3 ms·

Read the paper. The issue is not "potential terrorist" but rather swearing allegiance to Al Qaida, between whom and the United States there exists a present sta

by jowiar 14y ago

Read the paper. The issue is not "potential terrorist" but rather swearing allegiance to Al Qaida, between whom and the United States there exists a present state of armed conflict. The US is not in a state of armed conflict with OWS. Also note that the application here is with regard to US citizens outside the US - picture someone training terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan, not someone camping on the streets of New York.

obstacle1 14y ago
The paper starts off dealing specifically with high-level Al-Qa'ida operatives. However around page 4 or 5 the language changes to "and associated forces". That definition is too broad to be meaningful, which is a bit creepy.
- jowiar 14y ago
  Reading the original 2001 AUMF explains where this language comes from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...
  - obstacle1 14y ago
    It doesn't explain anything. In fact it is even broader than this whitepaper: >the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons Hamlily v. Obama (2009) crystallizes the legal interpretation of the phrase a bit. Some key points: >The key inquiry, then, is not necessarily whether one self-identifies as a member of the organization (although this could be relevant in some cases), but whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization >The Court also concludes that the authority claimed by the government to detain those who were "part of ... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent with the law of war >the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war But note that Hamlily applies to detention and not execution. And in this execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated forces "includes a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws of war". The phrase includes leaves a lot of room for the term "associated forces" to apply to other things. But anyway, IANAL. Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF): http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760... Link to AUMF (PDF): http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Author...

by jowiar 14y ago

obstacle1 14y ago

The paper starts off dealing specifically with high-level Al-Qa'ida operatives. However around page 4 or 5 the language changes to "and associated forces". That definition is too broad to be meaningful, which is a bit creepy.

jowiar 14y ago
Reading the original 2001 AUMF explains where this language comes from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...
- obstacle1 14y ago
  It doesn't explain anything. In fact it is even broader than this whitepaper: >the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons Hamlily v. Obama (2009) crystallizes the legal interpretation of the phrase a bit. Some key points: >The key inquiry, then, is not necessarily whether one self-identifies as a member of the organization (although this could be relevant in some cases), but whether the individual functions or participates within or under the command structure of the organization >The Court also concludes that the authority claimed by the government to detain those who were "part of ... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent with the law of war >the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war But note that Hamlily applies to detention and not execution. And in this execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated forces "includes a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws of war". The phrase includes leaves a lot of room for the term "associated forces" to apply to other things. But anyway, IANAL. Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF): http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760... Link to AUMF (PDF): http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Author...