Does the US have the right to apprehend Terrorists in another country? Using the Liby


View Poll Results: Does the US have the right to apprehend Terrorists in another country?
Yes 3 50.00%
No 2 33.33%
Should these persons be on a UN List allowing apprehending in another country 1 16.67%
Yes 1 16.67%
No 1 16.67%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Goober
#1
Does the US have the right to apprehend Terrorists in another country?
Using the Libya case as a reference point.

http://theconversation.com/libyan-terror-suspect-faces-us-court-but-was-his-arrest-legal-19122

Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, or Abu Anas al-Liby, as he is more commonly known, has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to kill and maim Americans abroad and to attack US national defence facilities in connection with al-Qaeda’s bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

After being on the US most wanted list for 13 years, al-Liby was seized 11 days ago by members of the US army’s Delta force from the streets of Tripoli in a daylight operation that has stirred international controversy.

The Libyan government immediately demanded an explanation of the seizure, stressing that they were “keen on prosecuting any Libyan citizen inside Libya”.

US secretary of state, John Kerry, responded that al-Liby was “a legal target” and that he would face justice in the US. US president Barack Obama carefully avoided answering directly a question about whether the seizure had been lawful, only saying that al-Liby “helped plan and execute plots that killed hundreds of people, a whole lot of Americans. We have strong evidence of that. And he will be brought to justice”.

Below is from Foreign Policy Mag and I copied as I subscribe.

Barack Obama's administration has mounted a strenuous defense at the United Nations of its decision to capture Ahmed Abu Khattala, the chief suspect in the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. It notified the U.N. Security Council that America acted in self-defense to prevent similar attacks, according to an unpublished copy of the U.S. letter to the world body.

The appeal to the Security Council came as the Libyan government accused Washington of violating Libyan law by abducting Abu Khattala within its borders and urged the United States to return Abu Khattala to stand trial in Libya.

The Libyan government "considers this as a violation of legal sovereignty and certainly they are asking for some explanation from the U.S. government," Libya's U.N. envoy, Ibrahim Dabbashi, told Foreign Policy. "I think the guy is also wanted for crimes in Libya." The Libyan government, he added, believes that Libya should try him rather than the United States.

Dabbashi said he has "no idea" whether the United States officially sought Libyan approval for the operation. But he has no intention of formally protesting the American action. "There is no reason to raise it," he said. "I think it should be raised in Washington, D.C."

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said that the United States did tell Libyan authorities about the operation to capture Abu Khattala but wouldn't clarify whether it notified the government beforehand or afterward. "On the consultations with Libya, we've long made it clear that we were going to hold accountable the perpetrators of -- of Benghazi," he told reporters Wednesday. "This should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all the Libyan government. And I can tell you that they were -- they were notified about ... this capture operation."

It is unusual for the United States to report its counterterrorism operations to the United Nations.

The United States has long maintained that in self-defense it can legally pursue international terrorists anywhere in the world if it has evidence the terrorists are seeking to strike American targets. The Obama administration believes it requires no international approval to do so.

The United States provided no such explanation to the U.N. Security Council after Delta Force commandos in October captured Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai (also known as Abu Anas al-Libi), a Libyan militant whom U.S. authorities linked to al Qaeda's 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed more than 200 people.

The United States has also never formally notified the 15-nation council of any of its targeted killings of terrorist suspects by drone, and it didn't make formal notification of its raid of Osama bin Laden's compound.

In a letter to Russia's Vitaly Churkin, this month's Security Council president, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said that the United States determined that Abu Khattala was a "key figure" in the September 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost, which resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

"On behalf of my government, I wish to report that the United States of America has taken action in Libya to capture Ahmed Abu Khattala, a senior leader of the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia - Benghazi in Libya," she wrote. "Abu Khattala will be presented to a United States Federal Court for criminal prosecution.

"Following a painstaking investigation, the U.S. government ascertained that Ahmed Abu Khattala was a key figure in those armed attacks," the letter continued. "The investigation also determined that he continued to plan further armed attacks against U.S. persons."

The U.S. rationale echoed the Bush administration's controversial doctrine of "preemptive war," which holds that the United States may act militarily in self-defense to respond to an imminent threat. Power provided no details of Abu Khattala's role in planning future attacks against U.S. citizens, but insisted that they were serious enough to merit American action.

"The measures we have taken to capture Abu Khatallah in Libya were therefore necessary to prevent such armed attacks, and were taken in accordance with the United States' inherent right of self-defense," she wrote. "We are reporting these measures to the Security Council in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations."

Article 51 states that U.N. members possess an "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations."

David Bosco, a scholar at American University and an FP columnist who authored a book on the Security Council, said it is "unusual" for the United States to submit such a letter.

