Somebody school me on Afghanistan

[Ransom]

The US military has taken a senior Pakistani Taliban commander known as Latif Mehsud from the custody of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Intelligence. Latif was reportedly negotiating a prisoner release with Afghan officials, who were hoping to recruit him as an intermediary for peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban.

So.....we take this Pakistani Taliban Commander.....while he's negotiating a prisoner release with the Afghan gov't?


Latif and three other Taliban fighters were captured last week while traveling in the Mohammad Agha district of Logar, the governor of the province told The Associated Press (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022014558_apxafghanistan.html). He was being escorted by the NDS, which was taking him to a headquarters for talks, when a US military team halted the convoy, detained him, and then transferred him to the US-controlled section of Bagram prison,

I won't even go there. The Bagram Prison at Parwan I've mentioned several times....how it's the Afghan Gitmo, how detainees are held there without even the right to challenge their own detentions(to the deafening silence from the Left)....what are we doing in Afghanistan? Where anyone who exchanges with me knows I don't oppose military answers to international problems....what exactly is our policy in Afghanistan, what is the goal?

Benchmarks? Expenses? Deficit arguments? Nation building opposition? Prisoner rights issues? Legality issues?

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/10/us_grabs_pakistani_t.php#ixzz2hVtQbTJE

[Alyosha]

You seem to not oppose military answers to international problems. Did you just see the light this morning?

[Ransom]

You seem to not oppose military answers to international problems. Did you just see the light this morning?

True. I seem to not oppose military answers to international problems. A consistent policy of mine. Perhaps it is your light that needs to be lit?

[Alyosha]

True. I seem to not oppose military answers to international problems. A consistent policy of mine. Perhaps it is your light that needs to be lit?

Not at all. I value the lives of the people around me more than I value money or resources. I'll keep my position and fight against intervention. As for the Afghanistan prison I'll leave it to vets to answer.

If it were up to me Afghanistan would look like a pile of glass because I am eat up with hatred.

[Ransom]

I'm speaking exactly to these policies so hated under a Republican President now ignored now that there is a (D) in office. And I'm asking about our policy, the US policy concerning Afghanistan....unconcerned regarding your hatred. My personal opinion doesn't dismiss military options when seeking solutions, that point was made within the endeavor of trying to ascertain exactly what the United States under this Obama Admin is doing in Afghanistan. In Iraq, Congress demanded 'benchmarks' and was extremely involved with trying to manage and comment on war. Detention policies, the denial of habeas, policies of nation-building, drone strikes, how the war was affecting the economy, most importantly the lives lost. Today, we seem to leave soldiers' families without burial funds after they've given the ultimate sacrifice, I wonder what they'd feel like going into battle with the knowledge their government wasn't going to bury them in the event of their death?

What is our broader policy, what are we working towards in Afghanistan?

[Alyosha]

Obama is Bush but worse. It's a joke that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I can't believe they even give it out anymore after that.

[jillian]

I'm speaking exactly to these policies so hated under a Republican President now ignored now that there is a (D) in office. And I'm asking about our policy, the US policy concerning Afghanistan....unconcerned regarding your hatred. My personal opinion doesn't dismiss military options when seeking solutions, that point was made within the endeavor of trying to ascertain exactly what the United States under this Obama Admin is doing in Afghanistan. In Iraq, Congress demanded 'benchmarks' and was extremely involved with trying to manage and comment on war. Detention policies, the denial of habeas, policies of nation-building, drone strikes, how the war was affecting the economy, most importantly the lives lost. Today, we seem to leave soldiers' families without burial funds after they've given the ultimate sacrifice, I wonder what they'd feel like going into battle with the knowledge their government wasn't going to bury them in the event of their death?

What is our broader policy, what are we working towards in Afghanistan?

You are so confused.

[hanger4]

Obama is Bush but worse. It's a joke that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. I can't believe they even give it out anymore after that.

Hey, they gave one to Yasser Arafat too.

The Nobel Peace Prize lost all credibility with me after that.

[hanger4]

You are so confused.

Then by all means enlighten Ransom ??

That's what's being asked.

