In 1970 the Weather Underground declared war on the United States.

[Puregonzo1188]

Would Richard Nixon ordering their assassination had been justified?

[City Lights]

1. K&R. eom

[msanthrope]

2. Did Nixon have authority from Congress? Obama does.

Had Congress given him a resolution under the War Powers Act?

[Harmony Blue]

5. That is not entirely true

Congress has not challenged Obama thus far on this topic.

[SanchoPanza]

7. Legally speaking, that amounts to tacit approval.

[msanthrope]

8. In the AUMF of 9/18/01, the Congress authorized the President to take

appropriate force against Al-Q, invoking the War Powers Act.

That's a crystal-clear authorization for precisely this kind of act.

[EFerrari]

14. You've posted this about 50 times but it still doesn't get more true on repetition. n/t

[msanthrope]

22. It was true the first time--you may question the legitmacy of the AUMF, but you

cannot disagree on its existence.

[DirkGently]

16. Please, cite the provision which repeals the 5th, 6th & 7th Amendments

This argument doesn't get more true with repetition. There is no authorization, anywhere, for the President to place U.S. Citizens on kill lists and have them assassinated. Nothing of the kind is possible under the Constitution.

[msanthrope]

20. I suggest you read up on the difference between how a military target is handled

and how a criminal is handled. A review of the Guantanamo cases will give you a good idea of how the three branches of government have come to a uneasy agreement about how to handle persons whose pursuit and capture are done under the AUMF and subsequent legislation.

If you are a military target of the United States, i.e. those belonging to the organization that fomented 9/11, regardless of your citizenship, necessary and appropriate force, as deemed by the President, will apply. That is because the AUMF--and I suggest you read it--is a declaration of war by Congress invoking the WPR. It has been in effect since 9.18.01.

Had al-Awlaki turned himself in to face his Yemeni murder conviction, we would not have been able to touch him, only request his extradition.

If you don't believe me, then read the court cases and come to your own conclusion.

[DirkGently]

23. You are wrong. U.S. citizens do not magically become "military targets" because we say so.

This was a lie when Bush told it. It's no better now that people are scrambling to support it because Obama pulled the trigger this time.

There is no substantive difference between this killing and secret police walking up behind someone and blowing their head off.

We are not in an endless, borderless "war" with whomever we say we are. Dropping missiles on individual people is not battle.

[msanthrope]

26. US citizenship is not a magic protective cone. If US citizens join Al-Qaeda, they become military

targets. How they are handled only varies by where they are located, not their citizenship.

If US citizens had joined the Nazis? Military targets.

I prefer dropping a single missile on a convoy of Al-Q to battles.

We have been at war with Al-Q since 9.18.01. Funny, no congressperson has ever introduced a resolution to end it.

[DirkGently]

31. What determines "membership" in a loosely affiliated network like Al Quaeda, by the way?

Under this framework, there's nothing to prevent the government from killing anyone, anywhere, for any reason, on the theory that a secret determination was made that they were al Qaeda.

Be pretty hard to falsely claim someone was in the German Army. Not that hard to accuse someone of being in a terrorist organization, when you don't have to prove it.

You see no difficulty in assuring only real "terrorists" become military targets, when the evidence, and even the killing, may be done in secret?

Do you think malicious political leaders in other countries ever falsely accuse people of terrorist activities as cover for arresting them? Killing them?

[msanthrope]

40. Well, I think a couple hundred YouTube videos of yourself proclaiming you are in al-Qaeda, and

emails between you and Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, and you, and Rajib Karim, the British Airways plotter, are pretty definitive.
That's al-Awlaki.

Samir Kahn was the editor of Al-Qaeda's online magazine, and a recruiter, boasted about being in al-Qaeda. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out I am al-Qaeda to the core," he wrote.

And the last one? Ibrahim al-Asiri's fingerprint was found on the bomb that the Christmas Underwear bomber was wearing.

Not for anything, I get your slippery slope argument, and I appreciate that this can be abused. But it wasn't, here. And I don't find slippery slope arguments compelling.

[Better Believe It]

17. So Congress gave Obama the authority to violate our Constitution? Really?

So if a future Congress passes legislation authorizing the President to suspend the Bill of Rights would that also be OK with you?

[msanthrope]

21. Where have you been? On 9.18.01 the Congress declared war on the

persons, nations and organizations that perpetrated 9/11, by passing the AUMF, invoking the WPR.

Not for anything, but your arguments would be a bit more cogent if you knew what the legal basis was for this action.

You may disagree with it--but at least you would be arguing the correct facts.

[DirkGently]

25. Still doesn't supercede the Constitution. Nothing does, by the way.

[msanthrope]

28. The AUMF doesn't supersede the Constitution. It is constitutional.

Citizenship is not a magic protective cone that stops you from becoming a military target if you take up arms against America.

