Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: BuzzKill on July 20, 2010, 10:21:13 PM
-
http://http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2010-4-28-ACLULettertoPresidentObama.pdf
April 28, 2010
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the ACLU and its 500,000 members, I am writing to express our
profound concern about recent reports indicating that you have authorized a
program that contemplates the killing of suspected terrorists – including U.S.
citizens – located far away from zones of actual armed conflict. If accurately
described, this program violates international law and, at least insofar as it
affects U.S. citizens, it is also unconstitutional.
The U.S. is engaged in non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan and
Iraq and the lawfulness of its actions must be judged in that context. The
program that you have reportedly authorized appears to envision the use of
lethal force not just on the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the
Pakistani border regions, but anywhere in the world, including against
individuals who may not constitute lawful targets. The entire world is not a
war zone, and wartime tactics that may be permitted on the battlefields in
Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be deployed anywhere in the world where a
terrorism suspect happens to be located. Your administration has eschewed
the rhetoric of the “Global War on Terror.” You should now disavow the
sweeping legal theory that underlies that slogan.
Even in an armed conflict zone, individuals may be targeted only if they take
a direct part in hostilities, for such time as they do so, or if they have taken up
a continuous combat function. Propagandists, financiers, and other noncombat
“supporters” of hostile groups cannot lawfully be targeted with lethal
force. Applicable international humanitarian law also prohibits targeted
killing except in order to prevent an individual’s future participation in
hostilities; fighters cannot be targeted solely as retribution for past actions.
Furthermore, basic law-of-armed-conflict principles require that in such
operations, civilians who are not taking direct part in hostilities must not be
targeted, precautions must always be taken to spare the civilian population,
anticipated civilian casualties must never be disproportionate to the expected
concrete military advantage, and strikes must only occur when required by
military necessity.
Outside armed conflict zones, the use of lethal force by the United States is strictly
limited by international law and, at least in some circumstances, the Constitution. These
laws permit lethal force to be used only as a last resort, and only to prevent imminent
attacks that are likely to cause death or serious physical injury. According to news
reports, the program you have authorized is based on “kill lists” to which names are
added, sometimes for months at a time, after a secret internal process. Such a program of
long-premeditated and bureaucratized killing is plainly not limited to targeting genuinely
imminent threats. Any such program is far more sweeping than the law allows and raises
grave constitutional and human rights concerns.
In a series of cases involving prisoners currently held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay,
your administration has taken the position that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military
Force permits the detention of individuals captured anywhere in the world, even
individuals who have no connection to the battlefield. For example, your administration
has advanced that argument in the case of one of our clients – Mohammedou Salahi –
who was detained in Mauritania. We do not think the AUMF can be read so broadly. In
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court interpreted the AUMF consistently with
international law, permitting the detention of a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan only
because the detention of battlefield combatants was “so fundamental and accepted an
incident to war as to be an exercise of the ‘necessary and appropriate force’ Congress has
authorized the President to use.” 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004). But even if the AUMF could
be read to authorize the detention of suspected terrorists apprehended far from any zone
of actual combat, it is a far more radical thing to propose that the AUMF authorizes the
extrajudicial execution of those people. Outside of armed conflict zones, human rights
law and the Constitution prescribe strict limits on the use of lethal force, limits that are
narrower than those applicable in armed conflicts, and narrower than the standards
governing detention. Targeted killing of suspects away from the battlefield is not a
“fundamental and accepted . . . incident to war.” Based on the available information,
neither does your targeted killing program appear to be an exercise of “necessary and
appropriate force” used only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats. The AUMF
may be broad, but the authority it granted was not limitless, and it cannot now be
construed to have silently overridden the limits prescribed by international law.
The program you have reportedly endorsed is not simply illegal but also unwise, because
how our country responds to the threat of terrorism will in large measure determine the
rules that govern every nation’s conduct in similar contexts. If the United States claims
the authority to use lethal force against suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere in the
world – using unmanned drones or other means – then other countries will regard that
conduct as justified. The prospect of foreign governments hunting and killing their
enemies within our borders or those of our allies is abhorrent.
