Anwar al-Awlaki killed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

The fact that before I posted this thread read Anwar al-Awlaki killed by drone was kinda fitting.

---

~D

Wired has some nice analysis on the paper, and how the administration had broadened the "imminence" term to mean "whenever we want".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wired

The undated Justice Department white paper, a summary of a number of still-classified legal analyses, redefines imminence once again. al-Qaida leaders are “continually planning attacks,” the undated white paper says, and so a preemptive attack “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests in the immediate future.” Referencing the intelligence failures preceding 9/11, the paper concedes the U.S. “is likely to have only a limited window of opportunity within which to defend Americans.” For an adversary attack to be “imminent,” and a preemptive U.S. response justified, U.S. officials need only “incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks to America.”

There’s a subtlety at work in the Justice Department framework. It takes imminence out of the context of something an enemy does, and places it into the context of a policymaker’s epistemic limitations. “The U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qaida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur,” the white paper warns.

If there is a reasonable debate over what imminence means in an era of terrorism, and what standards ought to be accepted for defining it as an international norm, that framework preempts it. All that matters to justify a drone strike attack is for the U.S. to recognize it can’t be all-knowing. It’s the logical equivalent of the CIA’s signature strike, which target anonymous military-age males in areas where terrorists operate based on a presumption that their pattern of observed behavior is consistent with those of terrorists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Double standards aside, we are talking about the assassination of US citizens by executive order. They have not been declared guilty in a court of law, they are not in a war zone, they are not a direct threat to US military personnel, and they are being targeted by the CIA. This is more than the killing of some terrorists in some made up "war". This is the dismantling of the 5th amendment. Well, continued dismantling, I keep forgetting about Kelo...

---

Thanks Obama!

From my reading of the NBC report, all they need do is say they think you are a terrorist. No proof, no evidence, just the word of someone, anyone they choose to believe. No court hearing before they kill you.

This is clearly beyond the pale. It is unconstitutional and unlawful. The administration needs to be called on this and reigned in by Congress, the Media, the States, and the people.

This is no bull and no small matter.

This goes way beyond party politics. I don’t see how anyone can justify this sort of thing.

What about the legal framework for killing foreigners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

From my reading of the NBC report, all they need do is say they think you are a terrorist. No proof, no evidence, just the word of someone, anyone they choose to believe. No court hearing before they kill you.

This is clearly beyond the pale. It is unconstitutional and unlawful. The administration needs to be called on this and reigned in by Congress, the Media, the States, and the people.

This is no bull and no small matter.

This goes way beyond party politics. I don’t see how anyone can justify this sort of thing.

---

Do I smell impeachment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Do I smell impeachment?

---

Nope, that's your socks.

But extra-judicial killings are definitely worth getting upset about, and have been for years. Also very bad that no prosecutions have been made for the torture of detainees, but you can't have everything.

Glad to see the issue is finally getting some airtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

From my reading of the NBC report, all they need do is say they think you are a terrorist. No proof, no evidence, just the word of someone, anyone they choose to believe. No court hearing before they kill you.

This is clearly beyond the pale. It is unconstitutional and unlawful. The administration needs to be called on this and reigned in by Congress, the Media, the States, and the people.

This is no bull and no small matter.

This goes way beyond party politics. I don’t see how anyone can justify this sort of thing.

---

Except no one will. Throwing terrorism!!! in front of anything is a free pass. And let's face it as long as brown sounding people are getting whacked over seas no stink will be raised.


Besides it's not like the US government just started with extra judicial killings of citizens. It's been happen all through the nations history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Except no one will. Throwing terrorism!!! in front of anything is a free pass. And let's face it as long as brown sounding people are getting whacked over seas no stink will be raised.


Besides it's not like the US government just started with extra judicial killings of citizens. It's been happen all through the nations history.

---

The mainstream media are the ones bring this up not Fox News and the Republicans.

It could get some traction. It is long past time that the Feds were called on the Terrorist bit. The Executive Branch as a whole needs to be put on the spot, alphabet agencies and all.

