Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3203 of them)

I mean I know this calculus is brutal and wrong, but 20 dead innocent civilians is a marginally better scenario than the firebombing of Tokyo, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:56 (six years ago) Permalink

Love is a battlefield.

Famous porn scenes like "shake that bear" (Phil D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:57 (six years ago) Permalink

no one can tell us we're wrong

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:04 (six years ago) Permalink

You guys have read the stories about inaccurate targeting, right?

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:06 (six years ago) Permalink

wait are you saying robots make mistakes

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:07 (six years ago) Permalink

glibness aside, yes I am aware but I don't see how that alters the calculus described above

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:08 (six years ago) Permalink

I suppose it's cool that our boys and girls aren't the ones dying but we're making families miffed.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:09 (six years ago) Permalink

and survivors have sought revenge.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:09 (six years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't call it "cool", exactly

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:11 (six years ago) Permalink

The legal memorandum, portions of which were described to The New York Times last October, asserted that it would be lawful to kill Awlaki as long as it was not feasible to capture him alive—and if it could be demonstrated that he represented a real threat to the American people. Further, administration officials contend, Awlaki was covered under the congressional grant of authority to wage war against al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.

pretty much what I was expecting

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him. seems like that would have been less legally questionable.

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:15 (six years ago) Permalink

it's funny how much stuff about treason is in the constitution

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:15 (six years ago) Permalink

man that is so much hassle

xp

yeah well new nation born in a war and all that

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

stop corrupting the blood

dayo, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

John Marshall's ruling in the Aaron Burr case made treason a next to impossible charge to stick.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

at time of constitution's drafting some 1/3 of "americans" were loyalists of one kind or another right?

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:17 (six years ago) Permalink

just seems to me like leaving the country and then advocating/actively working for its "destruction" is like the legal epitome of treason.

xp

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:17 (six years ago) Permalink

John Marshall's ruling in the Aaron Burr case made treason a next to impossible charge to stick.

hmm I haven't read this, but I'll take your word for it. Burr was an interesting dude... Vidal's book about him is hilarious

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:18 (six years ago) Permalink

"two admittedly regrettable but nevertheless distinguishable scenarios..."

http://www.retrohound.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/vlcsnap-2011-01-19-14h13m32s118.png

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:19 (six years ago) Permalink

The question now to be decided has been argued in a manner worthy of its importance, and with an earnestness evincing the strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with them. A degree of eloquence seldom displayed on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument and a depth of research by which the court has been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. The testimony adduced on the part of the United States to prove the overt act laid in the indictment having shown, and the attorney for the United States having admitted, that the prisoner was not present when that act, whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance, and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States to connect him with those who committed the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrelevant, and must, therefore, be rejected. The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings.
On the first division of the subject two points are made:

1st. That, conformably to the constitution of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied.

2d. That if this construction be erroneous, no testimony can be received to charge one man with the overt acts of others until those overt acts as laid in the indictment be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:20 (six years ago) Permalink

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

dude what?

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:21 (six years ago) Permalink

freedom from trial in absentia is like one of the most basic and important procedural protections there are! let me dig up the relevant lit

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:22 (six years ago) Permalink

guys, remember: Shakes is still lobbying to be the secretary of defense in a Soto administration.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:22 (six years ago) Permalink

i'm never sure what people get out of these "at least he's not..." arguments. i suppose i'm glad obama's not doing even worse shit than he already is, but an illegal assassination program isn't exactly the only alternative to carpet-bombing pakistan.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:23 (six years ago) Permalink

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

xpp

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:26 (six years ago) Permalink

shakey: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-6194.ZS.html

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:28 (six years ago) Permalink

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

yeah that's a whole other problem...

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:29 (six years ago) Permalink

That's the trouble. The national security state hasn't reconciled Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel decisions, and Oval Office urgency.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:31 (six years ago) Permalink

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, January 23, 2012 1:28 PM (3 minutes ago)

it RAISES the question, and yeah i guess their only other option would be to kill him, which is what they did! doesn't mean it's grounded in law

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:32 (six years ago) Permalink

That's the trouble. The national security state hasn't reconciled Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel decisions, and Oval Office urgency.

yep, a huge mess with no end in sight.

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:33 (six years ago) Permalink

color me naive but it's still amazing & creeped out to me that "secret opinions" are possible

no doubt there's a long ass history of these things throughout the cold war. or maybe not! i rly don't know.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:34 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't mean it's grounded in law

shoot first, write law later lol

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:34 (six years ago) Permalink

ha otm

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:35 (six years ago) Permalink

thx for the legal links btw, thought there might be something unique aspect of treason charges/circumstances that would allow the in absentia thing but I guess not

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:36 (six years ago) Permalink

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

There's no trial by absentia in the US, also:

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

Only if we are currently belligerents with that foreign military, or you happen to be an officer or Non-Comm - you have to give that position up but you don't actually have to be discharged.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:39 (six years ago) Permalink

The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of the Justice Department legal opinion in the Awlaki case. (The department has declined to provide the documents requested.)

curmudgeon, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:45 (six years ago) Permalink

color me naive but it's still amazing & creeped out to me that "secret opinions" are possible

no doubt there's a long ass history of these things throughout the cold war. or maybe not! i rly don't know.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, January 23, 2012 1:34 PM (54 seconds ago)

hey on the bright side people have the opportunity for definite acquittal, ostensible acquittal, and indefinite postponement

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:49 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh and an XP to myself and clarification for shakes -- declaring yourself an enemy combatant through joining up with Al Qaeda or their All-Yemeni B-Team is enough (in my mind) to count as willfully giving up your citizenship. A judge might need a bit more convincing but probably not by much.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:50 (six years ago) Permalink

TBQH I also thought for a long time that for some of the high crimes like double murders and treason and stuff you could be tried in absentia, dunno why. I blame British television.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:58 (six years ago) Permalink

declaring yourself an enemy combatant through joining up with Al Qaeda or their All-Yemeni B-Team is enough (in my mind) to count as willfully giving up your citizenship

mm yeah no

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:01 (six years ago) Permalink

damn Alfred you are right - renunciation of citizenship takes some official hoops I didn't realize one had to jump through: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Think I'll take a break from this thread for a few more years...

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:09 (six years ago) Permalink

Too late, we've ordered a drone strike on your location.

Famous porn scenes like "shake that bear" (Phil D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:25 (six years ago) Permalink

You might miss and take out one of the rest of us instead

curmudgeon, Monday, 23 January 2012 20:13 (six years ago) Permalink

and no army will defend our dead

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 20:17 (six years ago) Permalink

jfc

dayo, Monday, 23 January 2012 20:57 (six years ago) Permalink

what the FUCK

Chaka Collar, lemme rock you (DJP), Monday, 23 January 2012 20:59 (six years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.