law would be "stretching" it, and

2) Jose Padilla's treatment was unacceptable as well, but two wrongs don't make a right, yadda yadda.

The law does not state that US citizens in a foreign country have to be accorded their constitutional rights. It is a stretch of the law to say that they do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

I think the point here is that al Awlaki and Khan were very much outlaws in the old sense of the word. That is they were people who had put themselves beyond the reach of the law. The fact that the laws they sought to destroy were not stretched to protect them seems completely reasonable to me.

I will contrast it with the obviously unacceptable treatment of Jose Padilla who was a US citizen under the control of the US government for years and denied all of his constitutional rights.

Two quick points I guess.

1) Not sure how following the law would be "stretching" it, and

2) Jose Padilla's treatment was unacceptable as well, but two wrongs don't make a right, yadda yadda.

The law does not state that US citizens in a foreign country have to be accorded their constitutional rights. It is a stretch of the law to say that they do.

AFAIK, the law does not state that US citizens in a foreign country don't have to be accorded their constitutional rights, which would mean it's a stretch to deny them. (Especially since citizens in a foreign country are still obligated to pay taxes etc.)