US citizen murdered by government without trial

Duh! That's why they're extradited

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you disagree that the man was involved with al-Qaida yes or no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In 1998, Al Quaeda declared war on the U.S.:

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-19/...in-international-islamic-front-osama?_s=PM:US

Anwar al-Awlaki chose to join this group that the U.S. is at war with. That alone makes him an enemy combatant and a simple truth is that enemy combatants at times of war get killed. In the U.S. we have seen this both in external and civil war.

If your fears are that this type of action brings about the possibility that the special interest groups whom run America will declare war on their citizens, please keep in mind that the U.S. military is made up of people whom are not part of those special interest groups (at all levels), not to mention that we have state mailitias and lots of citizens whom own firearms... just in case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that's simply being DEPORTED.
If you break a law in Cambodia and are sent back to the US, you won't stand trial or go to jail here.

Extradition is sending someone back to be tried under their country's laws based on crimes committed there.

Yes, by definition you can kill an enemy combatant and it is NOT murder.
You can torch their buildings and it is NOT arson.
etc etc

Yes, due process does NOT apply to MILITARY actions or to people deemed to be enemy combatants and the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the military.

NO
He is a combatant simply by being a member of Al Qaeda, just as every German and Japanese was a legitimate target during WW2.
See the bombing of Germany and Tokyo if you need an example of what risks you take by being a declared enemy of the US even if you aren't on the front lines.

Nope.
You've been trying to excuse this guy because you contest his role in Al Qaeda.
The fact is if he is a member of Al Qaeda his role in that TERRORIST organisation is sufficient for him to be labeled an Enemy Combatant.

Arthur

 

What does this mean? What did he threaten?

Yeah, I disagree. It was the other way around. When "al Qaeda in Yemen" -

i.e.

saw the US interest in Awkali, they milked him for all the US dollars they could get

. So basically, all any dictator has to do is attach al Qaeda to his opponents and the US will get rid of them for him. Pro bono

They say a fool and his money are soon parted. But who goes into debt to show how foolish he is?

Anyone think it odd that "Al Qaeda in Yemen" has no name or face?

Anyone think it is odd that the Huthi rebels who "cooperate with al Qaeda" are Shias?


Anyone ever stop to think - for one single moment - why someone like Awlaki - born in the USA - goes to the country of his forebears and preach against the US government? Anyone ever wonder what the Yemenis could have against Americans? Does it matter? Do Americans care what their government is doing in this far away country bombing rebels trying to get rid of a dictator? After the whole Iraq and Afghanistan debacle, are you people still buying into government propaganda?

 

It doesn't matter if the guy was involved or not, he was denied due process so we don't know what he did and to what extent he was involved because he was smoked. Do you agree that the government makes mistakes when they are not transparent? Would you agree that a government that has this type of power can abuse it if its not transparent? Would you agree that your founding fathers included the fifth amendment for a reason?

 

So did Walker and yet he wasn't killed without fair hearing.

Please don't talk about the military as if its some how simply a member of average citizens. My husband is a member of that military, the moment you join you stop being a normal citizen, if it were not so they wouldn't have their own court system. The moment you join the military you resign many of your normal connections with 'citizens', this is why they were able to shoot a student at Kent State. Its also why a cop pepper sprayed women during the occupation wall st for no good reason, its also why 700 protestors were arrested at the brooklyn bridge. Every despotic government in the world has been helped by average citizens within and outside of the military. You know, people who don't question what they consider to be a 'higher authority' to whom they relinquish their power as citizens.

Militias? Really? REMEMBER WACO AND RUBY RIDGE!!! Militias are treated as a threat by the government.

 

What really pisses me off is that I discussed the whole Yemen issue only recently:


Will Yemen be the next domino?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106255

 

No its not!!! Its being extradited. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen agreed to extradite a US citizen to face criminal charges in Baltimore, Maryland.
Richard Arthur Schmidt, 61, was charged with having sex with a 13 years old boy by a Cambodian court and could face a maximum of 20 years in prison, if found guilty. In late January U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, Charles Ray, wrote a letter to Prime Minister Hun Sen asking him to cooperate with the U.S. request to extradite Mr. Schmidt. Last year, Cambodia extradited 2 American citizens to the U.S. to face charges of having sex with a minor. You are arguing something I know in fact to be true. Extradition is sending someone back for crimes committed at home or abroad.