Obama is not getting impeached unless he kills someone on camera. But all these guys need a harsh reality check.

How about the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen who's 16 years old? That happened over a year ago and I don't remember it making even a blip in the national media....

As others have touched on, I can see justification for the killing of a citizen if they were under arms against us in a battle zone. But assassinating them via drone in a country that we're not at war with seems.... wrong.

What difference does it make, really, that he's a citizen of the USA?

Rights of citizens are generally extended to legal residents and foreigners in general; i.e. they have the right of due process and whatnot. The chief exception is the right to vote as that's generally tied to nationality.

Y'all seem to be arguing that because the person involved was no direct threat and he was an American citizen his assasination was outrageous, and a contrario, it would be perfectly fine to kill foreigners that have no opportunity whatsoever to do actual harm as long as they have malicious intentions, or are suspected of having those. I take issue with that.

Not at all. They have targeted males of military age for no other reason than they were in an area where terrorists were thought to be operating. NOT EXCEPTABLE.

They murdered the 16 year old son of al-Awlaki later after they had killed his father. No particular reason given. NOT EXCEPTABLE.

These are murders, plain and simple. Policy and Executive Orders don’t make it legal or just.

Whether it was a year ago or yesterday at least the media is not taking an interest. Rather like Watergate it happened before an election but got no traction until afterwards.

In this case policy and policy makers have gone mad and they have a technology that allows them to target people anywhere and that is just what they are doing.

Someone needs to be held accountable and this abuse of power stopped, and fast.

I miss Kissinger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I miss Kissinger

---

Whenever he writes an opinion piece for a newspaper, I always read it out loud with his slow, mumbling cadence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Whether it was a year ago or yesterday at least the media is not taking an interest. Rather like Watergate it happened before an election but got no traction until afterwards.

---

There is some speculation that this dropped because Brennan is up for the CIA director spot. Ought to make for an interesting confirmation hearing. :yes:

1) Continual attack planning means that you are a legitimate pre emptive target for elimination. Check
2) Pentagon like all prepared military HQs continually plan attacks even agains their allies. Check
3) Does this document then legitimize the Pentagon attack on 9/11 ,not the civilian towers just the military planning infrastructure?
4) Likewise doesn't this legitimize Beirut, Tehran and Benghazi as they all had military/ CIA components ... CIA is for gathering intelligence which is used in attacks.

So doesn't all this mean the other side gets to do pre-emptive attack these sites using the US executives ROE?

After all most relationships including war stances are reciprocal.

This is bad policy and while they give lip service to the laws of land warfare and so on, they clearly overstep those limits and violate many of their provisions.

Did these people get their law degrees of a cereal box?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

1) Continual attack planning means that you are a legitimate pre emptive target for elimination. Check
2) Pentagon like all prepared military HQs continually plan attacks even agains their allies. Check
3) Does this document then legitimize the Pentagon attack on 9/11 ,not the civilian towers just the military planning infrastructure?
4) Likewise doesn't this legitimize Beirut, Tehran and Benghazi as they all had military/ CIA components ... CIA is for gathering intelligence which is used in attacks.

So doesn't all this mean the other side gets to do pre-emptive attack these sites using the US executives ROE?

After all most relationships including war stances are reciprocal.

---

First of all, the "other side" in this ongoing conflict has its own set of ROE, and their system isn't weighed down by sentimentality or the Western concept of ethics and morality at all.

As to other points

2) Such contingency planning occurs, on an ongoing basis. However, those targeted under the guidelines under discussion are not merely planning but ramping up and allocating resources in an active fashion. This is seldom true of the contingency planning done by the divers general staffs of the various nation states.

3) Of course the Pentagon is a legitimate military target. The use of a civilian airliner with innocents aboard was the terrorist component there, not the choice of target. We yanks were angry to have been attacked, but even at the time there were few if any persons arguing that an avowed enemy of the USA was morally wrong for choosing the Pentagon as a target -- only the means was judged anathema.