The program you have endorsed also risks the deaths of innocent people. Over the last
eight years, we have seen the government over and over again detain men as “terrorists,”
only to discover later that the evidence was weak, wrong, or non-existent. Of the many
hundreds of individuals previously detained at Guantánamo, the vast majority have been
released or are awaiting release. Furthermore, the government has failed to prove the
3
lawfulness of imprisoning individual Guantánamo detainees in 34 of the 48 cases that
have been reviewed by the federal courts thus far, even though the government had years
to gather and analyze evidence for those cases and had itself determined that those
prisoners were detainable. This experience should lead you to reject out of hand a
program that would invest the CIA or the U.S. military with the unchecked authority to
impose an extrajudicial death sentence on U.S. citizens and others found far from any
actual battlefield.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION
NATIONAL OFFICE
125 BROAD STREET, 18TH FL.
NEW YORK, NY 1004-2400
T/212.549.2500
WWW.ACLU.ORG (http://WWW.ACLU.ORG)
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
SUSAN N. HERMAN
PRESIDENT
ANTHONY D. ROMERO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ROBERT B. REMAR
TREASURER
-
The target they're referring to is Anwar Al-Awlaki (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki). The ACLU would have a valid point if all this guy did was talk. The problem is he's done a lot more than that. Obama made a hard call but it's most likely the right one. It might make him a martyr but such a charismatic personality who speaks English so well will likely be difficult to replace.
-
We'll talk more later but for now consider this:
When it was confirmed last winter by then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that the Obama administration had authorized the assassination of American citizens working with terrorist groups overseas, it appeared that no more than three Americans were being targeted in this manner.
In an interview last week with the Washington Times, however, Deputy White House National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John O. Brennan suggested that the number might actually amount to "dozens."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0628/white- ... n-targets/ (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0628/white-house-adviser-dozens-citizens-assassination-targets/)
-
If American citizens join a foreign army in order to plot attacks against the United States they shouldn't expect special treatment. I'm sure there are dozens of Americans who would fight against their own citizens. I'd be surprised if the number weren't in the tens of thousands, if not far more. The only thing they lack is the means. Islam is an inherantly violent ideology and those who know that and choose to follow it anyway** have declared themselves to be enemies of not just the United States, but all free people. Where possible they should be arrested and prosecuted if they are plotting or have carried out attacks. Where that is not possible, for example if they have fled and are hiding outside of the country, they should indeed be killed. Negotiation would be great but theses people are commanded not by men but by what they believe to be the immutable word of God. Killing them before they kill us is the only viable option.
**Most Muslims do not.
-
We'll talk more later but for now consider this:
When it was confirmed last winter by then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that the Obama administration had authorized the assassination of American citizens working with terrorist groups overseas, it appeared that no more than three Americans were being targeted in this manner.
In an interview last week with the Washington Times, however, Deputy White House National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John O. Brennan suggested that the number might actually amount to "dozens."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0628/white- ... n-targets/ (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0628/white-house-adviser-dozens-citizens-assassination-targets/)
Buzz,
think of this, some of these folks became US citizens to try and manipulate this process. If they are killing Americans and continue to plot for more destruction, well what can a mother do.
-
Buzz,
think of this, some of these folks became US citizens to try and manipulate this process. If they are killing Americans and continue to plot for more destruction, well what can a mother do.
Exactly. It's not that I trust the government not to abuse the process but at this point there is no evidence of that. Obama might not be willing to openly speak about the motivations of those who want to kill us but at least he's willing to take some necessary steps. This guy (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) has guided, trained, and recruited people who have conducted attacks on the US and our allies. US citizen or not. He's an enemy.
-
from the ACLU letter:
including U.S.citizens – located far away from zones of actual armed conflict.
And:
The program that you have reportedly authorized appears to envision the use of
lethal force not just on the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the
Pakistani border regions, but anywhere in the world, including against
individuals who may not constitute lawful targets.
So, this is the murder of American citizens, without due process - Anywhere in the world.
If you accept this b/c the "terrorist" is Islamic, or hangs around with those who are - then what about the American Militia member in Montana; or the returning Iraqi marine in Boston; or the right to life protester in Detroit; or the teaparty member in Atlanta? All these people have been listed as persons of concern by the Obama administration.
If you as an American allow this policy the stamp of public approval, you might find yourself a target much faster than you could have imagined possible and all they have to say to justify it is you were a danger to the "republic".
-
some of these folks became US citizens to try and manipulate this process.
