Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This should be a main focus of the campaign, but neither side wants to touch it and the same goes for the corporate media. Love the 'it's suddenly ok when my side does it' mentality.

Western justice and transparency
BY GLENN GREENWALD


On Saturday in Somalia, the U.S. fired missiles from a drone and killed the 27-year-old Lebanon-born, ex-British citizen Bilal el-Berjawi. His wife had given birth 24 hours earlier and the speculation is that the U.S. located him when his wife called to give him the news. Roughly one year ago, El-Berjawi was stripped of his British citizenship, obtained when his family moved to that country when he was an infant, through the use of a 2006 British anti-Terrorism law — passed after the London subway bombing — that the current government is using with increasing frequency to strip alleged Terrorists with dual nationality of their British citizenship (while providing no explanation for that act). El-Berjawi’s family vehemently denies that he is involved with Terrorism, but he was never able to appeal the decree against him for this reason:

Berjawi is understood to have sought to appeal against the order, but lawyers representing his family were unable to take instructions from him amid concerns that any telephone contact could precipitate a drone attack.

Obviously, those concerns were valid. So first the U.S. tries to assassinate people, then it causes legal rulings against them to be issued because the individuals, fearing for their life, are unable to defend themselves. Meanwhile, no explanation or evidence is provided for either the adverse government act or the assassination: it is simply secretly decreed and thus shall it be...

That, of course, is the heart and soul of this administration’s mentality when it comes to such matters, and why not? Between Republicans who always cheer on the killing of Muslims with or without any explanation or transparency, and Democrats who do so when their leader is the assassin, there is little political pressure to explain themselves. If anything, this planned “disclosure” makes the problem worse, since we will now have the spectacle of Eric Holder, wallowing in pomp and legal self-righteousness, finally defending the power that Obama already has seized — to assassinate U.S. citizens in secret and with no checks — but concealing what is most needed: evidence that Awlaki was what the U.S. Government claims he is. That simply serves to reinforce the message this Government repeatedly sends: as Marcy puts it, “We can kill you and we’ll never have to prove that doing so was just. You’ll just have to trust us!” The Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen added: “The US legal opinion on Awlaki is one thing, but it rest on assumptions made by the intelligence community, which won’t be revealed.”

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How come no link?

Good riddance... he should have thought of all that before he tied in with the bad guys. Like my dad used to say, "If you ain't doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about."

As for the main focus of the presidential campaign, 99% of Americans really give a shit about the economy, our federal budget malaise, jobs, their retirement, their homes, the things that affect their lives and families every single day. They really don't give much of a shit about the "rights" of some terrorist asshole on the other side of the world.

The guy was a terrorist leader of Al Qaeda affiliate al Shabaab. Al Shabaab is calling him one of their own, so there really is no disputing that.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/somalias-shaba ... 05396.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is, well, I guess now should say, was, the principal assistant to Abdalla Fazul:

".....The notorious head of al Qaeda's local cell, Abdalla Fazul, blamed for the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam and the 2002 attack against the Paradise Hotel outside Mombasa, is believed to be based in lawless Somalia.

Omar Awadh Omar aka Abu Sahal has been named as second in command in the al Shabaab hierarchy.

Bilal El Berjawi, who was born in Lebanon and carries a British passport is named as Fazul's principal assistant and Badrudin as his head of intelligence in Nairobi....."
http://www.afroarticles.com/article-das ... ion/215798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another haji terrorist bites the dust. Good.

blueballs wrote:Good riddance... he should have thought of all that before he tied in with the bad guys. Like my dad used to say, "If you ain't doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about."

As for the main focus of the presidential campaign, 99% of Americans really give a **** about the economy, our federal budget malaise, jobs, their retirement, their homes, the things that affect their lives and families every single day. They really don't give much of a **** about the "rights" of some terrorist ******* on the other side of the world.

Ditto.

Can they spare a drone for Glenn Greenwald?

Related, prisons are full of innocent people...

kalm wrote:This should be a main focus of the campaign, but neither side wants to touch it and the same goes for the corporate media. Love the 'it's suddenly ok when my side does it' mentality.

Payback's a bitch ain't it?

BDKJMU wrote:How come no link?

Sorry, it's there now.

kalm wrote:Defend This

Shouldn't that be your job as an Obama supporter?

BDKJMU wrote:The guy was a terrorist leader of Al Qaeda affiliate al Shabaab. Al Shabaab is calling him one of their own, so there really is no disputing that.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/somalias-shaba ... 05396.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is, well, I guess now should say, was, the principal assistant to Abdalla Fazul:

".....The notorious head of al Qaeda's local cell, Abdalla Fazul, blamed for the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam and the 2002 attack against the Paradise Hotel outside Mombasa, is believed to be based in lawless Somalia.