4) Beirut and Benghazi certainly. Tehran was out of bounds to the extent that non "players" were also held hostage. The West has adhered to a tradition of "treat the heralds as neutrals" for a long time, thus conferring diplomatic immunity and not harming embassies and their environs. A number of other cultures have never really adhered to that tradition and, as intelligence efforts are often connected to embassies, tend to view them as tools of the enemy and legitimate targets. Even Western culture has acknowledged this, closing the embassies and expelling the personnel of a nation with whom they have a declared conflict.


In the context of a low-intensity conflict with unclear delineation of participant, target, etc. What is the viable choice?

The USA is attempting to set out reasonable standards that prevent punitive action from being used indiscriminately. Such efforts can never meet the highest standards of morality, ethicality, and legality that are idealized and lionized in Western culture. They represent an attempt to adhere to the spirit of such guidelines as fully as possible while still allowing actions that accomplish goals judged as worthy.

Is using drone-launched weaponry to kill US citizens who have not been given a full trial by their peers, but who are actively seeking to harm the USA, yet not engaged in effecting direct harm at the moment of the weapon's usage, a preferred option. Obviously not. Is it a practical accomodation that is reasonable under the circumstances obtaining? I think a fair argument can be made here.

U.S. citizens were killed while fighting for Nazi Germany during WW2. If gunned down during a firefight, nobody would even consider that they had been wronged as citizens by not having been granted a trial etc. Had such an enemy combatant been killed by a sniper while sleeping in a squad tent and unaware that they were threatened, the legal sanction for killing them would have been no different.

Because this war does not involve clear uniforms or theatres of operation, because the "firefight" may be a drone-launched attack that takes out the target before that target is aware of the threat, like a sniper taking down targets near some enemy encampment, is it any less legitimate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

U.S. citizens were killed while fighting for Nazi Germany during WW2. If gunned down during a firefight, nobody would even consider that they had been wronged as citizens by not having been granted a trial etc. Had such an enemy combatant been killed by a sniper while sleeping in a squad tent and unaware that they were threatened, the legal sanction for killing them would have been no different.

Because this war does not involve clear uniforms or theatres of operation, because the "firefight" may be a drone-launched attack that takes out the target before that target is aware of the threat, like a sniper taking down targets near some enemy encampment, is it any less legitimate?

---

al-Awlaki's death was premeditated, he was placed on the target list over a year prior to his death. He may have been killed by military (or pseudo-military, if Christians In Action were driving the drone) action, but the decision was made ahead of time, without regard to the circumstances of his eventual demise, by an unknown administration official. Different circumstances.

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."

This isn't the West or the USA coming up with a solution. It is a subset of the Executive Branch. So depending on how one feels about the POTUS it should temper ones feelings about such an extreme solution. There is three main branches in the US government for a reason. Bypassing two of them had best be done with a very well thought out and solid reason.

As it is this isn't a sniper on the battlefield scenario. This is state sanctioned assassination with some of them using bombs on very civilian areas such as weddings. The targets themselves can be children by the UN definition someone who is under 18. The collateral damage has certainly included many under 18s.

So one has to question, is this in the best long term interests of the US?
Should a single branch of the US government create the terms of the list and have sole oversight of its process?
Should due process with regards to innocent until proven guilty, levels of evidence and other norms of law be bypassed?
Should everywhere now be considered a battlefield?
Are we comfortable that this is a reciprocal arrangement not just for the current enemies but all future ones? Foreign and domestic? ie The next Waco Texas ends with a drone bombing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Because this war does not involve clear uniforms or theatres of operation, because the "firefight" may be a drone-launched attack that takes out the target before that target is aware of the threat, like a sniper taking down targets near some enemy encampment, is it any less legitimate?

---

I think the "warzone" vs "country we are at peace with" difference is pretty significant, don't you?

Another important distinction, as drone mentions, is these are ordered assassinations rather than deaths during the course of combat operations. We've declared "war" with a non-state entity, now we've made the case anyone our executive branch determines is in anyway affiliated with said entity, is subject to death.