I know. And it needs to be stopped. In fact, I'd support a hault to all immigration from Islamic nations. And for those already here - If they don't value America and Americans they need to leave.
-
from the ACLU letter:
including U.S.citizens – located far away from zones of actual armed conflict.
And:
The program that you have reportedly authorized appears to envision the use of
lethal force not just on the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the
Pakistani border regions, but anywhere in the world, including against
individuals who may not constitute lawful targets.
So, this is the murder of American citizens, without due process - Anywhere in the world.
If you accept this b/c the "terrorist" is Islamic, or hangs around with those who are - then what about the American Militia member in Montana; or the returning Iraqi marine in Boston; or the right to life protester in Detroit; or the teaparty member in Atlanta? All these people have been listed as persons of concern by the Obama administration.
If you as an American allow this policy the stamp of public approval, you might find yourself a target much faster than you could have imagined possible and all they have to say to justify it is you were a danger to the "republic".
OK...this train just ran out of track. I must of missed something, how did we get to Montana and Boston and Marines, Life protesters, Tea parties being killed.
Buzz I thought I got your point but I will have to read more because obviously your very serious about this and I don't want to disrespect ya by being ignorant. (I find that easy to do...lol.) plus I'm tired so I'll save my opinions till tomorrow.
check back.....
-
from the ACLU letter:
including U.S.citizens – located far away from zones of actual armed conflict.
And:
The program that you have reportedly authorized appears to envision the use of
lethal force not just on the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the
Pakistani border regions, but anywhere in the world, including against
individuals who may not constitute lawful targets.
So, this is the murder of American citizens, without due process - Anywhere in the world.
If you accept this b/c the "terrorist" is Islamic, or hangs around with those who are - then what about the American Militia member in Montana; or the returning Iraqi marine in Boston; or the right to life protester in Detroit; or the teaparty member in Atlanta? All these people have been listed as persons of concern by the Obama administration.
If you as an American allow this policy the stamp of public approval, you might find yourself a target much faster than you could have imagined possible and all they have to say to justify it is you were a danger to the "republic".
I think "anywhere in the world" applies to places where it is not reasonably possible to apprehend (outside western countries in places like rural villages in Pakistan and caves in Afghanistan). And as I said, Obama has not yet abused this power. The alternative is to let terrorists plot, kill, and wage war against us unabated simply because they hold American passports. If Bin Ladin were an American, would he suddenly get a pass?
-
"how did we get to Montana and Boston and Marines, Life protesters, Tea parties being killed."
http://http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf
"I think "anywhere in the world" applies to places where it is not reasonably possible to apprehend (outside western countries in places like rural villages in Pakistan and caves in Afghanistan)."
You are intended to think of this in exactly the manner that you do. Maybe they will exercise great caution; maybe those in the field will be very clearly sure the target is in fact plotting murder and destruction; maybe it will always be a policy used only in regions close the the related combat zones - but that's a lot of maybes and we have no guarantees - especially when dealing with such clear and utter contempt for the US Constitution. I'll ask you this: If we wait until he (Obama) has "abused this power" is it not then to late? How to stop it when those who try become a terrorist, guilty of treason for their opposition to the "president's" policies?
I am amazed that this isn't creating a howl of outrage from both right and left. Dubya was tied to the proverbial whipping post for wanting to listen in on suspected terrorist phone calls; Obama implements a policy of "just cap 'em" - and gets a pass. Whats wrong with this picture?
-
http://http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=16862
I'm asking you folks to watch the video, and ask yourselves: Why are they doing this?
-
The target they're referring to is Anwar Al-Awlaki (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki). The ACLU would have a valid point if all this guy did was talk. The problem is he's done a lot more than that. Obama made a hard call but it's most likely the right one. It might make him a martyr but such a charismatic personality who speaks English so well will likely be difficult to replace.
We have tied our hands behind our backs to such an extent that I think Obama should cave on this thing.
What exactly are we fighting?
They are opening a mosque at ground zero, the date is September 11, 2011. That is the grand opening. I don't know why they picked that date... it's a mystery. Well, everything with Islam is a mystery... because it would be hateful to actually understand Islam. And, we can't do the hateful thing. Islam is a peaceful thing... I think. Can I say that? I don't want to hurt Leftist sensibilities here... after all Muslims share the Leftist hatred of America.
