Herman Cain

[Solus]

The title that they are using for the basis of the trial on W's Military Commisions Act of 2006.  It's tenuous because some of the wording isn't consistant.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.

 :"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."


There is a great deal of debate about the unlawful enemy combatant definition since in one paragraph it says it applies to "aliens" and in others it does not.  I'm not saying that there isn't sticking points and that the interprutation is vague, but there is laws and procedures in place that the average American has no business knowing.  Sorry you can't have it both ways.  Total transperancy isn't possible and you REALLY don't want to know everything either.  At the same time an open trial as you are contending puts more Americans at risk.  You are opening sources and techniques up for scrutiny by people we don't want to have that information.

It appears that the "procedure" is in place, even if there might be some ambiguities.

If the competent "Commission" rules the individual an unlawful enemy combatant, he is subject to trial and then punishment, including death.

So the questions become.  Was the secret group assembled according to these requirements, was a trial held - in absentia is fine as long as it is allowed in this law.  And then was the sentence of the trial death?


As to the rest....actually I REALLY do want to know.  However, I understand Need To Know and wouldn't want everything to be public knowledge.   

However, that the procedure was followed and it timeline and a list of witnesses to the procedure would not be out of line.

[billt]

I prefer our Republic to that Democracy.

That all sounds real noble and good. However it is just plain stupid to put American citizens in direct danger, by defending a another citizens "rights" who has denounced his country, and wants to kill as many of his fellow citizens as he possibly can. American lives come before anything. It does no good to be dead right.

[jnevis]

There have been multiple news reports outlining that the National Security Council, the President, and DoJ all INDEPENDANTLY came to the concluision to add Al Awlaki to the list of targets as far back as Feb 2010.

The UK and UN both added him to the "Wanted" list shortly after we did for the same reasons we did.
 
In late April 10, representative Charlie Dent (R-PA) introduced a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to issue a "certificate of loss of nationality" to al-Awlaki. He said al-Awlaki "preaches a culture of hate" and had been a functioning member of al-Qaeda "since before 9/11", and had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts

Not a US Court, but he was also tried in Yemen
Al-Awlaki was charged in absentia in Sana'a, Yemen, on November 2 with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda.[210] Ali al-Saneaa, the head of the prosecutor's office, announced the charges as part of a trial against another man, Hisham Assem, who had been accused of killing a Frenchman, also saying that al-Awlaki corresponded with Assem for months, encouraging him to kill foreigners.[210][211] The prosecutor said:

Yesterday a regular visitor of bars and discotheques in America ... Awlaki today has become the catalyst for shedding the blood of foreigners and security forces. He was chosen by Al-Qaeda to be the lead in many of their criminal operations in Yemen. Awlaki is a figure prone to evil devoid of any conscience, religion, or law.[212]

A lawyer for al-Awlaki denied he was linked to the Frenchman's murder.[211] On November 6, Yemeni Judge Mohsen Alwan ordered that al-Awlaki be caught "dead or alive".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[billt]

And what were the consequences besides a bunch of innocent folks killed and some cash awarded to some survivors?

That is the way our laws work. It worked for Ron Goldman's father against O.J. Simpson the same as it worked for Randy Weaver, the same as it worked for the survivors of the families of 9/11. Ron Goldman cannot be brought back to life for his father, no more than Weavers wife and kid can be for him. Nor can the people who died on 9/11. The only "justice" left to administer is money. The FBI paid Weaver millions. O.J. can't pay Goldman. The average 9/11 family was paid $1.8 million. It isn't fair, it's the best anyone can do.

And just who are the onse who decided all bets are off?  Admin thugs in the back room like happened here? I say no, you seem to be saying yes.

Whoever has the intel that can provide a sure identification on him, and the military person or persons who can make the decision on if he can be taken out successfully without collateral damage that might cause a big international incident. In Bin Laden's case it was the President. My guess is he was involved in the decision making process here as well. In the least the Secretary Of State and Joint Chief's Of Staff.

[tombogan03884]

The title that they are using for the basis of the trial on W's Military Commisions Act of 2006.  It's tenuous because some of the wording isn't consistant.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.

 :"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."