That all sounds rather different than the battlefield comparisons you tried to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Fun fact: The US has sent troops into combat situations about 130 times, but only 5 of those were Declared Wars. Cube-Points to whoever can tell me what those wars are without looking it up. Don't look it up! Cheaters.

---

1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII.

Edit->Woohoo, got them right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII.

Edit->Woohoo, got them right!

---

Not to sidetrack, but I think people get too hung up on the verbiage here. Congressional authorization for military attacks against another state is a declaration of war- even if they don't use all the "magic" words.

How many of those 130 times were without Congressional authorization? Alot.... :creep:

X-man:

Good points.

Do you accept that, in this "War on Terror" (A ghastly label, I agree), that virtually anywhere, and certainly any non-domestic US location, can be considered a "Battlefield" providing that certain conditions are present? That is, by the way, a genuine question for which arguments on both sides may be made.

Is this particular assassination a crime like the death of Trotsky or is Operation Anthropoid (whether you subscribe to the botulism theory or not) a better analogy?


Pape:

This kind of assassination targeting accounts for fewer than 3% of the drone strikes conducted by the US military or CIA and their partners. The other 97% of the decisions to attack are made at a much lower level and with far less oversight. I concur with you that many of those targeting choices have been, at best, questionable. In fact, a few of them were, I would venture, negligent (possibly to the point of criminality in some cases) and that the "collateral damage" -- let's be direct and label them bystander homicides -- are the most distressing components of the whole program.

My commentary, so far, has focused only on those 3% "executive decision" strikes. The others are a whole different kettle of fish.

In a world of perfect information and justice and no other sovereign states the Executive strikes would be distasteful yet pragmatic.

However based on the lack of perfect information, the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the very real use of assassinations as revenge not justice IMDHO it is a tool that shouldn't have been used and still should not be used.

Now add into the mix other state actors be they benign allies or neutral parties or the axis of evil(tm) using the same play book I go from a position of moral disgust to realistic fear.

I realize that it's impractical and unfeasible, but I wish we eschewed smart bombs for more personal methods of associations.

Pushing a button seems to easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I realize that it's impractical and unfeasible, but I wish we eschewed smart bombs forum posts for more personal methods of associations.

Pushing a button seems to easy.

---

... ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

... ?

---

OMG knowledge bomb.

The internet has created, and will continue to create generations of shut ins with no social skills.

It really speaks to the larger problem. People don't know how to be people anymore. Our insularity will suffocate us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

OMG knowledge bomb.
The internet has created, and will continue to create generations of shut ins with no social skills.

---

Well, you could argue that they adopt a different set of social skills which is at odds with people who do not live in similar environments. Many people turned to the internet to escape social real-life, where they might be discriminated over things like being on the football team, it was a haven for the geek and intellectual minded, where similar minds banded together to communicate. This started to spread with innovation and widespread social acceptance where people are getting in touch with others on topics that concern and interest them, without the limitations and drawbacks to real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Well, you could argue that they adopt a different set of social skills which is at odds with people who do not live in similar environments. Many people turned to the internet to escape social real-life, where they might be discriminated over things like being on the football team, it was a haven for the geek and intellectual minded, where similar minds banded together to communicate. This started to spread with innovation and widespread social acceptance where people are getting in touch with others on topics that concern and interest them, without the limitations and drawbacks to real life.

---

Eventually you will have to talk to a real live human, possibly look them in the eyes. People tend to massively over inflate themselves and the internet only further serves that vanity. Any criticism is taken as a personal affront and people demand to be coronated over the littlest accomplishments. This is a statistically observable trend, post all the bullshit, vacuum quotes from dead Greeks you would like, doesn't change a thing.

The idea that humanity is progress, is laughable. Hunger is progress. Denial is progress. The internet offers a haven from both of those things.

Limitations and drawbacks to real life? Like getting taken off a pedestal?