Regardless of that, it's wrong to target an American without first charging him with Treason.
-
This guy didn't like leftists and he thought fighter planes were neat, too.
"In the German state, I was the chief opponent of Communism. I admit freely and proudly that it was I who created the first concentration camps in order to put Communists in them."
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring (12 January 1893 – 15 October 1946) Nazi founder of the Gestapo, Head of the Luftwaffe
-
This guy didn't like leftists and he thought fighter planes were neat, too.
"In the German state, I was the chief opponent of Communism. I admit freely and proudly that it was I who created the first concentration camps in order to put Communists in them."
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring (12 January 1893 – 15 October 1946) Nazi founder of the Gestapo, Head of the Luftwaffe
Fighter planes are "neat".
Leftists... what is not to love?
Your quote... Ahh, War is bad? Is that the jest of it? Or, are you saying that parroting of political leaders is the way to go?
That is the danger in posting quotes. Others have to wonder what you actually believe. It's so much easier to just put in your own words what you want to say.
-
I remember when W-Bush was running for re-election and one of the sayings I heard repeatedly was that "you don't change a horse mid-stream". Does anyone remember that phrase? I heard it over and over again and I suppose it meant that since we were involved in 2 wars that we shouldn't change or president by voting in another clod.
I never thought it was a good analogy 'cause I thought it seemed like we were walking a horse out into the ocean instead of a stream....but whatever, it's not like we had a good choice anyway.
My point is..... I wonder if team Obama is going to use the same senseless catch phrase to try and get reelected. I don't think I'll ever vote again until Gitmo is closed.
Why do we have parties in politics? Do we really need them? The US is a democratic republic with a socialist/capitalist (mixed) economy. It's a great recipe if the people are well educated and have good representatives. That way, voting works.
-
Your quote... Ahh, War is bad? Is that the jest of it? Or, are you saying that parroting of political leaders is the way to go?
Oh, I think Ajax was being quite serious.
That is the danger in posting quotes. Others have to wonder what you actually believe. It's so much easier to just put in your own words what you want to say.
Sometimes the quotes, and their historical context, say oh so much more.
This being completely aside from the fact that at least three (1 (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30695&p=367320#p367320), 2 (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30707&p=367543#p367543), 3 (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30717&p=367651#p367651)) of your earliest posts consist of several screenfuls of quoted material. ;)
-
I remember when W-Bush was running for re-election and one of the sayings I heard repeatedly was that "you don't change a horse mid-stream". Does anyone remember that phrase? I heard it over and over again and I suppose it meant that since we were involved in 2 wars that we shouldn't change or president by voting in another clod.
I never thought it was a good analogy 'cause I thought it seemed like we were walking a horse out into the ocean instead of a stream....but whatever, it's not like we had a good choice anyway.
My point is..... I wonder if team Obama is going to use the same senseless catch phrase to try and get reelected. I don't think I'll ever vote again until Gitmo is closed.
Why do we have parties in politics? Do we really need them? The US is a democratic republic with a socialist/capitalist (mixed) economy. It's a great recipe if the people are well educated and have good representatives. That way, voting works.
The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democratic Republic.
The economic "recipe" has not really worked out too well, on many levels.
I'm not one for globalization.
GITMO is not a bad thing. We have always held prisoners during war. We have never charged every war-time prisoner that we have held. Holding them at GITMO or holding them at a military installation in the U.S. would not change anything. Legally, or in any other way. I would not think it a good idea to charge every captured enemy. We certainly would not want every captured U.S. soldier to be tried simply because he was fighting in a war somewhere.
-
I remember when W-Bush was running for re-election and one of the sayings I heard repeatedly was that "you don't change a horse mid-stream". Does anyone remember that phrase? I heard it over and over again and I suppose it meant that since we were involved in 2 wars that we shouldn't change or president by voting in another clod.
I never thought it was a good analogy 'cause I thought it seemed like we were walking a horse out into the ocean instead of a stream....but whatever, it's not like we had a good choice anyway.
My point is..... I wonder if team Obama is going to use the same senseless catch phrase to try and get reelected. I don't think I'll ever vote again until Gitmo is closed.
Why do we have parties in politics? Do we really need them? The US is a democratic republic with a socialist/capitalist (mixed) economy. It's a great recipe if the people are well educated and have good representatives. That way, voting works.