[DirkGently]

29. It guarantees due process of law. Inventing a new definition of war doesn't circumvent that.

And it's disturbing to see presumed Democrats arguing that it does. It's Bush Doctrine. Bush's theory. Bush's co-opted lawyers. Bush's theory of the Unitary Executive.

It would be interesting to see if people pushing this theory would be willing to affirm it in writing.

Something like,

"I _________ (name of supporter of extrajudicial assassination) agree that should I ever be designated an Enemy Combatant, that my civil rights are forfeit, and I may be summarily assassinated, without evidence, trial, or appeal. I recognize such assassination may claim the lives of members of my family and / or other innocent people."

I think they wouldn't, because I think a lot of their comfort comes from the notion that these are far away people in far away places, who are definitely guilty, even though that hasn't been exactly proven.

They don't imagine the government would ever get it wrong. Target the wrong person. Accidentally. Or maybe not.

Would you trust a Republican President with this supposed power?

Were you comfortable with the Predator killings when Bush started them?

[msanthrope]

38. I hate to break it to you, but this wasn't just Bush. This was Congress, too.

Trust Bush? He had this power, and instead of using it effectively, he took us to war in Iraq.

Had Bush Predator Drone killed Bin Laden, I would have been glad that he had done so.

[Puregonzo1188]

35. If that's the case then when did George Bush's U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey suggest

Congress declare war on the al-Qaeda circa 2008?

[msanthrope]

39. Because he wanted to help the McCain campaign. A war vote for Obama and McCain--at a time when

support for the Iraq War was souring. Mukasey had the impudence to testify before Congress that he knew he already had a declaration of war--but he wanted one 'reaffirmed' against Al-Qaeda. Political theater in an election year---


The attorney general said the administration already has the authority to detain suspected terrorists. But he said, "It would do all of us good to have the principle reaffirmed, not that that principle itself is in doubt."

A week after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations and groups that planned or supported the attacks. It did not specifically mention al Qaeda, which carried out the attacks, or their Taliban allies.

Some critics have said the Bush administration was too broad in asserting a nameless "war on terrorism."

The Supreme Court has upheld the government's right to hold al Qaeda detainees. But a U.S. appeals court last month rejected the government's argument that an ethnic Uighur Chinese Muslim could be held under the September 2001 authority as someone affiliated with al Qaeda.

forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=50457.0;wap2



Some of us remember all the anti-Obama shit that was tried. Including this little farce...

[SanchoPanza]

3. The Weather Underground operated within the jurisdiction of the United States, so no.

Justified is a tricky word. Whether or not Nixon felt assassinating members of the Weather Underground was justified as a national security imperative, or whether others would agree or disagree with that judgement, is largely immaterial. It has to be legal before it can be justified, and ordering the assassination of members of the Weather Underground, as that organization existed and operated, would not have been legal.

A popular misconception of Constitutional law is that its protections are guaranteed to U.S. citizens. They aren't. They are guaranteed to all persons "living within the United States," or within the jurisdiction of the United States (as in military bases, embassies, and etc on foreign soil). A state, for instance, cannot jail a non-citizen indefinitely without following the established due process guarantees. The binding laws for dealing with persons outside U.S. jurisdiction, citizen or not, are congressional authorizations and international treaties.

So if, say, the Weather Underground had moved their operation to Mexico (or any other country) and Congress had given authorization to the President to engage in military operations against that organization, then Nixon could have theoretically went after them with military assets even though they were U.S. citizens. I say theoretically, because there were additional SCOTUS cases following the period Nixon Administration that refined and clarified the issue. Then the question becomes whether such an act would be justified or not.

Since they weren't, the comparison really isn't relevant, for both the reason listed above, and the fact that it doesn't matter whether a state or non-state actor officially declares hostilities against the United States. What matters is whether or not Congress, either through an official declaration of war or limited authorizing statute, or a treaty obligation, grants authority to the executive to engage in hostilities against them.

[Better Believe It]

18. But what if the Congress had passed legislation "authorizing" their murder? Would that have been OK

[ieoeja]

27. From SanchoPanza's post:

"A popular misconception of Constitutional law is that its protections are guaranteed to U.S. citizens. They aren't. They are guaranteed to all persons "living within the United States," or within the jurisdiction of the United States (as in military bases, embassies, and etc on foreign soil)."

According to his post, they were protected by the Constitution since they operated inside the boundaries of the United States. Congress can not constitutionally authorize the murder of criminals operating in this country.

A better example is comparing the Weather Underground to Al Qaeda operatives operating inside the United States. Several have been captured and imprisoned. None have been assassinated. And they aren't even American citizens. But as long as they are in the United States, they (mostly) have the protection of the Constitution.

When we start assassinating Al Qaeda operatives inside the USA, you would have a good point. But since we are not, this comparison is meaningless.

[DirkGently]

30. You don't think the U.S. is claiming "jurisdiction" when it kills someone?

And just incidentally, these are horrible distinctions to even be attempting. We can murder people without a trial, if they aren't Americans, or they aren't on American soil? Because we say they're terrorists?

