Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[Undertoad]

He was not a US citizen.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

He was not a US citizen.

Plowed ground...

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, mildly tilled ground, you left out a couple of things.

1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, mildly tilled ground, you left out a couple of things.
<snip>

Despite all the Dwellars conjectures about renouncing citizenship in this thread,
in this particular case, the Defendants DO consider all three decedents as US citizens.
If they did not, they would have certainly called them something else...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NASSER AL-AULAQI, as personal
representative of the estate of ANWAR
AL-AULAQI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LEON E. PANETTA, et al., in their
individual capacities, Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-01192 (RMC) Case 1:12-cv-01192-RMC Document 18
Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 58
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

On Page 31 of this Motion: the Defendants state:

A. Plaintiffs fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right.
The three decedents in this case are U.S. citizens allegedly killed abroad during armed conflict.
Given the unique and extraordinary context of these allegations, the extent to which particular
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights apply to decedents simply is not clearly established.
<snip>

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, no snipping.

Context is “a potentially recurring scenario that has similar legal and factual components.” Arar, 585 F.3d at 572. See also Mirmehdi, 689 F.3d at 981. The context here is unique for a number of reasons: it is an alleged (1) military and intelligence action; (2) abroad; (3) during the course of ongoing armed conflict; (4) targeting a U.S. citizen declared a leader of an armed terrorist group (and Al-Banna, a non-citizen enemy).

Thus, an analysis of the extraterritorial question presented requires this Court to determine whether, and to what extent, to judicially enforce the particular Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections that may apply to a U.S. citizen allegedly targeted and killed—or inadvertently killed—by a purported missile strike abroad on members of an organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force.

There are no cases holding such conduct illegal, let alone illegal “beyond debate.” Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083. To the extent the Supreme Court has discussed the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens abroad, it has generally done so in the context of custody, detention, or trials—not in the active battlefield. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (plurality) (detention); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (plurality) (trials).

They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31, and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.

It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, no snipping.

They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense
of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31,
and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.

It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.

Sorry xoB, I did not mean to snip out anything significant.

Some Dwellar arguments in this thread have proposed that citizenship was given up by the time they were killed.

My point, even reiterated within your quote above,
is that for this case against four Federal employees being defended
by the US government establishes that the three Decedents are/were US citizens..
.. for whatever technical discussions, it doesn't matter.

The US government is saying their US citizenship still exists, even today.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's strategy, legal maneuvering bullshit. If they only say things that are true, what the fuck are they doing in court?
I don't care what position they're taking, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, clearly lost his citizenship on a couple of counts.