Anwar al-Awlaki Hit

shooz · 10-04-2011, 07:55 AM

It is the Patriot Act that gives us that option.

Parallax · 10-04-2011, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Mike, do you think that is the spirit of the pact when it was written?
Or are you just applying a convenient way of opting out?

Well, the wording is pretty specific, so I would say that was the spirit and intent.

Quote:

Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts

This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:

The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[10]
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[10]

Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.

When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.

MRRiley · 10-04-2011, 08:05 AM

Al I am saying Bill is that there was no international legal requirement to apply the Geneva Convention to al Awlaki. Now the prisoners at Gitmo... That's another story and where and when they were captured and where they are from COULD trigger protections or enable us to treat them as base criminals or unlawful combatants. Believe it or not I tend to agree with you that their treatment, especially when it comes to "enhanced interrogation methods," has given the U.S. a black eye or at the very least made us liable to charges of hypocrisy (which if you scan my writings you will find I hold in particular disdain).

I still maintain that al Awlaki and Samir Kahn were dangerous traitors to their country who were involved in past and presently active terrorist plots endangering the lives of law-abiding citizens of all nations. Basically, they paid their nickle and took their chances. They lost!

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/30/samir-khan-proud-to-be-an-american-traitor/?hpt=hp_bn4

Wheatfield · 10-04-2011, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Well, the wording is pretty specific, so I would say that was the spirit and intent.

Are you sure? Or is it just that wars with non nations weren't on the radar at the time because an organization such as al queda hadn't been invented yet?
You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", but not willing to redefine the conventions of war.
Someone wants to play both sides of the fence.

BillM · 10-04-2011, 08:10 AM

There you go Wheat,even talked a bit about it at work here.
"the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war."
Article 27, Geneva convention, 1949.

If you want to cover those people within AQ,regardless of not being signatory,then that excerpt is fine with us.
Outside of this forum, believe most my brothers and sisters in U.S. would agree. 14 co-workers Im with currently do.Thats good enough for me.

Lets call it a "measure of control".
hey,
war is hell

MRRiley · 10-04-2011, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Are you sure? Or is it just that wars with non nations weren't on the radar at the time because an organization such as al queda hadn't been invented yet?
You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", but not willing to redefine the conventions of war.
Someone wants to play both sides of the fence.

Ever hear of pirates Bill... or mercenaries... Neither are protected by the Geneva Convention.. "Non-state actors" have been around for a long long time. It's just easier for them to project a broad sweep of influence today.

Wheatfield · 10-04-2011, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by BillM

There you go Wheat,even talked a bit about it at work here.
"the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war."
Article 27, Geneva convention, 1949.

If you want to cover those people within AQ,regardless of not being signatory,then that excerpt is fine with us.
Outside of this forum, believe most my brothers and sisters in U.S. would agree. 14 co-workers Im with currently do.Thats good enough for me.

Lets call it a "measure of control".
hey,
war is hell

Lets call it a measure of understandable bias.

Originally posted by MRRiley

Ever hear of pirates Bill... or mercenaries... Neither are protected by the Geneva Convention.. "Non-state actors" have been around for a long long time. It's just easier for them to project a broad sweep of influence today.

Fair enough, but then, the USA did declare war on el queda, ergo the USA has recognized them, if not as a state, per se, at least as a statelike organization.

Parallax · 10-04-2011, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Are you sure? Or is it just that wars with non nations weren't on the radar at the time because an organization such as al queda hadn't been invented yet?
You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", but not willing to redefine the conventions of war.
Someone wants to play both sides of the fence.

Do you think that the drafters, both as individuals and a group, were so ignorant that they couldn't even conceive of the possibility that there could be shots fired in anger that weren't State sanctioned? AQ didn't exist in 1949, but there were other terrorist organizations in existence, and terrorism was already becoming a big concern prior to 1949.

Quote:

You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror",

You're willing to ignore, cherry pick, or rewrite history to rationalize your disdain for the United States.

GeneV · 10-04-2011, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Fair enough, but then, the USA did declare war on el queda, ergo the USA has recognized them, if not as a state, per se, at least as a statelike organization.

I think that is a pretty accurate way to look at it.

Again, I'm against treating the war on "turrrr" or any group that cannot be identified as the legal equivalent of war.

Wheatfield · 10-04-2011, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

You're willing to ignore, cherry pick, or rewrite history to rationalize your disdain for the United States.

Since you are reverting to your usual straw man, I'll bow out of this one. You've made it plain that having a discussion isn't going to happen.

Parallax · 10-04-2011, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Since you are reverting to your usual straw man, I'll bow out of this one. You've made it plain that having a discussion isn't going to happen.

I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion, but you aren't the only one who gets to make pretentious claims about what is going on in other people's heads.

SteveM · 10-04-2011, 10:56 AM

Wow..there are a bunch of things floating around in this thread....

Due process..... Guantanamo bay, the assassination of Saddam Hussein or Anwar al-Awlaki are all examples of bypassing due process. It’s a slippery slope and I’m not so sure that these actions are in America’s best interest in the long run.

