The point remains. Any judgement by a US court against them would be largely pointless, except to keep their executives from visiting here on vacation.
Focusing on the word "war" is just semantics. Congress has authorized military force against (for the sake of keeping this brief) Al-Qaeda and its supporters - like the AQAP. Action against these forces need only comply with the rules of international conflict. You can shout "but it's not war!" all you want, but it's moot.
Congress mostly gives the minutiae to regulatory agencies.
The EPA (in the famous Chevron case) and in this one just does what it needs to do, and unless you can prove they were out of their minds when they wrote their policy to clarify law in front of an ALJ, you're screwed.
The lack of a formal declaration of war is one problem.
Congress has specifically authorized military force against Al-Qaeda and its conspirators and collaborators (of which the AQAP was, and is, and of which al-Aulaqi was a leader of).
Hardly. Did you read the PDF? You might not agree with the assessment, but it's a LOT, LOT more than 'case we said so. It's a fairly clear step-by-step discussion of every point along the decision tree. Fascinating, actually.
...although I suppose you get a majority (or super-majority) of congress to agree on anything, and it's "because we said so."
al-Aulaqi declared himself an enemy combatant and a member of a group which we are at war with, which Congress has authorized "necessary and appropriate" force against.
So, now that we have AUMF, we make sure that the DOD played by the rules of war -- check.
And finally, since it's illegal (generally speaking) to kill people, we make one last check to see if it's "murder" to kill a US citizen when they switch sides in a war....turns out it's not.
If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.
A lot of legislation (at all levels) is simple wording, with an understanding that an agency more equipped to work out the minutiae will do so.
Those administrative agencies (like, say, the EPA) figure out that minutiae, and those details (functionally speaking) become law. Chevron v EPA is a cornerstone of administrative law. [Congress made broad stroke laws, EPA enforced it as they interpreted it, Chevron sued, and SCOTUS made clear that regulatory agency administration is - pretty much - law.]
Like IQ tests - logically half the world has IQs less then 100. Oddly, I've never met any of them.
Every time I see this, I think it's important to remind everyone that because of the way IQ scores work, you can raise your own IQ simply by killing people smarter than you.
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation?
Mostly because they are.
You can be an electrician, and you can work for any number of companies or corporations, but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep saying these things, but the USDOJ and Congress disagree with you.
The point remains. Any judgement by a US court against them would be largely pointless, except to keep their executives from visiting here on vacation.
Congress didn't declare war, though.
Which has nothing to do with this.
Focusing on the word "war" is just semantics. Congress has authorized military force against (for the sake of keeping this brief) Al-Qaeda and its supporters - like the AQAP. Action against these forces need only comply with the rules of international conflict. You can shout "but it's not war!" all you want, but it's moot.
Your opinion is only interesting.
Congress, and as such, the law of our country, disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Can you explain it to me like I'm five?
"Oh my God, where are your parents!"
Plenty of standing to sue them, and win a default judgement since nobody will show up.
Not so likely to collect on that judgement, however.
Why would anyone sell shovels? If it was profitable, they'd dig everything themselves.
Actually, the real profit is in licensing the shovels with a per-scoop fee.
It's about balancing risk. Some people prefer taking a shot at mining. Some people prefer selling shovels. Some people probably do both.
Congress mostly gives the minutiae to regulatory agencies .
The EPA (in the famous Chevron case) and in this one just does what it needs to do, and unless you can prove they were out of their minds when they wrote their policy to clarify law in front of an ALJ, you're screwed.
The lack of a formal declaration of war is one problem.
Congress has specifically authorized military force against Al-Qaeda and its conspirators and collaborators (of which the AQAP was, and is, and of which al-Aulaqi was a leader of).
But all of this information comes from the same government that executed him.
Yemen?
the "Because we say so." part.
Hardly. Did you read the PDF? You might not agree with the assessment, but it's a LOT, LOT more than 'case we said so. It's a fairly clear step-by-step discussion of every point along the decision tree. Fascinating, actually.
How do you know?
Maybe the whole going to Yemen, hanging out with Fahd al-Quso and taking up a leadership role in the AQAP thing?
"Oops"
-New York
al-Aulaqi declared himself an enemy combatant and a member of a group which we are at war with, which Congress has authorized "necessary and appropriate" force against.
So, now that we have AUMF, we make sure that the DOD played by the rules of war -- check.
And finally, since it's illegal (generally speaking) to kill people, we make one last check to see if it's "murder" to kill a US citizen when they switch sides in a war. ...turns out it's not.
Boom.
The PDF is interesting, but essentially boils down to:
Americans killing Americans is sometimes justified.
You lost me where I somehow need an Adobe CC subscription...
Office 2013, non-cloud is $140-220 depending on version, and I'm pretty sure Office doesn't come with a Mac for free either.
Non-Office office suites are available for free.
If you have rules that are too detailed for Congress, then those are rules which should not exist at the federal level.
A lot of legislation (at all levels) is simple wording, with an understanding that an agency more equipped to work out the minutiae will do so.
Those administrative agencies (like, say, the EPA) figure out that minutiae, and those details (functionally speaking) become law. Chevron v EPA is a cornerstone of administrative law. [Congress made broad stroke laws, EPA enforced it as they interpreted it, Chevron sued, and SCOTUS made clear that regulatory agency administration is - pretty much - law.]
Like IQ tests - logically half the world has IQs less then 100. Oddly, I've never met any of them.
Every time I see this, I think it's important to remind everyone that because of the way IQ scores work, you can raise your own IQ simply by killing people smarter than you.
Drunk Canadian has paperwork misplaced nearly a decade ago, and you go to Guantanamo.
How bad could be your user interface to lead to such a thing?
It could be the simplest of changes.
Some booking clerk did everything, and then just didn't hit the submit button, on a batch of 20 intakes.
That's your counter-point? ...that in 2005 a single guy's paperwork slipped through, and a drunk Canadian spent a couple extra days in county?
Why does everybody treat unions different from any other corporation?
Mostly because they are.
You can be an electrician, and you can work for any number of companies or corporations, but in many places you must belong to the IBEW to work at any of them.
Except the resources that China hopes to gain will never equal the cost, in defense spending and lost trade, of alienating her neighbors.
Unless of course they succeed in claiming the land (sea) and in 40-50 years it's just a footnote in a history book.
No more merkin!
Thanks.
Who puts their ILO internet-facing? Yikes.