POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

Yes they did. And how does that change what I posted?

 

Prisoners of war are protected by the Geneva convention and the protection does not include lawyers. We are at war and anyone who fights with or supports the enemy are the enemy and should be treated as such.

 

When you insinuate that Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was targeted with a drone by the USA, you're pushing a falsehood. You might as well add Pat Tillman to the American deaths caused by the United States.

 

Yes, too bad Youtube deleted the thousands of terrorist propaganda videos, many featuring your buddy, al-Awlaki, the anti-American American Jihadist terrorist.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...aki-videos-removed-google-extremism-clampdown
YouTube has removed thousands of videos of the radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a significant step up for the site’s anti-extremism campaign.

It is the first time Google’s video site has taken such concerted action against a particular individual.

The preacher was killed in 2011 by a US drone strike in Yemen, leaving behind a substantial library of sermons, lectures and essays. Awlaki recorded his most radical sermons that explicitly call for violence against the US later in his life, but many, such as a lengthy series on the life of the prophet Muhammad recorded while he was still an imam in the US, are fairly mainstream.

That breadth of material has left Awlaki’s work in a grey area for YouTube. The site’s anti-extremism policy explicitly prohibits videos that incite terrorism or violence, and it also bans individuals named on terror lists from having their own accounts on the site. But the policy doesn’t cover what to do in the event that a person’s work runs the gamut from clearly infringing to apparently innocent, and is uploaded by others.

Now, Google has decided that Awlaki’s entire body of work represents an exception to the rule. According to the New York Times, a search for Awlaki last autumn returned around 70,000 videos. The same search today returns less than 20,000, the vast majority of which are videos about Awlaki, rather than authored by him.

Adam Hadley, the project director of Tech Against Terrorism, welcomed the removal of the videos, but noted that Awlaki’s status as a terrorist on the UN sanctions list should be the key motivator.

“What we’re trying to do is promote greater coherence about how to deal with individuals. Awlaki is a sanctioned individual, and that makes all the difference,” Hadley said. “We can’t have ad-hoc pressure. There needs to be a balanced response on all types of terrorism – we need to remember far-right extremism too – and this is why we need more international co-ordination on defining terror groups.”


FacebookTwitterPinterest
Google’s decision was guided by calls from anti-terror experts to be more proactive about preventing radicalisation, both on- and offline. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images
Google’s decision was guided by calls from anti-terror experts to be more proactive about preventing radicalisation, both on- and offline. The issue is that clerics such as Awlaki have large bodies of material that doesn’t cross the line into inciting violence, but hints at the concept. People who watch those videos and agree with their message may then be motivated to seek out the more explicitly hateful videos which have been banned on YouTube for years, but which remain easy to find elsewhere on the internet.

Hadley said: “It’s easy to scapegoat particular videos and shy away from more fundamental questions about how radicalisation works. We’re talking about individuals who are highly vulnerable. This content enables radicalisation, but it’s not the sole problem.”

Born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, Awlaki was known as the “YouTube Islamist” by 2010, when his militant sermons had been cited by self-radicalised extremists such as Faisal Shahzad, who tried to bomb Times Square in New York, and Roshonara Choudhry, who stabbed Stephen Timms MP because he voted for the war in Iraq.

YouTube has long faced calls to clamp down on Awlaki’s preaching as a result. By 2011, it had implemented its policy of removing hate speech and incitement to commit violent acts, removing a few hundred Awlaki videos in the process. But it allowed the bulk of his output to remain available, arguing at the time it would “continue to remove all content that incites violence according to our policies. Material of a purely religious nature will remain on the site.”

Awlaki’s killing in 2011 was controversial: he was the first US citizen to be a legal target for assassination in the post-9/11 years. He and another US citizen, Samir Khan, the editor of Al Qaeda’s online magazine, were attacked with a US drone. The US later justified the killing as “self defence”.

YouTube declined to comment for this story.

 

So was Pat Tillman. What about his rights? He was killed by American weapons too. In fact, unlike Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, whose death was colllateral damage, those shooting Tillman were aiming at him.

 

None of that changes the Constitution or anything I posted..

 

He's not my buddy nor does anything you posted change the Constitution or what I posted. What's too bad is that most Americans are just like you, they don't agree with the due process provisions that protect everyone within the US government's jurisdiction and they believe that defending the Constitution is a defense of criminals and/or terrorists. They want exceptions, except when it comes to their own hides. This is NOT about terrorists or Al-Awlaki or even the detainee in question, it's strictly about DUE PROCESS, (i.e. the rule of law). And in this case, the judge agrees with me and I agree with the judge. That's generally quite rare.