[Contrails]

The Bagram Prison at Parwan I've mentioned several times....how it's the Afghan Gitmo, how detainees are held there without even the right to challenge their own detentions(to the deafening silence from the Left)....
Maybe there's silence because prisoners at the Detention Facility in Parwan were actually given the right to challenge their detention back in December 2011, when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.

Section 1024 of the bill, as we’ve noted, requires that people subject to long-term military detention in circumstances not already subject to habeas corpus review–think the Detention Facility in Parwan, Afghanistan–henceforth shall have the right to a military lawyer and a proceeding before a military judge in order to contest the government’s factual basis for believing them to be subject to detention.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

[Ransom]

You are so confused.

Not concerning your deafening silence. You're my posterchild, Jillian. And much appreciated by Ransom.

[Ransom]

Maybe there's silence because prisoners at the Detention Facility in Parwan were actually given the right to challenge their detention back in December 2011, when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

The prisoners at Gitmo were given military tribunals and reviews as well, Contrails. Nice try. And then look to Obama's following the Bush signed Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq. Using drone strikes and special operations into sovereign nation's territories. Without Congressional Approval. Policies of rendition, policies of imprisonment, this latest terrorist taken to a ship and interrogated by the CIA. Obama is using the Surveillance Act, in fact he's expanded and extended that program, the Patriot Act, nation building policies in Afghanistan, occupation with tens of thousands of troops. He directly and indirectly helped to unseat long enduring regimes in Libya and Egypt, sending arms to rebels in Syria.......and may I add.....Gitmo is STILL open....that it's still the primary eyesore defining everything wrong with American policy under Bush...I'll leave that to this panel to ascertain.

[Ransom]

Then by all means enlighten Ransom ??

That's what's being asked.

Much appreciated h4. I do have trouble sometimes with process on this forum. Nothing serious mind you, but I often have difficulty with the Left leaning members in here and the ? symbol. I ask, query, question, try to rephrase........I even point to the lil ? at the end of my sentence....explaining that it is a question. Looking for what's called a response.....something that ends with a period....the lil . sign. Often times they respond with a ? of their own. My thread start there ends with the English symbol ?, the Jillians in here...they ain't so good at those.

[hanger4]

Much appreciated h4. I do have trouble sometimes with process on this forum. Nothing serious mind you, but I often have difficulty with the Left leaning members in here and the ? symbol. I ask, query, question, try to rephrase........I even point to the lil ? at the end of my sentence....explaining that it is a question. Looking for what's called a response.....something that ends with a period....the lil . sign. Often times they respond with a ? of their own. My thread start there ends with the English symbol ?, the Jillians in here...they ain't so good at those.

I noticed on most forums the left thinkers,

when asked a direct question

either ignore it or deflect/obfuscate.

Jillian usually ignores.

Ravi tends to deflect/obfuscate

[Ransom]

But, I wasn't really expecting serious contribution from that quarter. I'm looking for some objective analysis. We have no benchmarks defined in Afghanistan. Has Obama's surge been successful in whatever it was initially designed to succeed upon? Have we moved self determination forward in Afghanistan?

[Alyosha]

Maybe there's silence because prisoners at the Detention Facility in Parwan were actually given the right to challenge their detention back in December 2011, when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

Did you read that? Curious if you found anything in it that you as a human being find particularly fucked up.

Also notice the date on your article then see below Contrails

You might want to read this old article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html


Conservative Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), slammed the change, singling out Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the process.
“The decision by the NDAA conference committee, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the entire NDAA unconstitutional,” Sen. Paul said.

“I voted against NDAA in 2011 because it did not contain the proper constitutional protections. When my Senate colleagues voted to include those protections in the 2012 NDAA through the Feinstein-Lee Amendment last month, I supported this act,” Sen. Paul continued. “But removing those protections now takes us back to square one and does as much violence to the Constitution as last year’s NDAA. When the government can arrest suspects without a warrant, hold them without trial, deny them access to counsel or admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity.


“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole.


“Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury.”

[Contrails]

Did you read that? Curious if you found anything in it that you as a human being find particularly fucked up.

Also notice the date on your article then see below @Contrails (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=855)

You might want to read this old article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html

I read the article, as well as Title X, Subtitle D, of the actual law (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text) and don't see anything there that changes the ability of detainees to challenge their detention.

