[giftplas]

Re: O'Sullivan Bere:

At one point in my reply I used the word "exactly" and it was meant to agree with the statement that laws can be made that are convoluted (Devious so as to legitimize that which might otherwise be rejected upon closer examination)

IMO Assassination as a preemptive action especially by our government contradicts our system of justice and constitution unless war is declared by the authority given our congress thus preserving the safeguards built into the document in respect to rule by majority.

I understood. But I still go back to what is deemed an 'assassination.'

Here, this person is actively engaged in attacking the US and encouraging and helping others do the same as an AQ member. AQ is not a nation; it's a criminal organisation IMO. There is no 'war' to be declared against criminals. Even dealing with criminals, self-defence rights exist. IMO, the US and its agents don't have to declare war on each and every criminal they face in order to confront and defend themselves and the public they represent from being assailed by them and it's not the kind of action that the war clause in the Constitution is meant to address.

[Arximedus]

Re: O'Sullivan Bere
"Here, this person is actively engaged in attacking the US and encouraging and helping others do the same as an AQ member. AQ is not a nation; it's a criminal organisation IMO. There is no 'war' to be declared against criminals. Even dealing with criminals, self-defence rights exist. IMO, the US and its agents don't have to declare war on each and every criminal they face in order to confront and defend themselves and the public they represent from being assailed by them and it's not the kind of action that the war clause in the Constitution is meant to address"

IMO; Should a U.S. citizen (or any other citizen) be engaged in what is considered a capital criminal action within our own
country laws exist for proper authorities to apperhend (using a required force including death if necessary) and to subject said person to all the required legal ramifications that follow.

If said person (a US. citizen) is operating in a different country and under the laws of that country they not us have if requested and agree by treaty or otherwise to apprehend such person with disposession of their choosing (subject again to treaty and agreements.)

It would seem we have no legal right (except for "Hot Pursuit) to enter a foreign country "sans agreement" and apprehend or kill any one by any means .

To assume we have the right to construct a LAW that would contravene our constitution or any others laws existing within their sovereignty
is absurd.

IMO Regardless of what the framers of the constitution intended the words of the Consitution stand unless our USSC finds otherwise.

To date the Patriot Act had (I believe) not been challenged to ther degree the entire document and the dissent heard in the USSC.

The Irish gentleman who was an insurgent (without refereshing my mind) should not have been tried by the British for acts withinn his own country except as a prisoner of war. (because of the footing of an invaded people, unifor or no uniform.

[abubycera]

IMO; Should a U.S. citizen (or any other citizen) be engaged in what is considered a capital criminal action within our own
country laws exist for proper authorities to apperhend (using a required force including death if necessary) and to subject said person to all the required legal ramifications that follow.

If said person (a US. citizen) is operating in a different country and under the laws of that country they not us have if requested and agree by treaty or otherwise to apprehend such person with disposession of their choosing (subject again to treaty and agreements.)

It would seem we have no legal right (except for "Hot Pursuit) to enter a foreign country "sans agreement" and apprehend or kill any one by any means .

To assume we have the right to construct a LAW that would contravene our constitution or any others laws existing within their sovereignty
is absurd.

IMO Regardless of what the framers of the constitution intended the words of the Consitution stand unless our USSC finds otherwise.

To date the Patriot Act had (I believe) not been challenged to ther degree the entire document and the dissent heard in the USSC.

The Irish gentleman who was an insurgent (without refereshing my mind) should not have been tried by the British for acts withinn his own country except as a prisoner of war. (because of the footing of an invaded people, unifor or no uniform.

Actually it's commonplace in national laws rather than absurd.

Each nation has a right to set its own laws within its borders. For example, the US could make a law prohibiting US citizens and lawful residents from smoking pot when in the Netherlands even though it's legal there. If those people return to the US after smoking pot there, then they can be prosecuted for violating that law. The hard part, obviously, would be establishing the violation given the evidence is in the Netherlands. But if the Dutch wished to cooperate with the US on that, they could.

