Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

hosted.ap.org

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, I seem to be at a loss with this. When Bush said essentially the same thing in defining HIS right to carry out renditions from overseas and detain Americans like Jose Padilla, the left rightly called the man out of control and hung up on downright Unamerican levels of Police State tactics. Now where is the outrage when Obama takes that same abusive policy and expands it several times over?

I love the specific mention of how it's the Executive Branch and not the Courts. That is EXACTLY the opposite of the argument his very supporters if not Obama personally, used against Bush so many years ago. Talk about things coming full circle. Wow.

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Whoa!
Isn't this illegal?
Not that legality would stop this administration.

reply to post by beezzer


Of course it is, and this is precisely why people need to stop it. And really get in their faces, but peacefully, yet like a really big Shrew, that won't go away, very very ASSERTIVE, and wide awake.

Because, their bills aren't legal. Nothing but common law, basic virtues is legal. All their roman law, corporate law, fascism, and things ARE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, TREASON, FRAUD, SLAVERY AND ILLEGAL.

So police the system, its up to the citizens in every country, at least the ones who are "free-er", then we need to help free the others by providing exits, places for all who wake up to escape to, thats at the very least. Not of course, declaring an illegal war or bombing.

Its up to us. Really is. And its all at test. These mismanagers of the vineyard think they're our testers, boy are they in for a big eye opener one day.

Most of their documents and bills are actually the same as Nazi Germany, a crime on paper, with a signature/confession!

I think that as the political season begins its cyclical roil, we can expect a lot of outrageous nonsense to be spewed into the mainstream... just so that the otherwise complacently-disconnected politicians can proclaim how they are or were against this.

In the end, Executive privilege does not extend to invalidating the Constitution. Its only benefit is that it can be an action taken preemptively requiring judicial review 'after' the offense takes place. That is as much latitude as I would ever dare give one of these ivory-tower elites with my government... and that comes begrudgingly since they've all proven to me that none of them can really be trusted.

Interestingly, had this been the argument presented by Iraq, Syria, Libya, or any other oil-bearing nation (none of which get called dictatorships unless they un-peg their oil commerce from the US dollar) we would have decried their position as an element of fascist oppression... go figure.

Again, many of these patently stupid declarations are destined to be quashed... so why propose them? Political expedience, that's why....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It comes from here:

US Citizens who are overseas who engage US forces -
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

..........

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

......

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

If engaged in hostilities against the US on foreign soil -
Captured - subject to US domestic law or the UCMJ.
Killed = no violation of law or civil rights due to death occurring in combat while engaged against US forces.

If you are going to play stick ball in Brooklyn you best know the rules.

So when do they take out the banks?

Ah yes, they will only go after whoever owns guns or grow natural non-GMO food or have a pocket constitution or votes Ron Paul...

Riiiight.

If engaged in hostilities against the US on foreign soil -
Captured - subject to US domestic law or the UCMJ.
Killed = no violation of law or civil rights due to death occurring in combat while engaged against US forces.

Right... no nothing, just assassination... Government assassination of citizens... I mean, if the army can do it, why can't the cops do it too? Anyone who ever shot a cop should be bombed using a drone.

reply to post by Maxmars


I agree and you are correct in my estimation but nothing will ever change unless somebody is held accountable. If you or I violated somebody's civil rights, we could end up in jail, owing large fines or both but when the president does it in direct and clear violation of the Constitution, nothing is done and no one is held accountable.

Who is on the hook for Illegal arms trafficking to the Mexican drug cartels? You are I would be in jail for the rest of our lives should we have been caught doing the same thing. Who is answering for the money laundering and fraud and racketeering regarding the almost 8 trillion dollars in secret bailouts? Once again, you or I would spend our lives in prison.

When you have lawmakers and the federal government breaking the law, blatantly and without question and mainstream media reporting it on National TV and nobody is ever held accountable how can we ever expect them to stop doing it?

reply to post by Xcathdra


However.... Title 8's key component and principle point of argument will be "... with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality..."

If I were of the mindset to pit myself against my government in order to reestablish what I perceive as a government "of the people" It should be expected that the existing government would declare me a dissident, a traitor, a subversive element, or perhaps even "an enemy combatant" ..... but STILL... my intent was NOT to 'relinquish' my nationality - and any assertions to the contrary are nothing more than politically expedient supposition.

In the matter of intent, only the judicial (fallible though they may be) can properly assess the extent of the "offense" per Jurisprudence.