[Peter1469]

The military objective of the invasion of Afghanistan was tow-fold:

1. To punish the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda, and

2. To degrade al Qaeda's ability to operate in Afghan territory.

We achieved that early on. But the neocons, based on ideology and not rational geopolitics, turned the mission into nation building. There are several problems with that decision.

1. Afghanistan is land locked and logistics is a bitch.

2. Afghanistan may be a state, but it has never been a nation. A nation is a collection of people with largely compatible goals / culture. You can't build a nation in Afghanistan, and it was foolish to try.

We could have removed conventional forces after Tora Bora - the Afghans would not have minded us staging SoF and Intel there to hunt down the remaining high value targets. What really pissed them off was what looked like an occupation and meddling in their internal politics.

[Chloe]

So.....we take this Pakistani Taliban Commander.....while he's negotiating a prisoner release with the Afghan gov't?



I won't even go there. The Bagram Prison at Parwan I've mentioned several times....how it's the Afghan Gitmo, how detainees are held there without even the right to challenge their own detentions(to the deafening silence from the Left)....what are we doing in Afghanistan? Where anyone who exchanges with me knows I don't oppose military answers to international problems....what exactly is our policy in Afghanistan, what is the goal?

Benchmarks? Expenses? Deficit arguments? Nation building opposition? Prisoner rights issues? Legality issues?

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/10/us_grabs_pakistani_t.php#ixzz2hVtQbTJE

The country invaded it after the attacks on september 11th out of anger and thought that it could go in destroy everything that needed to be destroyed, install a new government that would like us, and then leave with an established military presence over there for the rest of our lives. The only problem is that you can't control people's minds and actions forever and they waited too long to leave. Now we are stuck there trying to figure out the best way to bail on a situation that will never improve with us being there, or with us leaving. This is the problem with having a dominating foreign policy that causes turmoil, causes hatred, causes resentment, causes forced dependency, and causes continued war instead of preventing war.

[Peter1469]

The country invaded it after the attacks on september 11th out of anger and thought that it could go in destroy everything that needed to be destroyed, install a new government that would like us, and then leave with an established military presence over there for the rest of our lives. The only problem is that you can't control people's minds and actions forever and they waited too long to leave. Now we are stuck there trying to figure out the best way to bail on a situation that will never improve with us being there, or with us leaving. This is the problem with having a dominating foreign policy that causes turmoil, causes hatred, causes resentment, causes forced dependency, and causes continued war instead of preventing war.


Nation building was not part of the initial plans..., that is called mission creep.

[The Xl]

How long does one continue this fruitless foreign policy? We haven't made one stride in 12 years.

[Peter1469]

How long does one continue this fruitless foreign policy? We haven't made one stride in 12 years.

Sure we did. We accomplished our original mission very early on:

1. To punish the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda, and

2. To degrade al Qaeda's ability to operate in Afghan territory.

[Ransom]

The military objective of the invasion of Afghanistan was tow-fold:

1. To punish the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda, and

2. To degrade al Qaeda's ability to operate in Afghan territory.

We achieved that early on. But the neocons, based on ideology and not rational geopolitics, turned the mission into nation building. There are several problems with that decision.

There are problems and they number several with any decision, Pete. Inaction and isolation concerning Afghanistan was a decision that had problems and they numbered several, those unleashed on 9-11 if I'm not mistaken. The Taliban could not be allowed to continue 'governing' in Afghanistan. They refused Bush's first demand for obl following the attacks on the US. You, the prince of what we cannot do, the forum's Monday Morning QB. The mission was to unseat the Taliban, not punish. The mission goal wasn't leaving with the Taliban government still in control...correct Pete?


Afghanistan is land locked and logistics is a bitch.

Really Lewis? Have one of the Corps of Discovery run up and grab Captain Clark and send him back here immediately. Not only does Pete's internet contain Google Maps so Pete can regurgitate the first part of that.....but guess what? Captain Obvious has just declared that "Logistics is a bitch." My God.....the weight...the level of that statement. Going on yer record Pete. Geopolitics is hard. Logistics a bitch. Next you'll be enlightening us all that war is dangerous or something. Let's talk tomorrow morning about what the QB's should have done today too, Pete, you're probably just as good at that.


2. Afghanistan may be a state, but it has never been a nation. A nation is a collection of people with largely compatible goals / culture. You can't build a nation in Afghanistan, and it was foolish to try.