Most countries don't pass or enforce laws like that, thankfully, because it's bad international relations, tough to enforce, tough or unable to get cooperation, etc, unless the subject is of the most serious and universally agreed nature. But if you're a US citizen flying to Thailand or some other place to have sex with children in the shady sex industry, that kind of thing does get prosecuted in the US with or without the help of such countries. Some countries, like the UK, allow its laws to prosecute their own citizens for murder if they commit a murder while abroad if and when they return to the UK (they usually only do this if the nation where it happens is unable or unwilling to prosecute for the murder(s)). Sometimes countries will pass laws and take actions in other countries even if the other nation is opposed and unhelpful. For example, the US will prosecute US citizens who spend any money in Cuba in an unauthorised trip there given its embargo if and when they return to the US.

The case of this terrorist is even easier from a jurisdictional standpoint. He's a US citizen who decided to instigate hostilities against the US and that's treason and a series of other criminal acts (which also IMO resulted in his loss of citizenship as a collateral civil consequence of his criminal acts) that directly involves the US. It doesn't matter where a person like that is located, or even if they are a US citizen. If, hypothetically, you and I stand on the US-Canada border and start shooting people on the Canadian side from the US side, we are intentionally seeking to injure and kill Canadian citizens and residents in Canada. If we mailed a bomb there, it's the same thing. If we conspired with another person to have them commit atrocities in Canada, it's the same thing. We have chosen to take actions that directly invade, interfere and affect Canada and its territorial sovereignty and its people. Canada is therefore easily within its right to criminalise that behaviour and seek to hold us accountable there for such actions. That's why a guy like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can be tried in a federal US District Court for loads of crimes relating to him being a mastermind plotter and conspirator in the 9.11 attacks (including but not limited to murder-related counts for each dead victim via co-conspirator and 'felony murder' vicarious liability, etc). That's why Anwar al-Awlaki is likewise liable in US courts for conspiring with the Nigerian attempted bomber regarding the Xmas plane plot.

As for Robert Emmet who I cited and you referred above, he would indeed IMO fall under the concept of a bona fide rebel and he's viewed as such today. Ireland was a conquered country, and he was leading an announced rebellion against the country that conquered it. Irish rebels like him followed protocols, rules and patterns of bona fide rebels. As you can see in his trial speech I linked, the British tried to slander him, but he was a bona fide rebel. His brother and Irish rebel, Thomas Addis Emmet, even became a central figure in American Constitutional development after he fled to America, even arguing the landmark Constitutional case of Gibbons v. Ogden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Addis_Emmet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

False claims were commonplace in being thrown at many Irish rebels. Take this other example from the trial of rebel John Sheares at his trial for the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion, which was properly announced, uniforms worn, rules of war desired to be followed, etc:

"The accusation of which I speak, while I linger here yet a minute, is that of holding out to the people of Ireland a direction to give no quarter to the troops fighting for its defence. My lords, let me say thus, that if there be any acquaintances in this crowded court--I do not say my intimate friends, but acquaintances--who do not know what I say is truth, I shall be reputed the wretch which I am not; I say, if any acquaintance of mine can believe that I could utter a recommendation of giving no quarter to a yielding and unoffending foe, it is not the death which I am about to suffer that I deserve--no punishment could be adequate to such a crime. My lords, I can not only acquit my soul of such an intention, but I declare, in the presence of that God before whom I must shortly appear, that the favorite doctrine of my heart was that no human being should suffer death, but when absolute necessity required it." The Sheares Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But AQ? They follow the same pattern as the Manson 'family,' Tim McVeigh, the drug and sex trafficker gangs, etc. Their kind of actions are exactly what legitimate rebels like the Emmets and Sheareses themselves would find to be utterly criminal in nature.

[Zwnkkvle]

Actually it's commonplace in national laws rather than absurd.

Each nation has a right to set its own laws within its borders. For example, the US could make a law prohibiting US citizens and lawful residents from smoking pot when in the Netherlands even though it's legal there. If those people return to the US after smoking pot there, then they can be prosecuted for violating that law. The hard part, obviously, would be establishing the violation given the evidence is in the Netherlands. But if the Dutch wished to cooperate with the US on that, they could.

Most countries don't pass or enforce laws like that, thankfully, because it's bad international relations, tough to enforce, tough or unable to get cooperation, etc, unless the subject is of the most serious and universally agreed nature. But if you're a US citizen flying to Thailand or some other place to have sex with children in the shady sex industry, that kind of thing does get prosecuted in the US with or without the help of such countries. Some countries, like the UK, allow its laws to prosecute their own citizens for murder if they commit a murder while abroad if and when they return to the UK (they usually only do this if the nation where it happens is unable or unwilling to prosecute for the murder(s)). Sometimes countries will pass laws and take actions in other countries even if the other nation is opposed and unhelpful. For example, the US will prosecute US citizens who spend any money in Cuba in an unauthorised trip there given its embargo if and when they return to the US.

The case of this terrorist is even easier from a jurisdictional standpoint. He's a US citizen who decided to instigate hostilities against the US and that's treason and a series of other criminal acts (which also IMO resulted in his loss of citizenship as a collateral civil consequence of his criminal acts) that directly involves the US. It doesn't matter where a person like that is located, or even if they are a US citizen. If, hypothetically, you and I stand on the US-Canada border and start shooting people on the Canadian side from the US side, we are intentionally seeking to injure and kill Canadian citizens and residents in Canada. If we mailed a bomb there, it's the same thing. If we conspired with another person to have them commit atrocities in Canada, it's the same thing. We have chosen to take actions that directly invade, interfere and affect Canada and its territorial sovereignty and its people. Canada is therefore easily within its right to criminalise that behaviour and seek to hold us accountable there for such actions. That's why a guy like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can be tried in a federal US District Court for loads of crimes relating to him being a mastermind plotter and conspirator in the 9.11 attacks (including but not limited to murder-related counts for each dead victim via co-conspirator and 'felony murder' vicarious liability, etc). That's why Anwar al-Awlaki is likewise liable in US courts for conspiring with the Nigerian attempted bomber regarding the Xmas plane plot.

As for Robert Emmet who I cited and you referred above, he would indeed IMO fall under the concept of a bona fide rebel and he's viewed as such today. Ireland was a conquered country, and he was leading an announced rebellion against the country that conquered it. Irish rebels like him followed protocols, rules and patterns of bona fide rebels. As you can see in his trial speech I linked, the British tried to slander him, but he was a bona fide rebel. His brother and Irish rebel, Thomas Addis Emmet, even became a central figure in American Constitutional development after he fled to America, even arguing the landmark Constitutional case of Gibbons v. Ogden.

Thomas Addis Emmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gibbons v. Ogden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False claims were commonplace in being thrown at many Irish rebels. Take this other example from the trial of rebel John Sheares at his trial for the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion, which was properly announced, uniforms worn, rules of war desired to be followed, etc:



The Sheares Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But AQ? They follow the same pattern as the Manson 'family,' Tim McVeigh, the drug and sex trafficker gangs, etc. Their kind of actions are exactly what legitimate rebels like the Emmets and Sheareses themselves would find to be utterly criminal in nature.

I certainly agree with the accepted historical picture you have painted.
Where we differ is the linking of the actions of AQ and Manson. McVeigh.
however may come closer to AQ in respect to motivation.

We (the U.S.A.) while at WAR "carpet bombed" in both theaters and ultimately used the "A" bomb on Japan to overcome all resistance.

In past history Great Britain, Spain, France and the Dutch expanded their Empires through brute force for the purpose of exploitation. Would the native peoples of these areas 'tho small in numbers be considered insurrectionists?
If because of being a tiny group without the ability to have access to more modern weapons would their means of making war be demonized ?

I don't know if AQ or the Taliban is criminal in purpose. To whom does one go to get a legitimate answer ?

I want us Militarily Supperior and our government to conduct business (Peace or War) under our Constitution. Had the Korean,Vietnam and Gulf Wars been debated in Congress after all thigs considered with due consideration some may not have taken place. Now we run War that's not called war by "Kelly Girls" directing "pilotless drones" into "other peoples territories" And Assassination squads who may with and without military direction operate surrepstitiously globally knocking off suspected characters.

Many of our relationships especially in espect to mid east affairs appear nefarious at best.