Otherwise we are talking about "loss of due process" which as an American citizen I MUST be afforded (no choice there - it is my "self-evident" right as a citizen - unless the Constitution is nullified)... the checks and balances are there for a reason, my friend.

It's all about intent.

Yes the Executive branch and its agencies have many tools with which to expedite its plans... but that does not mean they are unaccountable or above the law of the land. No one is. If anyone was above the law... there would be no true law.... but that's a different sticky wicket.

Essentially, the matter is reduced in the case of the Executive to "the executive branch can act first and ask questions later" because we need to have that ability "just in case."

But if anyone - especially the agencies which are directly subordinate to the executive branch - wishes to propose that the power applies to their administrators by proxy... we have a problem... a big one.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Would it be too much to ask that you actually verse yourself on US law, at the Federal Domestic Level, the Federal Military Level, and the Local and State level?

If you did your homework instead of just continuing your I hate the US rant any chance you get, you might learn something.

The law I cited above deals with US citizens on foreign soil engaged in hostilities with US forces. During combat you are going to call for a time out and ask to see identification of the enemy are you? If you pick up a gun and shoot at US military, they will respond.

From a Domestic law enforcement level, if you pick up a gun and point it at the police or anyone else for that matter, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen, a cousin or a Martian, the person pointing the gun back at you can end your existence if you dont comply with commands to put the gun down.

You really need to stop the BS of blurring the lines of law enforcement and military operations to suit your agenda - It gets old.

Either learn the law and how it works, or comment as an opinion instead of trying to pass your crap off as fact.

reply to post by Maxmars


It qualifies by actions as well. Check through the entire section for all areas that it covers. The portions I highlighted in the post deal with hostile acts.

As far as acting prior to knowing, that is actually a valid consideration for military and law enforcement. If a Police Officer in downtown St. Louis or Army soldier in Afghanistan has a person pointing a weapon at them , the hostile intent is present. A person does not have to wait to be shot at in order to take action.

Domestic law specifically covers that action by totality of circumstances. The Military equivalent is rules of engagement.

A declared intent does not have to be verbal - It can be written as well as expressed by actions. For the moment lets look at your argument.

Even if John Ahmed Doe left the US where he was born and headed to Afghanistan to fight against the US, his citizenship status is mute since his actions, engaging US military forces, falls under the rules of engagement for self defense for the military.

Holding US Citizenship does not make a person immune from prosecution or having deadly forced used on them on the battlefield.

If you point a gun at a cop, you can be shot and killed because of that action.
If you point a gun at military personnel you can be shot and killed because of that action.

The question though was what allows this to occur -
The federal law I cited for starters. I can add case law to the thread if anyone needs more info.


As far as the due process comment that is incorrect. When a person performs an action in the US that places an officer or the public at large in imminent danger, that person life can be ended. That persons right to due process does not trump the rights of the people around him who are potential targets / victims.

When a person is shot and killed, its a "seizure" under the 4th amendment.

Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.

reply to post by Xcathdra

If you did your homework instead of just continuing your I hate the US rant any chance you get, you might learn something.

US government. Which most of Americans and the world agrees with me that they are a bunch of fascists bastards. You seem to be the only one around defending them. Are you in the 9% actually supporting these criminals? It seems you are.

The law I cited above deals with US citizens on foreign soil engaged in hostilities with US forces.

Except the new bill say that it will also target US citizens in the US.

During combat you are going to call for a time out and ask to see identification of the enemy are you? If you pick up a gun and shoot at US military, they will respond.

Except most ``terrorists`` are killed when not doing combat by drones. And what they mean by ``combat`` is very broad, not just actual shooting at troops.

From a Domestic law enforcement level, if you pick up a gun and point it at the police or anyone else for that matter, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen, a cousin or a Martian, the person pointing the gun back at you can end your existence if you dont comply with commands to put the gun down.

Agreed but as I said when they say ``at war with US`` it means a whole lot of things, not just firing a gun or a RPG at troops or cops. If you look up their definition of terrorism, it includes basically everyone who has a spine and has self-reliance.

You really need to stop the BS of blurring the lines of law enforcement and military operations to suit your agenda - It gets old.

At this point it's basically the same thing. Cops are armed like the military and the military are doing the cops in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
US government. Which most of Americans and the world agrees with me that they are a bunch of fascists bastards. You seem to be the only one around defending them. Are you in the 9% actually supporting these criminals? It seems you are.