We could have removed conventional forces after Tora Bora - the Afghans would not have minded us staging SoF and Intel there to hunt down the remaining high value targets. What really pissed them off was what looked like an occupation and meddling in their internal politics.

So.....you.....Peter1469......Captain Obvious of TPF...want to explain to me in a geopolitically confident manner.....that after we chased al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters into the mountains...and degraded their ability to operate in Afghan territory...we should have withdrawn? Left the Taliban to govern Afghanistan....figuring they "would not have minded" continued operations and/or drone strikes?

Because if your think that, then go get your no. 2 pencil, your crayons if that's your preference, your notebook and straighten yer necktie co-ed.....Ransom's class is in session and you're about to get some geopolitics inserted where you didn't know places existed. Tighten your seatbelt, Captain.....perhaps get some of the Obvious household members around too....you're all about to get schooled.

[Ransom]

How long does one continue this fruitless foreign policy? We haven't made one stride in 12 years.

Is the Taliban still in control in Afghanistan?

[Ransom]

The country invaded it after the attacks on september 11th out of anger and thought that it could go in destroy everything that needed to be destroyed, install a new government that would like us, and then leave with an established military presence over there for the rest of our lives. The only problem is that you can't control people's minds and actions forever and they waited too long to leave. Now we are stuck there trying to figure out the best way to bail on a situation that will never improve with us being there, or with us leaving. This is the problem with having a dominating foreign policy that causes turmoil, causes hatred, causes resentment, causes forced dependency, and causes continued war instead of preventing war.

September 11th, 2001 scenario;

"President Chloe.....the al-Qaeda Terror Network based in Afghanistan just hijacked 4 airliners, one is down in Pennsylvania, one is inside the Pentagon, and 2 are in each of our World Trade Centers...that have now collapsed........your orders, Ma'am"

"Where is Captain Obvious?"

"Ma'am....with all due respect.....we already understand geopolitics is hard, we know logistics is a bitch, we know there are many more Monday Morning rather than Sunday Morning quarterbacks on the tpf site you sometimes frequent.....the time for grand statements that have been known to exist since the early dawns of any civilization....aren't necessary to repeat, they're well known...what should we do, what are your orders this am, what does President Chloe propose we actually do?"

[Peter1469]

There are problems and they number several with any decision, Pete. Inaction and isolation concerning Afghanistan was a decision that had problems and they numbered several, those unleashed on 9-11 if I'm not mistaken. The Taliban could not be allowed to continue 'governing' in Afghanistan. They refused Bush's first demand for obl following the attacks on the US. You, the prince of what we cannot do, the forum's Monday Morning QB. The mission was to unseat the Taliban, not punish. The mission goal wasn't leaving with the Taliban government still in control...correct Pete?



Really Lewis? Have one of the Corps of Discovery run up and grab Captain Clark and send him back here immediately. Not only does Pete's internet contain Google Maps so Pete can regurgitate the first part of that.....but guess what? Captain Obvious has just declared that "Logistics is a bitch." My God.....the weight...the level of that statement. Going on yer record Pete. Geopolitics is hard. Logistics a bitch. Next you'll be enlightening us all that war is dangerous or something. Let's talk tomorrow morning about what the QB's should have done today too, Pete, you're probably just as good at that.



So.....you.....Peter1469......Captain Obvious of TPF...want to explain to me in a geopolitically confident manner.....that after we chased al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters into the mountains...and degraded their ability to operate in Afghan territory...we should have withdrawn? Left the Taliban to govern Afghanistan....figuring they "would not have minded" continued operations and/or drone strikes?

Because if your think that, then go get your no. 2 pencil, your crayons if that's your preference, your notebook and straighten yer necktie co-ed.....Ransom's class is in session and you're about to get some geopolitics inserted where you didn't know places existed. Tighten your seatbelt, Captain.....perhaps get some of the Obvious household members around too....you're all about to get schooled.

You need to tighten up: the Taliban was out of power within months....

Have you really missed the effort and expense of the logistical efforts to support the occupation of Afghanistan?

And you deflect in your second sentence. It is either a deliberate attempt to discredit my point; or it is a failure to understand my point.