The United States, he said, is likely seeking to "solidify" its legal case. He suggested that the United States may not have had a clear green light from the Libyan government. "If the United States could claim that the Libyan government had endorsed or given its authorization to this operation, they would have been on solid legal ground internationally because of the right of sovereign governments to request assistance, including military assistance, from another government," he said. "This letter makes me think that the Libyan government is not on board with this operation and was certainly not publicly willing to condone it."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that criminal defendants may be prosecuted in U.S. courts regardless of where or how they were captured and brought to the United States. In 1992, the court found that a Mexican doctor accused of assisting in the torture and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent and his pilot in Mexico could stand trial in the United States even though the doctor was kidnapped from his home and flown in a private plane to Texas, where federal authorities arrested him.

"The fact of [the defendant's] forcible abduction does not prohibit his trial in a United States court for violations of this country's criminal laws," the Supreme Court ruled.

Foreign Policy's Senior Writer Shane Harris contributed to this story from Washington.
 
WLDB
#2
Whether they have the right or not doesn't much matter. They have the power to do it and no one realistically is going to stop them. Just like no one really did anything about Israel going into another country and kidnapping Adolf Eichmann. Some countries may shake their finger at the US as they did with Israel in that case but no real action will or can be taken. Rights are artificial constructs. If you don't have the right to take or have something, you invent one.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Rights are artificial constructs.

You mean like everything else?
 
Goober
#4
The US SC has ruled that this is legal. Even when having an extradition treaty with that country.
We are in a new shall we say war, so how else can some of these people be apprehended and brought to trial.
Unless we prefer drones?
 
BaalsTears
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
The USA is an artificial construct that has no rights. Screw Uncle Sam.
 
Angstrom
#6
The USA can do whatever the **** it wants. It's that one advantage of having more military might then the rest of the planet combined.

Who will stop them?
 
Goober
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

The USA can do whatever the **** it wants. It's that one advantage of having more military might then the rest of the planet combined.

Who will stop them?

Aside from that what is the solution?
 
Angstrom
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Aside from that what is the solution?

Aside that the rest is all fluff BS for the bleeding harts at home.
 
Praxius
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Whether they have the right or not doesn't much matter. They have the power to do it and no one realistically is going to stop them. Just like no one really did anything about Israel going into another country and kidnapping Adolf Eichmann. Some countries may shake their finger at the US as they did with Israel in that case but no real action will or can be taken. Rights are artificial constructs. If you don't have the right to take or have something, you invent one.

If that's the case, then any other country should be able to freely sneak into the US and kidnap anybody they want with their special ops guys.

What goes around comes around.

There's a can opener right beside that can of worms, waiting to be opened.
 
Angstrom
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

If that's the case, then any other country should be able to freely sneak into the US and kidnap anybody they want with their special ops guys.

What goes around comes around.

There's a can opener right beside that can of worms, waiting to be opened.

Anyone can do anything they want.
 
Praxius
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

The USA can do whatever the **** it wants. It's that one advantage of having more military might then the rest of the planet combined.

Who will stop them?

More military might doesn't mean much these days.

It didn't help them win Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan..... just saying.

Point being: in the last number of years, we have all seen that there are many other ways to take on a force stronger than you other than hitting them head on the way they want you to for their advantage.

We live in unconventional times.

Yes, the US can send special ops teams into other countries in a secret fashion to kill or nab whoever they wish, so long as they don't get caught in the process and killed.

.... and other countries can do the same.
 
Angstrom
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Aside from that what is the solution?

As long as they know the Muslim will keep trying to avenge themselves the USA can do whatever the **** it wants
 
BaalsTears
#13
Anyone who wants to come into America for any reason can. America has no borders. The place is wide open.
 
Angstrom
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

More military might doesn't mean much these days.

It didn't help them win Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan..... just saying.

Point being: in the last number of years, we have all seen that there are many other ways to take on a force stronger than you other than hitting them head on the way they want you to for their advantage.

We live in unconventional times.

Yes, the US can send special ops teams into other countries in a secret fashion to kill or nab whoever they wish, so long as they don't get caught in the process and killed.

.... and other countries can do the same.

The USA killed a hole lot of people in all those wars. From a kill per killed ratio they won everyone of those wars
 
darkbeaver
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

The USA can do whatever the **** it wants. It's that one advantage of having more military might then the rest of the planet combined.

Who will stop them?

The frequently fleeced American taxpayer and citizen hopefully. One fair election could doit.

Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

The USA killed a hole lot of people in all those wars. From a kill per killed ratio they won everyone of those wars

The American people have on;y won the right to pay for the wars and nothing else while the rich and powerful get to live in opulence and decadence on the taxpayers dime. When things get tough the rich get absent.
 
taxslave
#16
The US has the right to invade a sovereign nation to impose it's laws for the same reason Russia can invade Ukraine and steal land. No one has the wherewithall to oppose them.
 