So apparently you have no desire to actually learn anything, and would rather insert your biased opinion because you hate the US - check

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Except the new bill say that it will also target US citizens in the US.

This would be a complete and total lie on your part.
S. 1867 section 1031 and 1032 specifically exempt US citizens from that law, and you know this because of the other thread. So I guess because this thread is new you are hoping to confuse people by lying about the legislation?

Are you really so jaded that you will go out of your way to lie in order to support your agenda?

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Except most ``terrorists`` are killed when not doing combat by drones. And what they mean by ``combat`` is very broad, not just actual shooting at troops.

Its called combat for a reason. Forces dont just sit around and wait for one side or the other to agree on when to resume the war. If you believe that then you are more lost than I originally thought. Did the people in the Twin towers get a warning before terrorist flew the planes into it? How about the pentagon? How about the civilians that were beheaded?

In war people die - Our actions are in compliance with international law and the Geneva conventions, where as the Taliban / Al Queida and other terrorists groups are not. I will take your silence to mention that as confirmation that your sole goal is to jut bash the US any chance you get.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Agreed but as I said when they say ``at war with US`` it means a whole lot of things, not just firing a gun or a RPG at troops or cops. If you look up their definition of terrorism, it includes basically everyone who has a spine and has self-reliance.

Which again is misinformation and obfuscation on your part to shift the meaning of legislation. You ignore past case law and other current legislation. Again, you really need to learn about US laws, case law, military laws etc before you go into a tirade about US actions. Its obvious you have no idea about any of that info since it would undermine your argument against the US.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
At this point it's basically the same thing. Cops are armed like the military and the military are doing the cops in Afghanistan.

And when a moron points a gun at a cop or the military, they made their choice.

I could care less if you agree with that or not. You have absolutely no idea or understanding of the United States, how its government works, how its laws work, how the various levels of government work, and all the laws that define everything.

If your intent in this thread is to just bash the US because it gives you something to hate on today, by all means let me know so I can ignore your posts and spend time answering questions from people who are actually interested in learning instead of just blindly hating. If I come across some who wants to blindly hate, Ill send them your way.

reply to post by Xcathdra

In reply to your first point here, I actually wouldn't have much problem with the arrest and detainment of U.S. Citizens overseas...OVERSEAS...if they are actually engaged in COMBAT....or other forms of armed struggle AGAINST the United States. I think intelligent people can agree that if one drops all pretense of civility and takes up a weapon to fight their nation, they should not expect kid gloves in response.

Having said that..... I don't see where this has any such limitations in how they are interpreting it or how they've been talking the last few days about actually using it. I keep hearing Enemy used, but precious little in defining what makes an American citizen a true enemy. If they are here at home..which the law apparently means to cover very well..it becomes almost impossible to make right with the Constitution.

We simply don't HAVE legal provisions under our form of Government and Law to allow for the unlimited detention of Americans without charge, trial or legal appeal. It doesn't exist and it never has. Lincoln did this during the Civil War too. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. It's understandable, in the 1860's, but it WAS wrong. That fact insured it never survived the war, as well it shouldn't. THIS time around, it isn't even being seen as wrong on it's face and so..we have no reason to hope it will end at any future point.

Scary times now that we're departing the station we've always called Constitutional Government. Who knows what comes next?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There is NO law that allows for the indefinite detention of US Citizens, contrary to the paranoia some are trying to sow through a few threads.The Supreme Court has already resolved that issue.

In combat, or a cop on the street - When a person points a gun at them, they can take action. When law enforcement uses deadly force its reviewed. If its a good shoot (complies with all laws) there is no violation of that persons constitutional rights to due process or to the 4th.

The same goes for combat. A US citizen going overseas to fight against the US is not going to be treated any different on the battlefield if the person is armed and engaging US forces.

The federal law cited above addresses this issue, as does the rules of engagement for the military.

Simply being a US citizen does not grant that person immunity while engaged in a crime or war.

As far as Lincoln use goes, that was completely legitimate - The Nation was in a state of civil war / rebellion. If you want to get technical, The Confederacy were not US Citizens, they were citizens of the Confederacy.

reply to post by Vitchilo

I understand your concern about protecting Americans' freedoms, and you are very vigorously criticizing sections of the Defense Department bill in several threads. But I wonder if that is becoming a reflex action for you. Would you consider going back and re-reading the source article which is the topic of discussion for this thread?

I'd like to quote parts of it which may have been overlooked.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

I would think anyone who takes up arms with al-Qaeda becomes a legitimate military target. I don't see a problem here.