[Ransom]

Was out of power...because the mission was to destroy...not punish the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Peter.

Peter1469. It is your contention here....yes or no...that following the Tora Bora campaign, where the US 'degraded' the military capacity of the Taliban and al-Qaeda and thus we punished them(your words now..not mine)we then should have withdrawn.....? Pete?

[Alyosha]

I read the article, as well as Title X, Subtitle D, of the actual law (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text) and don't see anything there that changes the ability of detainees to challenge their detention.
Contrails

Eric Holder on behalf of the Obama Administration filed suit and on July 17, 2013 Obama won back the right by our out-of-control and partisan judiciary to violate the 4th Amendment like a used whore.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-lawsuit-idUSBRE96G0XN20130717

Actual case file embedded in this article using SCRIBD

http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-appeal-suit-229/

http://rt.com/usa/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/

ACLU:
“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”


These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.


When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.


Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.

[Codename Section]

@Contrails (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=855)

Eric Holder on behalf of the Obama Administration filed suit and on July 17, 2013 Obama won back the right by our out-of-control and partisan judiciary to violate the 4th Amendment like a used whore.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-lawsuit-idUSBRE96G0XN20130717

Actual case file embedded in this article using SCRIBD

http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-appeal-suit-229/

http://rt.com/usa/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/

ACLU:
“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”


These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.


When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.


Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.


Bush made him do it.

[Peter1469]

There are problems and they number several with any decision, Pete. Inaction and isolation concerning Afghanistan was a decision that had problems and they numbered several, those unleashed on 9-11 if I'm not mistaken. The Taliban could not be allowed to continue 'governing' in Afghanistan. They refused Bush's first demand for obl following the attacks on the US. You, the prince of what we cannot do, the forum's Monday Morning QB. The mission was to unseat the Taliban, not punish. The mission goal wasn't leaving with the Taliban government still in control...correct Pete?



Really Lewis? Have one of the Corps of Discovery run up and grab Captain Clark and send him back here immediately. Not only does Pete's internet contain Google Maps so Pete can regurgitate the first part of that.....but guess what? Captain Obvious has just declared that "Logistics is a bitch." My God.....the weight...the level of that statement. Going on yer record Pete. Geopolitics is hard. Logistics a bitch. Next you'll be enlightening us all that war is dangerous or something. Let's talk tomorrow morning about what the QB's should have done today too, Pete, you're probably just as good at that.



So.....you.....Peter1469......Captain Obvious of TPF...want to explain to me in a geopolitically confident manner.....that after we chased al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters into the mountains...and degraded their ability to operate in Afghan territory...we should have withdrawn? Left the Taliban to govern Afghanistan....figuring they "would not have minded" continued operations and/or drone strikes?

Because if your think that, then go get your no. 2 pencil, your crayons if that's your preference, your notebook and straighten yer necktie co-ed.....Ransom's class is in session and you're about to get some geopolitics inserted where you didn't know places existed. Tighten your seatbelt, Captain.....perhaps get some of the Obvious household members around too....you're all about to get schooled.

Re, the bolded: That really wasn't what I said. I mentioned that we should not have withdrawn everyone....

Also, what I meant by punish the Taliban- force them from power.

You are all over the map.

[Contrails]

Eric Holder on behalf of the Obama Administration filed suit and on July 17, 2013 Obama won back the right by our out-of-control and partisan judiciary to violate the 4th Amendment like a used whore.
Again, you are confusing the right to trial with the right to challenge one's detention. The lawsuit your links refer to challenged Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA which allows for detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities. This has no effect on Section 1024 of the 2012 NDAA which allows people being held under Section 1021 to challenge their detention. I'm not saying that I agree with the ability to detain anyone, US citizen or not, without a trial, but the claim that they are being locked up without any legal recourse is simple false.

BTW, the 4th amendment has to do with illegal search and seizure. The right to a trial is guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

[Alyosha]

Again, you are confusing the right to trial with the right to challenge one's detention.

How am I confusing them? You are detained pretrial. Their challenge and the challenge that most people of morals have with it is that you are not allowed to indefinitely postpone a trial.




The lawsuit your links refer to challenged Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA which allows for detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities.

Is there an end date to the hostilities?



This has no effect on Section 1024 of the 2012 NDAA which allows people being held under Section 1021 to challenge their detention.