There is a great deal of debate about the unlawful enemy combatant definition since in one paragraph it says it applies to "aliens" and in others it does not.  I'm not saying that there isn't sticking points and that the interprutation is vague, but there is laws and procedures in place that the average American has no business knowing.  Sorry you can't have it both ways.  Total transperancy isn't possible and you REALLY don't want to know everything either.  At the same time an open trial as you are contending puts more Americans at risk.  You are opening sources and techniques up for scrutiny by people we don't want to have that information.

There's that word again. Give it up J, every document you cite disproves your argument.
There isn't a single one of them that states "Arbitrary execution is OK".

Bill, you are just part of the problem. People like you deserve to get screwed by the Gov.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

That all sounds real noble and good. However it is just plain stupid to put American citizens in direct danger, by defending a another citizens "rights" who has denounced his country, and wants to kill as many of his fellow citizens as he possibly can. American lives come before anything. It does no good to be dead right.

you are right...how could I doubt the wisdom of our government and this administration.  Foolish of me to want to control the ability of them to execute an American citizen without due process (although jnevis' post indicates they may have followed the procedure).  

Why think of all the time wasted with all the formalities they DID observe.  Stupid to waste time when we could have just picked out a few we want out of the way.

As soon as we start to accept the government taking action outside the Constitution and Law, for any reason, we are on the way downhill....and that slope IS slippery.
  

[jnevis]

There's that word again. Give it up J, every document you cite disproves your argument.
There isn't a single one of them that states "Arbitrary execution is OK".

Bill, you are just part of the problem. People like you deserve to get screwed by the Gov.

What part of it was arbitrary?
It is a stated fact that Al Awlaki was recruiting, training, and assisting with the planning and execution of American and Coalition civilians and combatants.  We have mountains of evidence that he was doing it.  He iwas universally cited as a leader in AQAP.  Other countries found him guilty and called for his execution (Yemen, his "other" citizenship among them).  Our own legal system, as screwed as it can be, determined he was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.  A military tribunal weighed the evidence and determined he was an enemy combatant.   How many trials does this guy need have to have before it satisfies you?  You can call foul all you want, the rules were followed and he was eliminated.  Just because you couldn't watch it on Court TV is irrelevant.  Plus they were in the process of stripping him of his citizenship.  So if they had it would have been ok, since they didn't kill an American at that point, but since they hadn't it's not?  Following that logic EVERY terrorist, no matter what country they are from requires a trial prior to eliminating them, just to make it "legal".

[Solus]

What part of it was arbitrary?
It is a stated fact that Al Awlaki was recruiting, training, and assisting with the planning and execution of American and Coalition civilians and combatants.  We have mountains of evidence that he was doing it.  He iwas universally cited as a leader in AQAP.  Other countries found him guilty and called for his execution (Yemen, his "other" citizenship among them).  Our own legal system, as screwed as it can be, determined he was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.  A military tribunal weighed the evidence and determined he was an enemy combatant.   How many trials does this guy need have to have before it satisfies you?  You can call foul all you want, the rules were followed and he was eliminated.  Just because you couldn't watch it on Court TV is irrelevant.  Plus they were in the process of stripping him of his citizenship.  So if they had it would have been ok, since they didn't kill an American at that point, but since they hadn't it's not?  Following that logic EVERY terrorist, no matter what country they are from requires a trial prior to eliminating them, just to make it "legal".

For me, just one.   The one listed in your legal reference that comes right after the Tribunal rules that he is an unlawfull enemy combatant.

(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.


I didn't write the law, so if it applies to to many folks, don't complain to me about it.....but while it is the law, the government must follow the procedure.

And I do believe a trial is necessary where called for.  Trials have formal procedures for entering evidence.  "Everyone knows" or "It is a stated fact" alone are not evidence.  Let the evidence be submitted formally in the trail that is specified in this law.

[billt]

Bill, you are just part of the problem. People like you deserve to get screwed by the Gov.

When laws that are supposed to protect it's citizens, force those same citizens to live in deliberate danger, something is very wrong. All the legal chest pounding and mumbo jumbo you want to pile up on top of that isn't going to replace common sense.

[Solus]

When laws that are supposed to protect it's citizens, force those same citizens to live in deliberate danger, something is very wrong. All the legal chest pounding and mumbo jumbo you want to pile up on top of that isn't going to replace common sense.

Poor Herman...he has had his thread hijacked by us.

and I'd agree if I expected common sense from the government instead of abuses of power.