Really? That's the kind of people we are? Constrained to recognize basic human rights under limited circumstances? Looking for categories of people and situations where our own supposed highest principles DON'T apply?

Who else has this new power of secret murder, by the way?

Can other countries kill U.S. citizens it claims are terrorists, wherever they find them?

[ieoeja]

32. It wasn't secret. And I did not say or "aren't Americans".

I specifically stated that we can *not* constitutionally kill people who are foreign born when they are on American soil.

And of course other countries can, and do, kill US citizens it claims are terrorists. Oft times with our blessing.

[PDJane]

4. No.

But then, I don't believe extrajudicial assassination is justified either. I don't believe that the US is a nation of laws anymore, either.

[Kurovski]

13. And there you have it.

But still, don't light up a jay near a window facing the street.

[formercia]

6. They might have killed some Undercover FBI in the process.

The Weather Underground was more useful to the PTB by letting them neutralize potential supporters.

[AngkorWot]

9. Would it be justified if they died in a shootout with police?

What if they fled to a foreign country, surrounded themselves with an armed militia, while still directing attacks against American targets?

[ProSense]

10. Maybe

"In 1970 the Weather Underground declared war on the United States. Would Richard Nixon ordering their assassination had been justified?"

...it's time to stop grasping at straws.

Seven Face Terrorism Charges in N.C.

Too bad for al-Awlaki or bin Laden they weren't found hiding in someone's house in the U.S.

[Puregonzo1188]

36. I am not grasping at straws--with both the bin Laden and the al-Awlaki assassinations

DUers justified them on the grounds that the respective individuals "declared war against the United States," with some even saying al-Awlaki forfeited his citizenship and thus his constitutional rights by doing so. I was just curious how these individuals felt about the Weather Underground. It's a valid question.

[Itchinjim]

11. And promptly blew themselves up.

Chumps.

[lame54]

12. Nixon never got the chance

[leveymg]

15. The bomb-making faction of the Weather Under' was more of a danger to themselves and the Movement,

at least in terms of casualties more were killed in explosions of their own devices than victims who died. There was one targeted bombing fatality at the U of Wisconsin Computing Center, and that death was apparently unintentional, as I recall.

There were also some fatalities during armored car robberies in the early to mid-1970s carried out by remnants of the Weather Underground and some splinter groups. Almost everyone involved was eventually arrested and served long prison sentences.

Nixon and Agnew used these lame gestures of militancy to their own great political advantage, justifying police and intelligence agency surveillance and repression of the Left, programs such as COINTELPRO and Operation CHAOS, based upon the overstated threat of domestic Leftwing terrorism of the '70s; it was totally counter-productive, and let's hope it never gets repeated.

[msanthrope]

24. The Weather Underground were kept from being mass murderers by their own incompetence....

I don't know how much of a defense that is, but there you have it---

(not an original thought, I read it somewhere and now cannot remember the source.)

[DirkGently]

19. A white supremacist group recently tried to set off a bomb with rat-poisoned nails @ an MLK march.

Will a Hellfire missile be visiting them soon? No? Why not? Can't be that they're not terrorists -- clearly they are? Are they not "dangerous?" Sure sounds like it. Do we not have enough evidence against them? I'm pretty sure I read it in the paper.

So what's the holdup? Surely if we have the right to kill terrorists wherever, whenever, there's nothing special about white Christian terrorists living here in America?

What are the precise limits of Bush's self-declared power to designate people as enemy combatants and have them kidnapped, tortured, and murdered?

It is the Bush Doctrine we're talking about, even if Obama (may?) be using only part of it.

If the entire world is the battlefield, and anyone we designate an enemy is the equivalent of German Army, or a seccessionist state with a standing army, who exactly can kill whom, when, and where?

Is it important that it happens in countries we consider to be chaotic backwaters? Could the Hellfire missile have targeted a taxicab in NYC? A golf course in Toronto? A shopping mall in Bogota?

Can other countries do this, or just us? Interesting, especially given the hundreds of "collateral" civilian deaths the Predator attacks have caused.

Will we be grumpy with Spain if drops a bomb on a Basque separatist in a hotel in Lisbon? If Columbia frags a reputed cartel kingpin at SeaWorld?

Do other people have this special power of deciding who's a terrorist? Can we really complain if Canada follows through on its view of Bush and Cheney as war criminals, and sends a kill squad after them?

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Funnily enough, we captured (white)Nazi war criminals and interrogated them instead of killing them.

Things that make you go, "hmmmmm"

[DirkGently]

41. Oh, come on. The Nazis didn't kill 3,000 people. Also, did they have scary beards?

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. Lies! Nixon only ordered the assassination of Black Panthers... like Fred Hampton.

True story, BTW. That, or the Chicago PD.

:evilfrown:

[Puregonzo1188]

37. Oh yes, I am very aware of that.

One of my many reasons for a lack of enthusiasm for assassinations.