It should come as no surprise that there is a glut of "artists" and fight club faux nihilists among the millennials. All little Kings, desperately clamoring for the world to care.

Obviously Greek quotes hit a nerve. :)

Writing letters was once considered a key communication and social skill. You do not always need eye contact to make a statement. Otherwise the only good authors would be ones reading their books out loud to a select few at a time.

Having grown up on a farm and in a small community before moving to a city at 15, I have to say that the internet does allow more like minded people to group up and talk. I can't say that the Backroom as a whole are exactly like minded as we still disagree, have differences of opinion and downright sometimes dislike and niggle each other.

As for progress, well unless you consume yourself to death in all likely hood you will have a better life then your grandparents, travel further and see more of the world, live longer, have access to more options and the ability to be more readily accepted for who you are. What won't be handed to you is a comfortable life on a silver platter. You will have incidents, accidents, unemployment and bad relationships. It is just far more unlikely that any of these will result in sending you to an early death bed or a monastery to repent your sins.

As for real life, I think I've accomplished more there then here. I'm happily married, with 2 kids. Everything else on top of that is gravy. Being married does mean I'm constantly getting knocked off my pedestal and whacked in the back of the head with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Eventually you will have to talk to a real live human, possibly look them in the eyes. People tend to massively over inflate themselves and the internet only further serves that vanity. Any criticism is taken as a personal affront and people demand to be coronated over the littlest accomplishments. This is a statistically observable trend, post all the bullshit, vacuum quotes from dead Greeks you would like, doesn't change a thing.

The idea that humanity is progress, is laughable. Hunger is progress. Denial is progress. The internet offers a haven from both of those things.

Limitations and drawbacks to real life? Like getting taken off a pedestal?

It should come as no surprise that there is a glut of "artists" and fight club faux nihilists among the millennials. All little Kings, desperately clamoring for the world to care.

---

In a parallel, the world is getting more grim. Celebrities used to be far removed from society, end up trolled and insulted on twitter, causing heartbreak for miles around. Pedestals taken down faster as the mediocre high-school football player realises he has no real influence on the greater world outside high-school. Cliques come a tumbling as the world is greatly increased in population. Instead of 100, it is now 100,000. The vast pool of knowledge and resources unite. The social intermingling of total war fans can discuss their hobby on the forum, even though they know no one in their town who has even heard of the series. The population becomes more savvy and aware, political and economical structures crack at the seams as they fail to revolutionise into this brave new world...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

...As for real life, I think I've accomplished more there then here. I'm happily married, with 2 kids. Everything else on top of that is gravy. Being married does mean I'm constantly getting knocked off my pedestal and whacked in the back of the head with it.

---

A healthy reminder process. I am in the same boat and concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Do you accept that, in this "War on Terror" (A ghastly label, I agree), that virtually anywhere, and certainly any non-domestic US location, can be considered a "Battlefield" providing that certain conditions are present? That is, by the way, a genuine question for which arguments on both sides may be made.

---

That's a little too vague- under the right "conditions" almost anything is possible. You'll have to be more specific if you want me to weigh in here.

Otherwise, the logic your forwarding here would give the president free reign to kill anyone in the world at any time, based only on his discretion.

It's our belief that X is collaborating with Al Qaeda. Therefore that location is a combat zone. Therefore, we are free to kill X and anyone in any way associated with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's our belief that X is collaborating with Al Qaeda. Therefore that location is a combat zone. Therefore, we are free to kill X and anyone in any way associated with them.

---

And unfortunately, that's how the GWoT has been prosecuted from the get-go.

All I have to do is say, "I am Lemur, and I think Al Qaeda is nifty." Boom. I'm affiliated with AQ now, and am fair game for assassination. Torture, less so.

A war where the combatant is anyone and the battlefield is anywhere and the timeline is infinite—I don't know if that's compatible with representative democracy. That's part of why I've been arguing since the early President 43 days that the GWoT needs to be treated more like law enforcement, less like a war. You cannot "win" a war or murder, but you can make a dent in it, and you can make murdering people expensive and risky. Same goes for terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A war where the combatant is anyone and the battlefield is anywhere and the timeline is infinite—I don't know if that's compatible with representative democracy.