Praxius
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

The USA killed a hole lot of people in all those wars. From a kill per killed ratio they won everyone of those wars

Whole?

If the victory in wars was determined by how many one side killed of the other, than Nazi Germany beat the Soviet Union.

Pick and choose what you will, the mission the US set out for both Iraq and Afghanistan failed. The Taliban are still there, they're still just as determined, their morale hasn't been hit nearly as hard as the West's, and soon Afghanistan will revert back to what it was before the invasion.... just as Iraq is doing.

Yes, Osama was eventually killed, but he was in Pakistan and when the invasion started in Afghanistan, he was already in Pakistan.

Saddam was captured and killed over charges that didn't relate to the original invasion of Iraq, which was that he has WMD hiding somewhere, which were never found and apparently never existed.

The bottom line of both wars was to "Liberate" the people in both countries and give them the wonderful gift of Democracy..... how's that working out?

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The US has the right to invade a sovereign nation to impose it's laws for the same reason Russia can invade Ukraine and steal land. No one has the wherewithall to oppose them.

The difference there is that Russia had/has assets of their own within the area they "invaded" and then there's the fact that the people in those areas requested their help..... not to mention the President of Ukraine who was illegally & violently forced out of office requested their help.

There's a bit of a difference.
 
Colpy
#18
OF COURSE there is no "right" for the USA to apprehend foreigners in another country. It is also a tactical mistake to bring them to territory under US control, as you wind up with them in the public eye, and there is simply no way to legitimately dispose of them.

Witness Gitmo, and old Obama releasing some of the worst of them.

Witness unconstitutional military trials.

The solution?? Shoot them where they stand. Don't arrest, kill.
 
JLM
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Does the US have the right to apprehend Terrorists in another country?
Using the Libya case as a reference point.

Libyan terror suspect faces US court – but was his arrest legal? (external - login to view)

Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, or Abu Anas al-Liby, as he is more commonly known, has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to kill and maim Americans abroad and to attack US national defence facilities in connection with al-Qaeda’s bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

After being on the US most wanted list for 13 years, al-Liby was seized 11 days ago by members of the US army’s Delta force from the streets of Tripoli in a daylight operation that has stirred international controversy.


I can think of situations where it would be totally justified! -
 
petros
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

OF COURSE there is no "right" for the USA to apprehend foreigners in another country. It is also a tactical mistake to bring them to territory under US control, as you wind up with them in the public eye, and there is simply no way to legitimately dispose of them.

Witness Gitmo, and old Obama releasing some of the worst of them.

Witness unconstitutional military trials.

The solution?? Shoot them where they stand. Don't arrest, kill.

Get them jobs.
 
gopher
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Whether they have the right or not doesn't much matter. They have the power to do it and no one realistically is going to stop them. Just like no one really did anything about Israel going into another country and kidnapping Adolf Eichmann. Some countries may shake their finger at the US as they did with Israel in that case but no real action will or can be taken. Rights are artificial constructs. If you don't have the right to take or have something, you invent one.





That's exactly what I was going to write. Therefore, kidnapping a terror suspect has legal precedent.
 
WLDB
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You mean like everything else?

Fair point.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


Witness Gitmo, and old Obama releasing some of the worst of them.

Witness unconstitutional military trials.

The solution?? Shoot them where they stand. Don't arrest, kill.

Could be problematic when they are unarmed and trying to surrender. Yes people have been killed in every war in that situation but it is generally frowned upon. Particularly now when even in the middle of nowhere you have no idea what may be filmed and may surface months or years later.

Long term they are in a mess when it comes to what to do with those in Gitmo, but they had to have known that going in. Politicians think too much about short term solutions or political gain rather than the long run. To be fair the same could be said for the electorate.
 
taxslave
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

OF COURSE there is no "right" for the USA to apprehend foreigners in another country. It is also a tactical mistake to bring them to territory under US control, as you wind up with them in the public eye, and there is simply no way to legitimately dispose of them.

Witness Gitmo, and old Obama releasing some of the worst of them.

Witness unconstitutional military trials.

The solution?? Shoot them where they stand. Don't arrest, kill.

The proper thing to do is load them all on a plane locked on an east heading with 1000 miles of fuel.
 
petros
#24
If they have jobs, shopping OCDs and over extended credit they don't have time to plot evil things
 

Similar Threads

66
Terrorists don't like Christmas.....
by DaSleeper | Dec 3rd, 2010
17
Did The Terrorists Win On 9/11?
by JBeee | Sep 12th, 2010
1
Another Profile of Terrorists
by jimmoyer | Aug 21st, 2005
no new posts