Late last year, a judge threw out a lawsuit filed by al-Awlaki's father, saying that the courts do not have the authority to review military decisions by the president aimed at protecting the country from terrorists. The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, was suing to prevent the U.S. from targeting his son.

Is this where your objection lies? That the judge handed down a decision you disagree with? Well, that can be discussed.

By the way, I don't understand how the number of people on this thread supporting Xcathdra's position has any bearing whatever. By that logic, any small movement can be disregarded.

Oh, count me as one of his supporters in this case.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Wasn't it the case that the US Govt said that confederates were US citizens in rebellion - what with the secession(s) being illegal and all that??

Of course practical matters got in the way of making that a blanket situation - foreign de-facto dealings, and the general laws of war of the era were applied, rather than admit the undesireability of lining up 10's of 1000's of "citizens" and shooting or hanging them for treason when captured

reply to post by Maxmars


I forgot to add this -

§ 1488. Nationality lost solely from performance of acts or fulfillment of conditions

The loss of nationality under this part shall result solely from the performance by a national of the acts or fulfillment of the conditions specified in this part.

I'm unclear as to why or how this discussion began to include the notion of domestic targets by police forces.

I would have thought any governor would be inclined to seek, and get, some say in the use of lethal force used against one of his or her state's citizens within their state (which of course, is based upon the presumption that it's not about political theater - in which case they'll fold to whatever their party leader tells them - usually.)

On the battlefield is a completely different affair, and rightly so.

But the context of the Op seems rather clear. This discussion is all predicated on the situation surrounding the leadership role an American citizen took in a military theater of operations where other American citizens where at risk.

But even the courts cannot change the Constitution. It is not their place.

In a nutshell, the administration is confronting the issue of whether their instant judgement can obviate due process. The Constitutional answer is an unequivocal "No."

No one can or will stop them from exercising the executive privilege to dally on the cusp of that iron-clad reality... and the complications of any 'blanket' provisos the legal representatives of the agencies in question want to put on the issue only get validation from the way the media presents it. The CIA's or other agency that says "We can do this" is not a proclamation of a right, but a statement of their desire that it be so. Of course, that is not how it is couched when presented to the public.... they are quoted as dictum of fact by virtue of the office they represent.

Even the DOJ maintains that their gun-running sting-gone-bad was "completely legal." Of course they do, to say otherwise would be self-incrimination. A right to avoid. I am certain, they cling to with patriotic fervor.

I fail to see how just because some lawyers say "it's OK" makes it "OK". That's the role of the judiciary (all members of the same BAR, I know) to determine.

In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki our government erred in not excommunicating him form the roles of American citizenship prior to his assassination. It would have rendered this problem moot. But they held on o this citizen out of legal expedience to pursue other venues of action... before claiming that sending a million dollars of explosive hardware his way was unavoidable. (that's not a real amount - I'm just spit-balling here to make a point.)

For me, and I think this is the crux of our potential disagreement, it is about the effective Constitutional reality - Is there or is there not a guarantee of due process for all American citizens - as explicitly stated in our law? And if the mere act of 'agreeing with the enemy" (not necessarily taking up arms or offering material support) renders a person a valid "for-all-intents-and-purposes-non-citizen-target" - where does that leave our legal system.... completely out of the loop? Sorry - that is also Unconstitutional. Due process, redress, and judicial oversight are all a troubling reality that any President must contend with. "How" they contend with it is where it gets problematic, especially for those who simply see things in terms of "kill 'em all and let God sort it out later."

Again battlefield conditions are survival scenarios that are not germane to the question; much like a police killing an armed suspect who he can appropriately articulate intended to kill him.

But the slippery slope comes when you consider that the President's authority must be balanced by a responsibility to know (not suspect) that engaging an American person has a real "military" value because that is the only regard in which his opinion matters - as Commander in Chief. There are no other circumstances where the president can legally say "kill that person" and commit military combat resources to that task.

Of course, this is all theoretical... because we know our leaders do whatever they damn well please, and get retroactive immunity at a magical whim of a Presidential pardon whenever it is politically expedient to do so.

Edit to add:

Perhaps it is important to consider this: (From Title 8)

Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

This section is precisely why the law in not unconstitutional. Due process is specified. The claim must be established, and refuted if it is to be contested. That the administration was given a "pass" just shows how politically important it was to have this man killed.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


And it was the case of the Confederacy as to what their peoples citizenship was.