Regarding US citizens.... If Saddam Hussein had been (at one time) American, would it have made any difference in how the US dealt with Iraq? I don’t believe so. Why does it make any difference for Anwar al-Awlaki to be American other than it being “close to home”?

Regarding US law.....perhaps I have the wrong perception. Are there Americans that honestly believe that US law, the US constitution etc have any meaning outside of US soil, regardless if an American is involved or not? I have a hard time believing that people would think that way. If the US government goes outside of US soil to get around US law, surely US citizens understand that there is also no US law beyond American shores.

Regarding free speech......I think there is enough of a debate on what that means in the US, but surely people understand how this changes as soon as you step off US soil. The citizenship of a person is quite frankly irrelevant when compared to the laws and actions of the country that they are in. Many countries such as Canada promote free speech but also hold one responsible for statements made. I understand that you can be charged with slander in the US and you can’t hide behind free speech, but what is permissible in the US can result in hate crime charges if an American were to say the same thing on Canadian soil.

.

newarts · 10-04-2011, 11:12 AM

smc said..

Quote:

surely US citizens understand that there is also no US law beyond American shores.

Is that true? If I go to Canada and murder a US citizen am I not subject to US law for that crime when I return to the US?

GeneV · 10-04-2011, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by newarts

smc said..

Is that true? If I go to Canada and murder a US citizen am I not subject to US law for that crime when I return to the US?

Not to state the obvious, but when you return to the U.S., you are no longer beyond our shores.

SteveM · 10-04-2011, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by newarts

Is that true? If I go to Canada and murder a US citizen am I not subject to US law for that crime when I return to the US?

No, not without extradition, which is usually taken if a US citizen commits an illegal act in the US and then flees to Canada. Even if Canada decides to extradite, it can be prevented if it falls into a number of categories, one of which is "The conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person"

You can do whatever you want in the US, but that has no relevance in Canada. For example, the American government can issue a permit to an American to carry a handgun. If they try to cross the border into Canada with that handgun they are arrested and their vehicle is seized. They then find themselves in a Canadian courtroom wondering what is going to happen to them and wondering how they will get back to the US now that they no longer own a vehicle.

That is an example of a neighboring country. You can imagine how the severity can change depending on the foreign government involved.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Deadly tonadoes hit Massachusetts	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	11	06-03-2011 06:15 AM
Landscape Fall colors hit New Haven	rm2	Post Your Photos!	2	10-22-2010 12:24 AM
Hit the beach, hard	tay_diggs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	07-27-2010 12:43 AM
Up in NY and a small case of LBA hit me	41ants	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	05-26-2010 12:54 PM
KX- a sales hit- colours are popular	lesmore49	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	12-25-2009 05:31 PM

10-04-2011, 07:55 AM	#91
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	It is the Patriot Act that gives us that option.

10-04-2011, 08:01 AM	#92
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Wheatfield Mike, do you think that is the spirit of the pact when it was written? Or are you just applying a convenient way of opting out? Well, the wording is pretty specific, so I would say that was the spirit and intent. Quote: Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily: The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[10] The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[10] Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict. When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.

10-04-2011, 08:05 AM	#93
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Al I am saying Bill is that there was no international legal requirement to apply the Geneva Convention to al Awlaki. Now the prisoners at Gitmo... That's another story and where and when they were captured and where they are from COULD trigger protections or enable us to treat them as base criminals or unlawful combatants. Believe it or not I tend to agree with you that their treatment, especially when it comes to "enhanced interrogation methods," has given the U.S. a black eye or at the very least made us liable to charges of hypocrisy (which if you scan my writings you will find I hold in particular disdain). I still maintain that al Awlaki and Samir Kahn were dangerous traitors to their country who were involved in past and presently active terrorist plots endangering the lives of law-abiding citizens of all nations. Basically, they paid their nickle and took their chances. They lost! http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/30/samir-khan-proud-to-be-an-american-traitor/?hpt=hp_bn4

10-04-2011, 08:08 AM	#94
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by Parallax Well, the wording is pretty specific, so I would say that was the spirit and intent. Are you sure? Or is it just that wars with non nations weren't on the radar at the time because an organization such as al queda hadn't been invented yet? You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", but not willing to redefine the conventions of war. Someone wants to play both sides of the fence.

10-04-2011, 08:10 AM	#95
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	There you go Wheat,even talked a bit about it at work here. "the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war." Article 27, Geneva convention, 1949. If you want to cover those people within AQ,regardless of not being signatory,then that excerpt is fine with us. Outside of this forum, believe most my brothers and sisters in U.S. would agree. 14 co-workers Im with currently do.Thats good enough for me. Lets call it a "measure of control". hey, war is hell

10-04-2011, 08:17 AM	#96
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by Wheatfield Are you sure? Or is it just that wars with non nations weren't on the radar at the time because an organization such as al queda hadn't been invented yet? You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", but not willing to redefine the conventions of war. Someone wants to play both sides of the fence. Ever hear of pirates Bill... or mercenaries... Neither are protected by the Geneva Convention.. "Non-state actors" have been around for a long long time. It's just easier for them to project a broad sweep of influence today.

