AQ Leader Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen

No one would. No one could.

 

WAS, is the key word, he become an enemy combatant after you chose Islamist over his US citizenship. Plus he is also probably guilty of tax evasion a very serious offence.

 

Was because he is now dead Einstein.

You do not determine who is and is not a citizen. Your beliefs are not only childish, but wrong. He was recognized by the US as a citizen. He is known to the White House and referred to by them as a US citizen. You are the only person insisting he is not a US citizen.

Put up, or please, for the love of God, SHUT UP.

Source that he was not a US citizen. Demonstrate that he had Yemeni citizenship even (another of your claims). He is recognized by every authority on earth as having been a US citizen until his death the other day.

 

Who ever is responsible in the Repub party for letting that thing be built wont have a job soon...
My guess is that it wont be built, no matter what you hear...

 

And as the judge said in the civil trial, that did not mean we cannot treat him as we treat any other belligerent.

 

Yes Congress authorized the CiC to engage our military forces against an enemy who has declared war on us. That's is all that is needed. Or domestic laws do not apply to the foreign battlefield.

 

And when congress publicly tells the military to engage in warfare........

Why on earth do you think due process is part of war?

Seriously I can't fathom where you folks got the idea that our leaders were just sittin around drinking a beer and decided to attack al Qaeda.

You left out the , and planning future attacks part.

And we have declared we are at war with al Qaeda, see above. Congress decides the manner in which it does so, and it did.

 

Just like them were all US citizens, who decided to embrace a life style of crime and murder

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xImhXsnPTnA&feature=related"]Public Enemies - John Dillenger Dies (HD) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhHD-8bAIeQ&feature=related"]The Last Day of "Bonnie & Clyde" - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Pr3oKmHn8&feature=related"]Public Enemies - Pretty Boy Floyd death (low quality due to Copyrights) - YouTube[/ame]

 

Cops already do shoot, kill, and maim innocent people. All the time. A mere few examples:

Arizona SWAT Team Shoots Latino Former Marine Dozens of Times
Police officer murders half-deaf, hobbling Native American man
Cops kill mayor’s dogs in botched no-knock raid
Fullerton Police Beat to Death Mentally Ill, Homeless Man
Detroit police kill seven-year-old child
Teen With Broken Back Tasered 19 Times for Not Standing Up When Ordered
Oklahoma Police Taser Bedridden 86-Year-Old Woman

Of course, they're all "isolated incidents," right? No matter how frequently they occur. Systematic government corruption and authoritarianism could never happen in America, which is practically perfect in every way. Right?

In fact, all governments, everywhere, will be exactly as violent, corrupt, and abusive as their subjects allow them to get away with. And state-worshipping Americans are notoriously weak on holding their government accountable for anything. After all, they celebrate giving the president the power to kill people with absolutely zero oversight and due process, don't they?

 

It has not officially declared war nor can it declare war under the international laws of war against private people.

If war is under a different legal standard than peace, the circumstances in which we enter a situation of war must be absolutely crystal clear. There must be strict, clear, concrete legal definitions regarding who can declare war, how, when, against whom, and for what purpose, and the conditions under which the state of war ends.

Yet you want to assume that a vague, legally opaque, perpetual conflict is a war under which legal norms disappear? On who's say so, Obama's? Obama can call anything he wants a war and then ignore due process? You don't see the danger here? Really??

It says it's in order to prevent future acts, but not that the president has the power to go after people planning future attacks.

I can accept, though, that he has the legal authority to pursue people accused of planning certain kinds of violence, as I said, under the Constitution. But it's a police power, which means it must follow legal due process norms.

No, it must be clear and explicit, and, according to precedent, the definition of the word "war" only pertains to conflicts between states. You can't even define a private entity concretely. Therefore, a private entity can never clearly surrender, which means the state of "war" can never end.

As I said, you can't invoke the international laws of war so vaguely. If you're going to say the legal standards all change in "war," you need strict, clear markers regarding what that state is.

You can't, in other words, say a state of war is legally consequential and then make that state so broad and vague that the president can say "we" are always in a state of war whenever he wants.