State of the Union 2013 - One Nation Under Cops

Skylark

NVB wrote: »

Treson. He was a traitor waging war against his own country, that alone is grounds to revoke his citizenship. They just skipped a step..

I may be wrong on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is a mechanism for revoking American Citizenship, unless said Citizenship was acquired fraudulently.

Edit: I was wrong.

Franko

I love Drones
and Drone strikes

Sweeney Tom

There's a drone strike going on right now

in my pants

happy valentine's day from sweeney tom

Romanian My Escutcheon

Sweeney Tom wrote: »

There's a drone strike going on right now

in my pants

happy valentine's day from sweeney tom

Splash damage.

Skylark

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

i was gonna say "Al Qaeda til proven innocent" but that doesn't work because membership in Al Qaeda is not conclusive of past crimes or current enemy combatant status or enemy combatant

So being a member of a terrorist as designated by the UNSC, NATO, the EU, the US, and the UK counts for nothing now. It just makes you an innocent bystander who happens to be part of a militant multinational organization dedicated to violent global jihad?

i didn't say it counts for nothing, i said it's not conclusive

it's some persuasive circumstantial evidence but that is a matter for

the jury

So if a Yemeni court was to try him in absentia...

did that happen? did the trial meet the due process standards of the U.S. Constitution?

i'm not super familiar with all the facts

He was Yemeni citizen as well and was processed by the courts of Yemen while he was hiding in the same country. He received due process as outlined by the Yemeni court system as any citizen of Yemen would receive. It was ordered by the presiding judge that he be apprehended "dead or alive".

following the procedure of another country doesn't relieve the U.S. government of following the requirements of the U.S. Constitution regarding U.S. citizens

But the argument could be made in this case that we were acting on/or at the behest of Yemeni authorities in helping them bring a Yemeni citizen to justice in accordance with the judgement passed down from their courts.

and i agree that argument would be persuasive if the Yemeni trial was up to the standards of the US constitution

the government can't get around the basic requirements because another country asked them to do something

we couldn't establish a national religion if Yemen asked us to

But this basically declares that US law supersedes that of any other country when it comes to citizens of both countries. If he was to stand trial in the US and a different verdict was found, now we are treading on the national sovereignty of Yemen by ignoring judgement passed down on one of their citizens. If you're a citizen of two countries, whichever country gets to you first, there's your trial.

Plenty of countries ignore protection from Double Jeopardy if the first trial was in another country.

Skylark

Ubik wrote: »

Skylark wrote: »

Fearghaill wrote: »

so if soldiers are required, morally and otherwise to refuse orders that violate international law

and so-called "double tapping" with drones, a practice that directly targets first responders and emergency personnel rather than enemy combatants is a clear violation of international law and one that the US engages in regularly, or even at all

then those drone pilots are as guilty of war crimes as everyone above them in the chain of command, right?

that's where all this debating about lawful vs. unlawful orders is leading?

This is (or was, when I read about it) easily resolved by having a military drone controllers put the drone in position, and having CIA or a civilian contractor pull the trigger. Easy peasy, no war crime (on paper).

ya that's not a thing

Well, yea, Nuremberg, you don't need to be military to commit a war crime. But it gives a degree of plausible deniability, and prevents the bad PR of having to put a military drone controller on the stand. It's not like the CIA are ever held accountable for anything.

Skylark

fert

Probad

Skylark wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

Skylark wrote: »

Fearghaill wrote: »

so if soldiers are required, morally and otherwise to refuse orders that violate international law

and so-called "double tapping" with drones, a practice that directly targets first responders and emergency personnel rather than enemy combatants is a clear violation of international law and one that the US engages in regularly, or even at all

then those drone pilots are as guilty of war crimes as everyone above them in the chain of command, right?

that's where all this debating about lawful vs. unlawful orders is leading?

This is (or was, when I read about it) easily resolved by having a military drone controllers put the drone in position, and having CIA or a civilian contractor pull the trigger. Easy peasy, no war crime (on paper).

ya that's not a thing

Well, yea, Nuremberg, you don't need to be military to commit a war crime. But it gives a degree of plausible deniability, and prevents the bad PR of having to put a military drone controller on the stand. It's not like the CIA are ever held accountable for anything.

It actually gives the CIA agent or civilian contractor nothing in terms of immunity or even deniability for war crimes liability. If anything, that person is arguably an unlawful combatant who can be tried for the killing as if it were any other criminal act. Basically, unlawful combatants don't get the combatant's privilege (to engage in war) or POW status (which probably doesn't mean a damn thing to the guy controlling the drone).

Skylark

Eh, I guess I'm coming at this ass-backwards, but my thoughts were just for record keeping. Air Force gets asked, so who pushed the button, they answer, don't know, not one of us, none of our business, if you want records ask [insert agency who will never give you an answer here].

Edit: Basically, I guess I just misinterpreted an article about joint Air Force and CIA drone operations to suit my dumb conspiracy theory, hurr durr.