10-04-2011, 08:30 AM	#97
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by BillM There you go Wheat,even talked a bit about it at work here. "the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war." Article 27, Geneva convention, 1949. If you want to cover those people within AQ,regardless of not being signatory,then that excerpt is fine with us. Outside of this forum, believe most my brothers and sisters in U.S. would agree. 14 co-workers Im with currently do.Thats good enough for me. Lets call it a "measure of control". hey, war is hell Lets call it a measure of understandable bias. Originally posted by MRRiley Ever hear of pirates Bill... or mercenaries... Neither are protected by the Geneva Convention.. "Non-state actors" have been around for a long long time. It's just easier for them to project a broad sweep of influence today. Fair enough, but then, the USA did declare war on el queda, ergo the USA has recognized them, if not as a state, per se, at least as a statelike organization.

10-04-2011, 08:39 AM	#98
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Wheatfield Are you sure? Or is it just that wars with non nations weren't on the radar at the time because an organization such as al queda hadn't been invented yet? You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", but not willing to redefine the conventions of war. Someone wants to play both sides of the fence. Do you think that the drafters, both as individuals and a group, were so ignorant that they couldn't even conceive of the possibility that there could be shots fired in anger that weren't State sanctioned? AQ didn't exist in 1949, but there were other terrorist organizations in existence, and terrorism was already becoming a big concern prior to 1949. Quote: You are willing to redefine the meaning of war to justify the "war on terror", You're willing to ignore, cherry pick, or rewrite history to rationalize your disdain for the United States.

10-04-2011, 08:39 AM	#99
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Wheatfield Fair enough, but then, the USA did declare war on el queda, ergo the USA has recognized them, if not as a state, per se, at least as a statelike organization. I think that is a pretty accurate way to look at it. Again, I'm against treating the war on "turrrr" or any group that cannot be identified as the legal equivalent of war.

10-04-2011, 09:19 AM	#100
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by Parallax You're willing to ignore, cherry pick, or rewrite history to rationalize your disdain for the United States. Since you are reverting to your usual straw man, I'll bow out of this one. You've made it plain that having a discussion isn't going to happen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2011, 09:55 AM	#101
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Wheatfield Since you are reverting to your usual straw man, I'll bow out of this one. You've made it plain that having a discussion isn't going to happen. I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion, but you aren't the only one who gets to make pretentious claims about what is going on in other people's heads.

10-04-2011, 10:56 AM	#102
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Wow..there are a bunch of things floating around in this thread.... Due process..... Guantanamo bay, the assassination of Saddam Hussein or Anwar al-Awlaki are all examples of bypassing due process. It’s a slippery slope and I’m not so sure that these actions are in America’s best interest in the long run. Regarding US citizens.... If Saddam Hussein had been (at one time) American, would it have made any difference in how the US dealt with Iraq? I don’t believe so. Why does it make any difference for Anwar al-Awlaki to be American other than it being “close to home”? Regarding US law.....perhaps I have the wrong perception. Are there Americans that honestly believe that US law, the US constitution etc have any meaning outside of US soil, regardless if an American is involved or not? I have a hard time believing that people would think that way. If the US government goes outside of US soil to get around US law, surely US citizens understand that there is also no US law beyond American shores. Regarding free speech......I think there is enough of a debate on what that means in the US, but surely people understand how this changes as soon as you step off US soil. The citizenship of a person is quite frankly irrelevant when compared to the laws and actions of the country that they are in. Many countries such as Canada promote free speech but also hold one responsible for statements made. I understand that you can be charged with slander in the US and you can’t hide behind free speech, but what is permissible in the US can result in hate crime charges if an American were to say the same thing on Canadian soil. .

10-04-2011, 11:12 AM	#103
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	smc said.. Quote: surely US citizens understand that there is also no US law beyond American shores. Is that true? If I go to Canada and murder a US citizen am I not subject to US law for that crime when I return to the US?

10-04-2011, 11:30 AM	#104
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by newarts smc said.. Is that true? If I go to Canada and murder a US citizen am I not subject to US law for that crime when I return to the US? Not to state the obvious, but when you return to the U.S., you are no longer beyond our shores.

10-04-2011, 11:38 AM	#105
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by newarts Is that true? If I go to Canada and murder a US citizen am I not subject to US law for that crime when I return to the US? No, not without extradition, which is usually taken if a US citizen commits an illegal act in the US and then flees to Canada. Even if Canada decides to extradite, it can be prevented if it falls into a number of categories, one of which is "The conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person" You can do whatever you want in the US, but that has no relevance in Canada. For example, the American government can issue a permit to an American to carry a handgun. If they try to cross the border into Canada with that handgun they are arrested and their vehicle is seized. They then find themselves in a Canadian courtroom wondering what is going to happen to them and wondering how they will get back to the US now that they no longer own a vehicle. That is an example of a neighboring country. You can imagine how the severity can change depending on the foreign government involved.