---

I feel fairly secure, at least, in saying that deliberately killing American citizens with no more due process than the say so of an administration official runs afoul of our Constitution.

The AUMF that authorized the war on terror was badly written and overly broad in scope. But even with that, it can't set aside our Constitutional protections.

The moment you started carting off people to Gitmo for a bit of enhanced interrogation torture, well that was when your constitutional protections were well and truly swept aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The moment you started carting off people to Gitmo for a bit of enhanced interrogation torture, well that was when your constitutional protections were well and truly swept aside.

---

I really don't want to shift the debate to Gitmo, but regardless if you think it was right or wrong, Constitutional protections are considered extend to persons within US territory and US citizens at home and abroad- not to non-citizens outside of US territory. You could still argue that detainment at Gitmo is immoral/illegal for various reasons, but I don't think the Constitution comes into play...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I really don't want to shift the debate to Gitmo, but regardless if you think it was right or wrong, Constitutional protections are considered extend to persons within US territory and US citizens at home and abroad- not to non-citizens outside of US territory. You could still argue that detainment at Gitmo is immoral/illegal for various reasons, but I don't think the Constitution comes into play...

---

Well I guess that makes it all alright then? I mean it's not wrong if you can find a loophole in the law that will let you get away with it? And it scales. Companies can squirrel away billions of taxable income, so why can't administrations "squirrel away" their citizens through a clever little loophole?

Same story, different version. Bombing al-Awlaki to smithereens and hiding behind some technical legalese is no different from a constitutionality perspective than carting people off to gitmo to avoid having to afford them due process. Next step: you being carted off to gitmo, because what is good for the goose (foreigners) is good for the gander (citizens). All the pieces of the loopholes puzzle are already in place, and when it comes down to it habeas corpus is nothing really. Nothing that a bit of lawmaking can't "fix" or simply be brushed away through a suitably open-ended suspension, as has happened before. (Both in England and in the USA for that matter.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Same story, different version. Bombing al-Awlaki to smithereens and hiding behind some technical legalese is no different from a constitutionality perspective than carting people off to gitmo to avoid having to afford them due process.

---

It's quite different, as I've said. To my knowledge, the US Constitution has never been applied to non-citizens outside of US jurisdictions. It has always applied to US citizens within US jurisdiction.

You don't have to like either scenario, but there is a higher legal threshold for our nation's own citizens abroad then for non-citizens abroad. If citizenship in a country doesn't afford you some special considerations/rights from that country, what's the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's quite different, as I've said.

---

No you're getting side tracked again. Simple, really: the loophole game is only ever played to get around pesky obstacles like "standards" or "intent of the law", "taxes" or "ethics", "the book" or "due process". It is about avoiding impartial scrutiny, accountability and responsibility. It does not matter whether or not the subject is a foreign person or a citizen. The behaviour is the same, the motivation is the same, the outcome is the same and the consequences will be the same.

Actually, Gitmo was chosen as much for protection of our own citizens as for any Constitutional "side-stepping." We presumed that those incarcerated would be, in the main, willing to harm US citizens if possible, so incarcerating them in Cuba meant that any escapees would be Castro's problem and not likely to be going after any in the USA.

That aside, combatting terrorism that is NOT attributable to a sponsoring nation-state has been the crux of our difficulty throughout the whole War on Terror era. Neither of our two well-understood models for operation: Law Enforcement using Due Process of Law, or War Fighting; seems to have the best answer. Due process would see the vast bulk of the detainees released for want of "proper" evidence, while war-fighting can seem pointless and endless when there is no definitive locus of authority to be either eradicated or forced to a peace table. I acknowledge that our attempts to come up with a blended option have not been completely successful thus far...to say the least.