Where did I say that their legal counsel has been denied the right to motion a court? I assure you, nowhere.



I'm not saying that I agree with the ability to detain anyone, US citizen or not, without a trial, but the claim that they are being locked up without any legal recourse is simple false.


What is their legal recourse? They've asked for trial. There has been no trial. Under normal circumstances a judge would have released them since the state declined to prosecute. We had laws against the indefinite detention of prisoners awaiting trial.



BTW, the 4th amendment has to do with illegal search and seizure. The right to a trial is guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

No shit, Sherlock. It is not just about indefinite detention it is about the use of drones and the 4th amendment.


On July 19, 2013 in the Federal District Court in Washington, DC, Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer heard arguments concerning a constitutional challenge to the drone strike killings of three U.S. citizens which occurred in Yemen in 2011. The lawsuit was filed last July by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the relatives of the three US citizens who were killed.


Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki and grandfather of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Sarah Khan, the mother of Samir Khan, charged that the US government violated the Constitution and international law when it targeted Anwar al-Awlaki for extrajudicial killing and carried out the execution by means of drone-fired missiles on September 30, 2011 in Yemen.

...

The suit argues that all three killings of US citizens were unlawful because, apart from war, the US Constitution and international law prohibit killing without due process, “except as a last resort to avert a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury,” conditions that did not apply to any of the victims.



http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/25/awla-j25.html

^^figured you'd like that link.

We're discussing the fact that people have been held or even killed without any of the due process afforded prisoners in addition to trial.

We're dropping bombs from drones and managed to kill an American citizen without even giving him the right to due process. We rounded up groups of people and haven't even made the determination that they are guilty of anything. In order to arrest or hold someone you have to have some process of assumption. It cannot be wrong place, wrong time.

What are they even going to trial for? Will they ever go to trial?
@Contrails (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=855),

why does it seem as though you are ignoring the fact that this is damaging to our judicial process?

It seems, that you're being yet another Obama apologist and that were this Bush you'd be less fine with it. It seems.


Make me feel like I'm wrong and tell me that it's an abomination of justice that Obama killed a 16 year old American without due process.

[Ransom]

Re, the bolded: That really wasn't what I said. I mentioned that we should not have withdrawn everyone....

Not withdrawn everyone......meaning we leave special forces, administrators, intelligence gathering abilities...and strike with drones that you pretend no one is going to mind?


Also, what I meant by punish the Taliban- force them from power.

The mission was to remove the Taliban from power and I can only assume you supported that mission. Now.....to do that....what must occur, Pete? A battle at Tora Bora and reducing their military capability...and then a withdrawl of US forces(except for everyone)? Cause we've had a coalition on the ground, a huge surge and extended US presence...and we're still fighting the Taliban for power in Afghanistan.....and now Pakistan.


You are all over the map.

No Pete. We're gonna stay where you are on the map for while. You stated the two missions of the US in Afghanistan, have now agreed the mission was to remove the Taliban from power......your opinion is that we should have withdrawn following Tora Bora except with a few personnel....would you like to explain how you would have thought that a smart decision. Please go over your policies once again......just so I can get my thoughts around it. Reduce or "degrade" their military capacity....or capacity to attack the US...then leave and operate

[Ransom]

Again, you are confusing the right to trial with the right to challenge one's detention. The lawsuit your links refer to challenged Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA which allows for detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities. This has no effect on Section 1024 of the 2012 NDAA which allows people being held under Section 1021 to challenge their detention. I'm not saying that I agree with the ability to detain anyone, US citizen or not, without a trial, but the claim that they are being locked up without any legal recourse is simple false.

Number one, this has always been the policy of the United States, we have never afforded legal recourse to those captured on the battlefield...until of course liberasl whined about detainees at Gitmo. When this claim that detainees were without legal recourse was equally false.

Remember when Gitmo was once our primary eyesore affecting our global reputation. Not anymore, there's a (D) in town.

[Ransom]

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/10/us_forced_to_accept_the_existe.php

The Taliban has been consistent on this very point. It has continued to maintain that it demands to be recognized as the legitimate representative of the Afghan people and will accept only the return of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.



Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/10/us_forced_to_accept_the_existe.php#ixzz2hiQ7efiD