Pharezon

Probad wrote: »

Skylark wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

Skylark wrote: »

Fearghaill wrote: »

so if soldiers are required, morally and otherwise to refuse orders that violate international law

and so-called "double tapping" with drones, a practice that directly targets first responders and emergency personnel rather than enemy combatants is a clear violation of international law and one that the US engages in regularly, or even at all

then those drone pilots are as guilty of war crimes as everyone above them in the chain of command, right?

that's where all this debating about lawful vs. unlawful orders is leading?

This is (or was, when I read about it) easily resolved by having a military drone controllers put the drone in position, and having CIA or a civilian contractor pull the trigger. Easy peasy, no war crime (on paper).

ya that's not a thing

Well, yea, Nuremberg, you don't need to be military to commit a war crime. But it gives a degree of plausible deniability, and prevents the bad PR of having to put a military drone controller on the stand. It's not like the CIA are ever held accountable for anything.

It actually gives the CIA agent or civilian contractor nothing in terms of immunity or even deniability for war crimes liability. If anything, that person is arguably an unlawful combatant who can be tried for the killing as if it were any other criminal act. Basically, unlawful combatants don't get the combatant's privilege (to engage in war) or POW status (which probably doesn't mean a damn thing to the guy controlling the drone).

Of course, in practice they receive the full might of US protection.

The Otaku Suppository

Harry Dresden wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

gtrmp wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

gtrmp wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

interrobang wrote: »

i'm sure that you are all smart enough to remember that the right to a trial by jury is the Sixth Fucking Amendment

Then maybe stay in the country where we have a 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment so you can enjoy the right of due process. You don't get to hedge your bets by having dual citizenship.

I don't think you understand how citizenship or Constitutional rights actually work. Dual citizenship doesn't mean "we get to ignore your citizenship when we feel like it/when your citizenship is inconvenient." Implying that dual citizenship is hedging a bet is kind of laughable, since most people with dual citizenship have it by virtue of where their parents were from and where they were born; it's not exactly something that most people have chosen.

I'm not saying he chose it. No, he was born here and by right, a citizen of the US. Since one or both of his parents were Yemeni, by the laws of Yemeni citizenship, he's a Yemeni citizen. But what I am saying is you shouldn't be allowed to move to the other country you have citizenship in, have judgement passed down on you in that country, and then expect the constitution of the US to come bail your ass out. Furthermore, we do have the right to ignore his citizenship if he acted with the intent to give up his citizenship.

You're not actually saying anything here. His US citizenship didn't "bail his ass out" of anything done to him by the Yemeni legal system - his assassination was carried out outside of US law, regardless of whether or not it would have been legal according to Yemeni law. Yemen trying him in abesntia had no legal bearing on his assassination by the United States. And his US citizenship was never legally revoked, though the administration could have probably pushed for that if they were so inclined; Republicans were already in favor of stripping him of his citizenship.

But we weren't doing it outside US law. The Constitution protects you notwithstanding committing crimes on foreign soil.

Harry Dresden wrote: »

NVB wrote: »

Ubik wrote: »

NVB wrote: »

Treson. He was a traitor waging war against his own country, that alone is grounds to revoke his citizenship. They just skipped a step..

you mean the step of a trial which would require two witnesses to the same over act or confession in open court as required by Article 3, Section 3?

He activly joined the opfor in a time of war. Times Change. If he were arrested in the states(or anywhere that doesnt matter) and could actually bring him back and a thousand other variables I would agree. But activly joining the opposition makes him a combatant for them.

Serving in the armed forces of another country and waging war against the united states is a voluntary renoucement of your citizenship. The problem is that this organization isn't a specific country's military.

Yes it was illegal but in this case I think it's both a technicallity and a moot point.

He joined a terrorist organization, not a rival country's military. That'd actually give him more rights since he's be a Prisoner of War had they captured him. He's a terrorist, not a soldier.

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

gtrmp wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

interrobang wrote: »

i'm sure that you are all smart enough to remember that the right to a trial by jury is the Sixth Fucking Amendment

Then maybe stay in the country where we have a 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment so you can enjoy the right of due process. You don't get to hedge your bets by having dual citizenship.

I don't think you understand how citizenship or Constitutional rights actually work. Dual citizenship doesn't mean "we get to ignore your citizenship when we feel like it/when your citizenship is inconvenient." Implying that dual citizenship is hedging a bet is kind of laughable, since most people with dual citizenship have it by virtue of where their parents were from and where they were born; it's not exactly something that most people have chosen.

I'm not saying he chose it. No, he was born here and by right, a citizen of the US. Since one or both of his parents were Yemeni, by the laws of Yemeni citizenship, he's a Yemeni citizen. But what I am saying is you shouldn't be allowed to move to the other country you have citizenship in, have judgement passed down on you in that country, and then expect the constitution of the US to come bail your ass out. Furthermore, we do have the right to ignore his citizenship if he acted with the intent to give up his citizenship.

Did he give up his citizenship?

I would say be his associations and actions he acted with intent, yes and would fit the necessary preponderance of evidence standard.

Does this standard apply to domestic terrorists?

Conceivably.

How often does it actually happen?

I don't know. Usually we just give them the death penalty so it makes revoking moot.

Are you going anywhere with this or are you just going to keep asking inane questions to set up your big reveal?

Bogey

You guys have had a day to discuss the SOTU, so we're going back to political thread hiatus.