Lemur and Xiahou are both right about the Authorization to use Military Force. As passed, it was ludicrously easy for the President to use military force based upon the flimsiest of evidence....and Congress collectively woosed out on its oversight role here, practically handing its war power constitutional madate to the Presidency. But Congress DID pass it and the American public did not toss out the one's who so voted. Sad.

Even with what amounted to war by Fiat, even the Bush43 crew felt that they had to go back and secure permission from Congress specifically before invading Iraq. The original AUMF document would have allowed Bush to invade solely because of the tenuous support of one small al-queada splinter group in Northern Iraq*, WITHOUT Bush having to have gone back to Congress for support. Even so, the force of precedent sent them back (with under-corroborated and ultimately proven to be innacurate evidence) to justify the attack on grounds that were more compelling then that tenuous AQ connection.

* Note: It has since been learned, and was probably known at the time, that this AQ connection to Iraq was no more than Saddam paying lip service to some of the AQ agenda items so as to keep the AQ group well away from him in any practical sense. The Saddam regime and AQ were never really close (arguably they were enemies). There was no substantial AQ presence in Iraq until AFTER Saddam was ousted. They came into Iraq because we were there and we had created a power vaccuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They weren't almost enemies, they were enemies. Saddam hated terrorists.

---

Oh, I agree. As a dictator, he didn't want any powerbase competing with his own, and the AQ folk didn't really think of him as a staunch muslim either.

My point was that the AQ "connection" to Iraq was no more than a lip-service thing, that the Bush admin knew it, but -- because of the shoddy way the AUMF had been put together -- even that flimsy premise would have been enough to allow the Invasion.

I was happy that Bush43 felt enough of a sense of responsibility to seek confirmation of their decision to invade Iraq, rather than relying on the original AUMF.

(This sets aside the issue of whether our use of evidence at the time of the invasion was appropriate...a separate issue.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's quite different, as I've said. To my knowledge, the US Constitution has never been applied to non-citizens outside of US jurisdictions. It has always applied to US citizens within US jurisdiction.

You don't have to like either scenario, but there is a higher legal threshold for our nation's own citizens abroad then for non-citizens abroad. If citizenship in a country doesn't afford you some special considerations/rights from that country, what's the point?

---

Beg your pardon, but quite a few American conservatives (you included, if I'm not mistaken) insist on a literary interpretation of the constitution. The various amendments speak of persons, not of citizens. The only times the constitution mentions "citizens" is when it speaks about the right to vote, etc.

Case law does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but you generally don't approve when SCOTUS deviates from a word's manifest, undeniable meaning, do you?

Personally, I think that al-Awlaki's assasination was perfectly justified. He deliberately removed himself from the reach of any state authority by moving to some terrorist no-man's land. You could even argue that he was "in arms", metaphorically speaking, against a friendly nation, as the government of Yemen doesn't take kindly to these thugs hiding on their territory either. Ideally he would have been caught and tried, if that were feasible, but I don't see how the distinction between American or non-American holds any relevance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I was happy that Bush43 felt enough of a sense of responsibility to seek confirmation of their decision to invade Iraq, rather than relying on the original AUMF.

(This sets aside the issue of whether our use of evidence at the time of the invasion was appropriate...a separate issue.)

---

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

---

:yes:

A very savvy move by the administration. The Democrats could have easily stopped the 2002 resolution, using the same tactics the GOP uses today in Congress. But instead they jumped right into it, fearing they would be viewed as unpatriotic wusses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

---

So the fact that he got required authorization from our elected legislature is somehow more insidious to you than had he just claimed cart blanche based on the earlier AUMF? You can try to attach whatever motivations to it you want, but once Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq, getting the required authorization first was the right thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Beg your pardon, but quite a few American conservatives (you included, if I'm not mistaken) insist on a literary interpretation of the constitution. The various amendments speak of persons, not of citizens. The only times the constitution mentions "citizens" is when it speaks about the right to vote, etc.

Case law does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but you generally don't approve when SCOTUS deviates from a word's manifest, undeniable meaning, do you?