Omar Awadh Omar aka Abu Sahal has been named as second in command in the al Shabaab hierarchy.

Bilal El Berjawi, who was born in Lebanon and carries a British passport is named as Fazul's principal assistant and Badrudin as his head of intelligence in Nairobi....."
http://www.afroarticles.com/article-das ... ion/215798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another haji terrorist bites the dust. Good.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said 'As long as guilt or innocence can be proven by our dear leader, or at least in the court of public opinion, that's good enough for me'...or something like that.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:The guy was a terrorist leader of Al Qaeda affiliate al Shabaab. Al Shabaab is calling him one of their own, so there really is no disputing that.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/somalias-shaba ... 05396.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is, well, I guess now should say, was, the principal assistant to Abdalla Fazul:

".....The notorious head of al Qaeda's local cell, Abdalla Fazul, blamed for the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam and the 2002 attack against the Paradise Hotel outside Mombasa, is believed to be based in lawless Somalia.

Omar Awadh Omar aka Abu Sahal has been named as second in command in the al Shabaab hierarchy.

Bilal El Berjawi, who was born in Lebanon and carries a British passport is named as Fazul's principal assistant and Badrudin as his head of intelligence in Nairobi....."
http://www.afroarticles.com/article-das ... ion/215798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another haji terrorist bites the dust. Good.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said 'As long as guilt or innocence can be proven by our dear leader, or at least in the court of public opinion, that's good enough for me'...or something like that.

I guess using your logic OBL wasn't guilty either.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said 'As long as guilt or innocence can be proven by our dear leader, or at least in the court of public opinion, that's good enough for me'...or something like that.

I guess using your logic OBL wasn't guilty either.

1) He wasn't a US citizen

2) He was clearly resisting arrest.

Said this during his campaign: All the libs bitching about Gitmo, signing statements, drone strikes, waterboarding...was horsecrap. Once Obama won, he'd be faced with the reality of the Presidency, and all the campaign promises go out the window. Et Voila', we are there. He (his administration) has committed every "offense" for which he criticized Bush.

Obama has escalated the post-9-11 assault on rule of law. Every President since WWII has "promised" to clean up clandestine operations, yet none had the stones, even after Congress banned brown bag operations. The agency/method was modified, but the end result is still the same: If the U.S. wants someone dead, it's going to happen.

The only reason Obama is "more" at fault then past Presidents, is that he made the "cleanup" one of his campaign's major issues.

Now that one of our drones has been taken there will come a time when we aren't the only ones with drones in the sky. It will be interesting to see the US reaction after the other side starts picking off our people.

travelinman67 wrote:Said this during his campaign: All the libs bitching about Gitmo, signing statements, drone strikes, waterboarding...was horsecrap. Once Obama won, he'd be faced with the reality of the Presidency, and all the campaign promises go out the window. Et Voila', we are there. He (his administration) has committed every "offense" for which he criticized Bush.

Obama has escalated the post-9-11 assault on rule of law. Every President since WWII has "promised" to clean up clandestine operations, yet none had the stones, even after Congress banned brown bag operations. The agency/method was modified, but the end result is still the same: If the U.S. wants someone dead, it's going to happen.

The only reason Obama is "more" at fault then past Presidents, is that he made the "cleanup" one of his campaign's major issues.

Sadly it turns out that he is just another garden-variety control freak. Fcuk 'em all.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
I guess using your logic OBL wasn't guilty either.

1) He wasn't a US citizen

2) He was clearly resisting arrest.

And neither was this guy. Regardless, if a person is taking up arms against the US, and committing acts of terrorism against the US, I don't give a f**K where he was born.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
1) He wasn't a US citizen

2) He was clearly resisting arrest.

And neither was this guy. Regardless, if a person is taking up arms against the US, and committing acts of terrorism against the US, I don't give a f**K where he was born.

Alwaki was a citizen. And evidently you don't care much for the constitution or the rights it stands for. But according to the constitution you are entitled to that belief. So there ya go.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
And neither was this guy. Regardless, if a person is taking up arms against the US, and committing acts of terrorism against the US, I don't give a f**K where he was born.

Alwaki was a citizen. And evidently you don't care much for the constitution or the rights it stands for. But according to the constitution you are entitled to that belief. So there ya go.

Wrong.

"TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Part III--Loss of Nationality

Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized
citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

...........
............
.........
(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."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... :+8USC1481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Alwaki was a citizen. And evidently you don't care much for the constitution or the rights it stands for. But according to the constitution you are entitled to that belief. So there ya go.

Wrong.

"TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Part III--Loss of Nationality

Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized
citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

...........
............
.........
(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."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... :+8USC1481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sweet! I missed the trial. Can you fill me in?

As for the idea that his citizenship should give him protection from attack, it is worth recalling that in the case of Nazi saboteurs arrested in the U.S. in 1942 (the case of Ex Parte Quirin), two of them were U.S. citizens. They were nonetheless convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. citizenship of "an enemy belligerent does not relieve him of the consequences of belligerency."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... +al-awlaki" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

".....Diane Marie Amann, a University of Georgia law professor who has monitored terrorism trials for the National Institute of Military Justice, said the debate over whether Awlaki's killing was legal hinges on whether the war against Al Qaeda is an armed conflict or an international police action.

"Viewed through the lens of ordinary criminal justice, for the government to kill a suspect rather than put him on trial is summary execution, clearly forbidden by U.S. and international law alike," Amann said. "Viewed through the lens of armed conflict, the result is different, however: The laws of war permit a state to kill its enemies."

An array of international law experts defended the legality of the airstrike, illustrating the conflicting interpretations of law in the fight against terrorism.

"There is strong linkage between Awlaki and the Christmas Day bomber," said Duke law professor Scott Silliman, a former Air Force staff judge advocate, referring to the young Nigerian reportedly groomed by Awlaki before his botched attempt to detonate explosives smuggled aboard the plane in his underpants.

"We do know there were also some email links between Awlaki and Maj. [Nidal Malik] Hasan at Ft. Hood," Silliman said, in reference to the U.S. Army psychiatrist accused in the Nov. 5, 2009, shootings that left 13 dead at the U.S. military base in Texas.

"When you put that together, and with some indications in the intelligence community that he was the head of or at least very active in the leadership of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, I think it was clear he was more than just a propagandist. That type of activity puts him in the category of a legitimate target."

Amos Guiora, a University of Utah law professor and author of a forthcoming book on targeted killings, said U.S. military and intelligence agencies were within their rights to eliminate Awlaki. He said the operation appeared to have been carried out with appropriate preparation and care to avoid civilian casualties, despite the ostensibly unintended killing of Khan, who was with Awlaki at the time.

"This attack appears to have met the criteria of proportionality, military necessity and the absence of alternatives to be in full accordance with a state's right to aggressive self-defense," said Guiora, a former Israel Defense Forces legal advisor involved in targeted killing decisions in the Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s...................

........................Then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made that position clear in a federal court filing a year ago, when he asserted a state secrets privilege in urging a federal judge to dismiss a suit brought by Awlaki's father, Nasser, seeking a court injunction against any attack on his son. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the elder Awlaki's case, saying it wasn't the court's role to intervene in military operations.

Awlaki's U.S. citizenship didn't entitle him to any special right of due process beyond what a foreign terrorism suspect would have, the legal analysts said.

A 1942 Supreme Court decision upholding the war-crimes convictions and death sentences of Nazi infiltrators caught attempting to sabotage East Coast defense operations rejected special consideration of one saboteur who claimed U.S. citizenship. The justices found all eight men to be "enemy belligerents" subject to the prosecution and punishment allowed under the law of war.

In Ex parte Quirin, the justices found all eight men to be "enemy belligerents" subject to the prosecution and punishment allowed under the law of war.

"The constitution guarantees due process for every 'person,' not just for citizens, and the laws of war do not preclude the possibility of one state's citizen taking up arms against his own country," said David Glazier, a national security law professor at Loyola Law School.

"From the U.S. government's perspective, that's the real beauty of treating [the fight with Al Qaeda] as an armed conflict," Glazier said. "Both U.S. national and international law are in agreement that the nationality of the target doesn't matter."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/30 ... s-20111001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=26397&hilit=citizen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=26397&hilit=citizen

Thanks for bringing that up, it was a good read again.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

"(No person shall) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Those damn government fearing founders and their pesky constitution.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=26397&hilit=citizen

Thanks for bringing that up, it was a good read again.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

"(No person shall) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Those damn government fearing founders and their pesky constitution.

When did the US constitution start applying to non US citizens?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:

Thanks for bringing that up, it was a good read again.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

"(No person shall) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Those damn government fearing founders and their pesky constitution.

When did the US constitution start applying to non US citizens?

Show me the provision in the constitution where it says 'except those who's speech we disagree with or find easier to assassinate than prosecute.'.