An enemy combatant is only a combatant on a field of battle, that's international law.

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.


The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."

Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on 13 November 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant


See the part where it refers to TRIALS? Ok, If what you were saying is true then every person who is in Gitmo could be killed without a trial. There is a reason why there is such a thing as due process and why only civilized nations observe that process! And yes I am saying the US government does not operate as a civilized nation, not by a long shot! They're breaking their own bloody laws! And all you and others are saying is its okay because its what the government wants to do and you don't disagree with anything the government wants to do because its the government. That's the kind of sick state your turning into and your founding fathers would vomit all over it if they were alive to see how the constitution was so easily shat upon.

I am not contesting this guy's role in Al Qaeda, I am saying the government needs to state its case in a court of law!!! I am contesting the right of a government to smoke a man without placing charges and observing due process, you know like those butt-fuck despotic tyrannical countries that the US likes to point its boney finger at all the time.

What are you saying that Manning should be killed? Or Assange? Without trial?

 

Do you see what this is like? I mean can you believe the arguments their offering? They're so primed, they'll sit back and accept almost anything the state coughs up at this point.

 

No I am no longer surprised. I used to be because I could not believe that anyone could be so dumb. But I think its only when those drones are turned on US homes and families will the people start to wake up. Maybe. Or maybe the government will convince them that the drone attacks are against al Qaeda in New York and al Qaeda in New Orleans and these same fools will turn their guns on each other. After all, with the whole economy crashing, people do need some distractions

 

Well I am surprised to some extent, I know people can turn a blind eye towards the fate of foreigners but they are willing to abuse their own now, this is why I say they are so primed. And guess what, they would turn guns on each other and they would accept government turning on its own citizens because they are already accepting this because all the state has to do is call a citizen a terrorist and its done. Meaning they don't believe anyone accused of being a terrorist to have any civil rights, they don't recognize their own fifth amendment and they think the constitution is something you walk past in a museum...like the bloody mona lisa. Its just a piece of paper to them. If they lose their democracy without raising their voices and demanding their government observe the rule of law then they no longer deserve to have one.

 

Walker had better luck. But seriously, if you join the enemy in war, expect to be treated like... well... the enemy.

Correct and even troops will disobey orders. For example, if you told any pilot to go bomb SF, they would not. Ask your husband.

"Good reason" is subjective and you should always expect cops to over-react in any situation. That's how they are trained.

Sounds like 700 peoples worth of revenue was made. I am sure they will get over it.

Yep.

Uh... National Guard... not wacko texas.

 

@Crunchy

Oh I get it now the rule of law is dictated by luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My husband does what every soldier does, he obeys orders. You do realize that every tyrannical government is kept in place by ordinary people who don't question it don't you? The same goes for the military. Because they wouldn't be bombing SF, they would be bombing terrorists or people who are against america etc. That's why they went into Ruby Ridge and shot an unarmed american woman in the back who was holding a child in her hand!

Oh so cops overreact but not government and not the military?

LOL! Yeah they'll get over the arrest but if they don't you will. What do you care if 700 of your citizens are arrested? If they're arrested its for a 'good reason' right? Jews and the Japanese and countless others have been detained for 'good reason'. What kind of an ahistorical argument are you making anyway?

Ruby Ridge wasn't in Texas

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah but don't Americans wonder how it is that the US is fighting on the side of Islamic militants who support al Qaeda in Lybia and Syria but against them in Yemen? Doesn't the fact that that Gadhafi and Assad don't support American policy and the fact that Saleh does ever make any neuronal connections in their brain? Or am I overestimating their knowledge of the ME even after 10 years of occupation?

