Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

Wow. Let's hope that nutter never rises above deputy assistant. I see how he got there though, being a yes man with complete disregard for civil rights.

He also completely ignored the fact that we do have a FISA court that does hear such matters.

I'd like to think that if the FISA court is required for various classified requests affecting US citizens, that someone would consult them on a killing.

And that doesn't speak to 'collateral damage'. In a war zone, there are procedures in place to compensate the family of victims, from "you're shit out of luck" to "here's $500". People in a war zone at least know that they are in a war zone. With drones we're claiming the right to go anywhere, anytime and kill a target and anyone who happens to be nearby with no respect for culpability.

If Uncle Vlad was in the Russian mob and happened to be attending his nieces wedding, and the FBI broke in and mowed down a few dozen wedding guests, there would be outrage. The question would be, "Did everyone know, including the children, that their lives were forfeit by being in the same room as him?"

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

He was not a US citizen.

Plowed ground...

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, mildly tilled ground, you left out a couple of things.

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by richlevy

He also completely ignored the fact that we do have a FISA court that does hear such matters.
<snip>

I guess I overlooked a third really stupid thing about Mr Hauck.
He is saying all this to the judge, who also serves on the FISA court !

ibid

At one point, when Mr. Hauck referred to the Constitution, Judge Collyer, 67,
who was appointed by President George W. Bush and also serves on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
interrupted to note that the Constitution prescribed three branches of government,
and that she represented one of them.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, mildly tilled ground, you left out a couple of things.
<snip>

Despite all the Dwellars conjectures about renouncing citizenship in this thread,
in this particular case, the Defendants DO consider all three decedents as US citizens.
If they did not, they would have certainly called them something else...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NASSER AL-AULAQI, as personal
representative of the estate of ANWAR
AL-AULAQI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LEON E. PANETTA, et al., in their
individual capacities, Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-01192 (RMC) Case 1:12-cv-01192-RMC Document 18
Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 58
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

On Page 31 of this Motion: the Defendants state:

A. Plaintiffs fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right.
The three decedents in this case are U.S. citizens allegedly killed abroad during armed conflict.
Given the unique and extraordinary context of these allegations, the extent to which particular
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights apply to decedents simply is not clearly established.
<snip>

[Undertoad]

You are right.

I personally don't think he should be considered a citizen. And he remained a citizen only because it was the best way to combat the US.

It may be that he didn't have his citizenry revoked, through legislation or whatever means it would take to pursue, for some esoteric foreign affairs reason we don't understand.

It may even be a case where the intelligence on the guy said he had to be killed quickly, and let's sort out the legal wiggle room later if there's a big fuss.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, no snipping.

Context is “a potentially recurring scenario that has similar legal and factual components.” Arar, 585 F.3d at 572. See also Mirmehdi, 689 F.3d at 981. The context here is unique for a number of reasons: it is an alleged (1) military and intelligence action; (2) abroad; (3) during the course of ongoing armed conflict; (4) targeting a U.S. citizen declared a leader of an armed terrorist group (and Al-Banna, a non-citizen enemy).

Thus, an analysis of the extraterritorial question presented requires this Court to determine whether, and to what extent, to judicially enforce the particular Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections that may apply to a U.S. citizen allegedly targeted and killed—or inadvertently killed—by a purported missile strike abroad on members of an organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force.

There are no cases holding such conduct illegal, let alone illegal “beyond debate.” Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083. To the extent the Supreme Court has discussed the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens abroad, it has generally done so in the context of custody, detention, or trials—not in the active battlefield. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (plurality) (detention); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (plurality) (trials).

They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31, and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.

It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, no snipping.

They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense
of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31,
and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.

It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.

Sorry xoB, I did not mean to snip out anything significant.

Some Dwellar arguments in this thread have proposed that citizenship was given up by the time they were killed.

My point, even reiterated within your quote above,
is that for this case against four Federal employees being defended
by the US government establishes that the three Decedents are/were US citizens..
.. for whatever technical discussions, it doesn't matter.

The US government is saying their US citizenship still exists, even today.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's strategy, legal maneuvering bullshit. If they only say things that are true, what the fuck are they doing in court?
I don't care what position they're taking, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, clearly lost his citizenship on a couple of counts.

[Lamplighter]

I'll pass your thoughts along to Mr. Hauck...

[xoxoxoBruce]

You have repeatedly inferred my opinion, on several subjects, is unimportant. I'm sure your shepherd appreciates your cooperation.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's strategy, legal maneuvering bullshit. If they only say things that are true, what the fuck are they doing in court?
I don't care what position they're taking, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, clearly lost his citizenship on a couple of counts.

It's not just about the lack of citizenship but the fact that Anwar al-Awlaki was planning attacks on the United States, joined a terrorist organization, and was hiding in a location where it was nearly impossible to capture him alive.

I can understand the case for making the conditions for which the droning of a (prior) American citizen more clear, but as far as I am aware, the options were either to drone Al-Awlaki or let him live. All the other options were not realistic. Also, if al-Awaki was not planning attacks on US soil or lived in place where it would be possible to capture him, we would not have droned him. This was an extreme circumstance and not nearly the slippery slope that people make it out to be.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In the defendants motion, the government is trying to prevent a slippery slope.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You have repeatedly inferred my opinion, on several subjects, is unimportant.
I'm sure your shepherd appreciates your cooperation.

Wow ! Where did that come from ?

xoB, I don't believe I've ever intended to disrespect your opinions,
here in this thread, or elsewhere.
I may disagree with you in places, just as you disagree with me.
But if I've offended, especially in my attempts at humor, I apologize.

[xoxoxoBruce]

WTF... an apology... no monetary compensation? What about pain and suffering? At least dry cleaning to get the tear stains out of my suede restraints, ya cheap prick.