The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democratic Republic.
The economic "recipe" has not really worked out too well, on many levels.
I'm not one for globalization.
GITMO is not a bad thing. We have always held prisoners during war. We have never charged every war-time prisoner that we have held. Holding them at GITMO or holding them at a military installation in the U.S. would not change anything. Legally, or in any other way. I would not think it a good idea to charge every captured enemy. We certainly would not want every captured U.S. soldier to be tried simply because he was fighting in a war somewhere.
The US is both a Democratic Republic and a Constitutional Republic.
Democratic Republic — Republics where the people elect their representatives and may engage in some forms of popular referenda. Examples include the United States of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
I agree with you about globalization. I don't like the amount of trade we do (as a country) with other countries such as China.
Our economic "recipe" as you put it, could be a lot better...yes. But I like the idea of free markets under capitalism and governmentally regulated markets under socialism. Examples of problems: Oil companies not being reigned in by the government when they basically price fix and hurt the American economy (which drains money from being spent on every other service or product in the US), Energy companies that are essentially monopolies, a privatized health care system which is far too expensive due to greed. So I agree with you, this "recipe" has its problems and probably needs a little more socialism mixed in.
Gitmo: When the US tortures people (an amalgam of persons who might be terrorists, insurgents, enemy combatants, suspected spies, persons who may be completely innocent, persons of interest, persons who may have information, prisoners of war, et cetera) it is a wrong which must be made right. You focus on the so-called "bad guys" in Gitmo, I focus on what has been done to human beings in a torture camp.
A country that allows torture prisons to exist has no right to be defended by its people. Americans can be proud if we are better than other countries. To be better, we cannot torture.
-
I remember when W-Bush was running for re-election and one of the sayings I heard repeatedly was that "you don't change a horse mid-stream". Does anyone remember that phrase? I heard it over and over again and I suppose it meant that since we were involved in 2 wars that we shouldn't change or president by voting in another clod.
I never thought it was a good analogy 'cause I thought it seemed like we were walking a horse out into the ocean instead of a stream....but whatever, it's not like we had a good choice anyway.
My point is..... I wonder if team Obama is going to use the same senseless catch phrase to try and get reelected. I don't think I'll ever vote again until Gitmo is closed.
Why do we have parties in politics? Do we really need them? The US is a democratic republic with a socialist/capitalist (mixed) economy. It's a great recipe if the people are well educated and have good representatives. That way, voting works.
The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democratic Republic.
The economic "recipe" has not really worked out too well, on many levels.
I'm not one for globalization.
GITMO is not a bad thing. We have always held prisoners during war. We have never charged every war-time prisoner that we have held. Holding them at GITMO or holding them at a military installation in the U.S. would not change anything. Legally, or in any other way. I would not think it a good idea to charge every captured enemy. We certainly would not want every captured U.S. soldier to be tried simply because he was fighting in a war somewhere.
The US is both a Democratic Republic and a Constitutional Republic.
Democratic Republic — Republics where the people elect their representatives and may engage in some forms of popular referenda. Examples include the United States of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
I agree with you about globalization. I don't like the amount of trade we do (as a country) with other countries such as China.
Our economic "recipe" as you put it, could be a lot better...yes. But I like the idea of free markets under capitalism and governmentally regulated markets under socialism. Examples of problems: Oil companies not being reigned in by the government when they basically price fix and hurt the American economy (which drains money from being spent on every other service or product in the US), Energy companies that are essentially monopolies, a privatized health care system which is far too expensive due to greed. So I agree with you, this "recipe" has its problems and probably needs a little more socialism mixed in.
Gitmo: When the US tortures people (an amalgam of persons who might be terrorists, insurgents, enemy combatants, suspected spies, persons who may be completely innocent, persons of interest, persons who may have information, prisoners of war, et cetera) it is a wrong which must be made right. You focus on the so-called "bad guys" in Gitmo, I focus on what has been done to human beings in a torture camp.
A country that allows torture prisons to exist has no right to be defended by its people. Americans can be proud if we are better than other countries. To be better, we cannot torture.
I don't agree with torture.
"Free Markets" really don't exist unless we are trading with nations that are like the U.S.. As far as wages go and standard of living, etc..