 

You're totally overestimating their knowledge. They don't question what their government does anymore, its conditioned out of them.

 

The murder of Bin Laden had the effect of permanently muting the man in the world with virtually the entire past, present and future history and intimate information with respect to Al Queada [or so we are told] stored in his mind. I do not approve of torture under any circumstances, but those that do can understand what some creatively applied interrogation techniques might have uncovered had Bin Laden been sitting in the chair under the lights.

Some very powerful persons had serious reasons why Bin Laden should never be brought under the lights - one of these reasons was not that his capture scored below that of his death when balancing the matter of justice, significance and importance to the security interests of the US. than
divulged from a strict and intense question and answer session.

Who manipulated the mission's final purpose? What possible interest do these people have, or are aware of that, that drove the final version of the mission from capture, which was discussed, to murder, which was committed?

I doubt if the President had such concerns regarding such divulged information, and it remains to look at those individuals that managed to insure the murder of bin Laden and to forgo his capture.

Treason does not propsper. For if treason did prospe none would dare call it trreason.

Geistkiesel

 

Law? If you choose to join an enemy in war, the only law you're going to see in your favor are maybe rules of the Geneva convention at best. Basically, it's rolling the dice at that point.

Sometimes. Tyrants can be kept in place by 3rd party funding as well. Look at Saddam Hussein, he was our paid-for tyrant for quite a while.

Ask your husband if he would drop a mini-nuke into the heart of SF if his superior told him to.

Yep, that was one clusterfuck allright.

About the most the police and the military have in common is they wear uniforms and some have guns. It's not really valid to compare them.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me (and yes I have been arrested before... I am one of those unfortunate people whom is prone to disorderly conduct and bad timing). They will get tickets for whatever and then be released. The one thing cops aren't going to do is fuck it up when the media is watching.

A realistic one. It appears I correctly suspected you were worried that killing an American who joined the ranks of a war-time enemy would somehow open the door for the military killing American civilians. I don't think you have anything to worry about. I already explained in a different thread why I suspect "Occupy Wallstreet" won't be successful. It's too bad though, if it had the right components to make it successful, it's definitely something I would support in many ways.

I never said it was. I *thought* you were referring to two seperate events (remember the cult of David Koresh in Waco Texas?). That was an incorrect interpretation on my end.

 

The average American doesn't care in the least about the middle east, but even if they did it wouldn't matter... the American people don't govern America, special interest groups do. Heck, even your best friend Israel is a special interest group (they fund seats in our congress).

 

@Crunchy

The people who are ordered to drop nukes do so by a pre-calibrated system, in other words they don't need to know where it is headed, they just need to follow protocol. The thing I like most about occupy is not the level of success they may have in shifting the system, but the fact that they are not apathetic and allowing things to happen to them without a fight, that's something I respect. Everyone else I liken to lemmings following each other over a cliff without concern. Having a uniform and a gun is all you really need isn't it? The thing about these organizations is that they are fed and provided for and they follow orders because they are fed and provided for, when you have a currency crises as you have in the US, when the stimulus and quantitative easing fails and inflation finally kicks in and americans begin to feel the full for force of the fiscal situation then you will have an angry mob on your hands and as that happens you will have uniformed men with guns who will follow orders because they are fed and provided for. They will do what they do because it is deemed 'legal' to do what they do, and since there is no rule of law for anyone considered an 'enemy at war with the state' it won't matter if the people on the other side are americans because you are already adjusted to the fact that americans can be executed by an executive order without the need of evidence or trail.

Sounds far fetched to you? History wouldn't think so.


The Obama administration's position that it can kill a U.S. citizen without due process seems to stand in contrast to its handling of foreign-born terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who are provided access to lawyers and who the administration maintains should be tried in federal courts.

"Ron Paul was not the only presidential candidate to raise questions about the killing. Gary Johnson, who shares many of Paul's libertarian beliefs, said "we cannot allow the War on Terror to diminish our steadfast adherence to the notion of due process for American citizens. The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like -- they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens."