Judge, jury and executioner.

[copacetic]

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/30/awlaki/index.html

 

[The_Unbeliever]

 

[Ninja'd]

Well if they can kill foreigners then surely they can kill their own citizens.

Better prepare for the new movie coming out in December.

 

[LazyLion]

Sounds like he has pretty much voluntarily given up his US citizenship by his own words....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15124351

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Loss_of_citizenship

As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state or service in foreign armed forces. In addition, before 1967 it was possible to lose the citizenship due to voting in foreign elections. However, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the provisions of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting in a foreign election in the case Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253,[32] . 8 U.S.C. § 1481 specifically outlines how loss of nationality may occur, which predominantly involves willful acts over the age of 18 with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality. U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Afroyim v. Rusk constitutionally limited the government's capacity to terminate citizenship to those cases in which an individual engaged in conduct with an intention of abandoning their citizenship.

Current U.S. State Department rules automatically assume that an individual does not intend to give up citizenship when performing one of the above potentially expatriating acts. If asked, the individual can always answer that they did not intend to give it up; this is sufficient to retain their citizenship.[33] Hence, the U.S. effectively allows citizens to acquire new citizenships while remaining a U.S. citizen, becoming a dual citizen.

There are also special provisions for persons who are deemed to have renounced citizenship for purposes of avoiding U.S. taxation (which is, in some cases, applicable on certain income for up to ten years after the official loss of citizenship, Internal Revenue Code, section 877), which in theory can result in loss of right to entry into the United States. However, the loss of right of entry (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)[34]) has never been enforced by the Attorney General since its enactment in 1996. Further, since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, the Attorney General (Department of Justice) would no longer be empowered to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States.

No new legislation has modified 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) to enable the DHS Secretary to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States. Lastly, IRC section 877 and Revenue Rulings was modified in 2004 to discontinue the practice of the Internal Revenue Service issuing rulings to determine if a former U.S. citizen had a tax-related motive in renouncing U.S. citizenship. Instead, IRC section 877 establishes an objective test to determine if the section 877 regime will apply.

If the former U.S. citizen fails one of these objective tests, for ten years after the individual's expatriation they are subject to the 877 regime. In practice, given the various modifications since the enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E), that the U.S. government has never enforced 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) since its inception in 1996, a former U.S. citizen may freely travel to the U.S. subject to normal visa restrictions.

After a U.S. citizen satisfies the Department of State procedures, the Department of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) signifying that the Department of State has accepted the U.S. Embassy/Consulate's recommendation to allow the renunciation.[35] Renunciation of citizenship includes renunciation of all rights and privileges of citizenship. A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances.[36]

It is also possible to forfeit U.S. citizenship upon conviction for an act of treason against the United States.[33] Prominent former Nazi officers who acquired American citizenship have also had it revoked if the Office of Special Investigations has been able to prove that the citizenship was obtained by concealing their involvement in war crimes committed by the Nazis in World War II.[37][38]

 

[Palimino]

I think this is something to be emulated in SA. No more ‘lost’ dossiers, justice badly served, struggle comrades favoured, etc. The rhetoric of that black hit-man dude (Jules) in the Tarentino movie ‘Pulp Fiction’ from Ezekiel before he starts blasting, can be used before justice is extracted.

Jules

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

The porcine, sweating filth will be scrabbling to hide his ill-gotten gains. No judges to bribe, no dossiers to be ‘lost’ and no struggle comrades to help him. Then play judge, jury and executioner. Then get the hell out.

 

[Ninja'd]

I think this is something to be emulated in SA. No more ‘lost’ dossiers, justice badly served, struggle comrades favoured, etc. The rhetoric of that black hit-man dude (Jules) in the Tarentino movie ‘Pulp Fiction’ from Ezekiel before he starts blasting, can be used before justice is extracted.

Jules

Yeah but he never gave much thought to what it meant. He just thought it was something cool to say before killing someone.

 

[Alan]

Hey at least Obama's heart is in the right place as Michael Moore would say :erm:

 

[Palimino]

Yeah but he never gave much thought to what it meant. He just thought it was something cool to say before killing someone.

I’m sure you are right. This is the stuff of Hollywood movies anyway. No-one in their right mind would indulge in emotive declarations anyway (to who? The victim?). They might have a few seconds to appreciate it but I am pretty sure their mind is on other things (like how to continue living). You get-in, do the deed and get-out as fast as possible.