 

Our constitution does not apply to prisoners of war.

 

Nonetheless, he was a terrorist actively warring against the United States and seeking to kill Americans. It'd be nice to have captured him and brought him to justice, but he was deep in hostile country. How many American lives do you think should be risked and spent on capturing an enemy combatant who happens to also have been an American citizen?

 

Please quote the provision in the Constitution that makes exceptions for "prisoners of war". I read the Constitution in its entirety many times and never read any such exception, but maybe I missed it.

 

None of the above is proof of anything and/or conviction of anyone for any crime. Nor does it change the Constitution or anything I posted. The best way to stop risking and saving American lives is to immediately end the fake, illegal and endless "war on terror" designed for the benefit of the military industrial complex.

 

Ahh, that's right. I forgot about your "theories". Have a nice day, sir.

 

My theory? No sir, there were at least 2 former Presidents who explained the FACTS to us. You apparently don't know or aren't paying attention.




You're welcome.

You too sir.

 

So you and everyone who liked this post, do you think those American boys slaughtered by Nazis were a just and right loss of human life?

Sickening.

 

Our constitution is ours and does not apply to anyone else, prisoners of war are not usually Americans so the constitution does not apply to them.

 

You haven't quoted anything in the Constitution that supports your claim. Your personal opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

For a terrorist on foreign soil? You only see possible positions?

i) Habeas corpus for Terrorists on foreign soil
or
ii) No regard for US Constitution

 

It is "we the people of the United States" not them the people of the rest of the world.

 

Due process has nothing to do with a "terrorist on foreign soil", it is a legal doctrine.

The Preamble (if that's what you're quoting) is not law and has nothing to do with your claim.

 

a foreigner on foreign soil doesn't have constitutional rights a foreigner on American soil has limited constitutional rights a American citizen on foreign soil has constitutional rights

 

That's correct. However, a foreigner on foreign soil in the custody and jurisdiction of American government servants is protected by the Oath taken by those American government servants. Which of course includes their mandate and duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Yes, limited to all the individual rights protected by the Constitution, which is ALL OF THEM. In practice however, foreigners are rarely treated in accordance with the Constitution.

An American on foreign soil in the custody of a foreign entity is at the mercy of the foreign entity and their laws. Foreign entities are not bound by the US Constitution and have not taken any Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

 

wrong foreigners held a Gitmo doesn't have constitutional rights because it isn't considered sovereign American soil but military why then they fall under UCMJ and the Geneva convention and why they wasn't ever brought to American soil then we would have to a lot them due process

wrong again they don't have the right to vote and they don't have second amendment rights

the US government has to give its citizens their allotted constitutional rights no matter where they are just because you leave and are on foreign soil you don't relinquish your rights when it pertains to the US government
if I commit a mass murder as a American citizen and then leave the country before the police can arrest me they cant then send over a drone and take me out for the crime I'm still allotted due process they would have to arrest me bring me back and hold a trial
now if a foreigner does the same commits a mass murder then leaves the country he can be hunted down and killed without due process

 

Just because there are American government servants who fail to abide by their constitutional mandate doesn't change anything. They also renditioned, tortured and murdered at Gitmo. The Constitution makes no exceptions for anyone under the jurisdiction of American government servants. However, please feel free to quote anything in the Constitution that you believe makes the exception you believe you discovered.

American women weren't allowed to vote either until the 20th century and children can't vote. Voting isn't an unalienable right. Those who are incarcerated are not permitted to have weapons either.

The US government is mandated by the Constitution to PROTECT the rights of everyone within its jurisdiction. No piece of paper grants anyone any rights. When a person is under the jurisdiction of a foreign entity, the US government cannot protect that person's rights.

The US government in practice can and does whatever it likes, constitutional or not, legal or not. That doesn't change anything in the Constitution, it is still the Supreme Law of the Land by its own mandate.

So is everyone. The Nazis at Nuremburg were granted due process protection as mandated by the Constitution.

See prior response "The US government in practice can and does whatever it likes, constitutional or not, legal or not".

 

And this is were the debate ends because you have made it clear your arguing on behalf of your own personal amateur interpretation of the constitution not backed up by any court rulings or precedent

 

So you are saying terrorists fighting us on foreign soil have due process rights?