---

How could anyone assume that US domestic law could apply to the subjects of other nations outside of US territory? That line of thinking would presume that the US military violated the Second Amendment when it disarmed the German army after WW2. The authors of the Constitution could only ever have intended it to apply to citizens and those within US jurisdiction- to assume otherwise is irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

---

I think it unlikely.

As I have argued in other threads heretofore, I think it is reasonable to view the Bush43 crowd as having screwed up the assessment.

They used uncorroborated information from defectors who had axes to grind against Saddam and ignored disconfirming messages about the yellow cake uranium and the like. I think they also made the same mistake our intelligence services did against the Soviets in the latter 1980s. We got hold of the information that Saddam's underlings were giving him -- that we can ramp back up the chemicals etc. at the drop of a hat. We didn't factor in that his own people may have been shining him on. We did the same in the 1980s, assuming training levels and efficiency ratings about soviet forces were accurate and that their production figures etc. were accurate, when low level aparatchiks were fudging the numbers so as to not look bad to the bosses.

Another factor in screwing up by the numbers was the mindset of some of the administration members -- that they were looking for an excuse to finish the job that hadn't been finished by Bush41 and to "contain" Iran by having US bases in neighboring allies on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. That kind of attitude makes it really easy to interpret things as you wish them to be....and not as they are. Put that together with a bit of sloppy intelligence work and you have a "convincing" case for WMD's that have to be stopped NOW!

As the old saw suggests, Don't attribute maliciousness to something that is better explained by slipshod work and simple screw ups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So the fact that he got required authorization from our elected legislature is somehow more insidious to you than had he just claimed cart blanche based on the earlier AUMF? You can try to attach whatever motivations to it you want, but once Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq, getting the required authorization first was the right thing to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As the old saw suggests, Don't attribute maliciousness to something that is better explained by slipshod work and simple screw ups.

---

No I was just pulling your leg there. I probably need to work on my delivery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The authors of the Constitution could only ever have intended it to apply to citizens and those within US jurisdiction- to assume otherwise is irrational.

---

Which in no way absolves the USA from taking people to gitmo for aforementioned questioning using dubious methods outright torture. It also does nothing for your argument that they were somehow special.

The crux of the matter is not that there is law which explicitly forbids doing that to USA citizens. It is that there's a distinctly slippery slope between the ends justify the means, and simply flouting the law, selectively applying it at will and breaking it whenever convenient. I contend that Gitmo is quite far down that slope, and once you're there and that kind of stunt is accepted by the US public and the various bodies that ought to check and balance that kind of powergrab, well it's only the easy and natural thing to do to extend that power a bit further. And another bit further.

If you, Xiahou went over to Yemen and sprouted a beard and started preaching Jihad to save America from the infidel Obama you would be fair game by the Gitmo standards.

Al-Awlaki's death is a consequence of the successive administrations having been able to execute all sorts of dubious strikes and renditions for over 10 years now. So they don't even think twice about it, they know there are no repercussions because that horse has left the stable a very long time ago to be turned into processed meat for consumption as beef.

Holder needs to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNN

Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
...
In a letter to Paul dated on Monday, Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States.

However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."

---

Ever notice how those "extraordinary circumstances" and "unlikely to occur" events have a way of, oh, I dunno, happening?

Remember, kids, only three people were ever waterboarded under "enhanced interrogation." And if you believe that, I've got some great deals in North Korean real estate.

Gah. I can't begin to express how un-American Holder's response is. It's not Yoo/Bybee level bad, but it's bad enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ever notice how those "extraordinary circumstances" and "unlikely to occur" events have a way of, oh, I dunno, happening?

---

Well it is only just a bit further down that slope... :juggle2:

Rand Paul is doing a good ole-fashioned talking filibuster over Brennan's nomination to CIA director- he says its until he gets clarifications about the power of the POTUS to kill Americans on US soil. He's attracted a few supporters to help him, including at least one Democrat senator. Rubio is speaking at the moment.

Watch it here while you can- I've never seen a "real" filibuster before this. Apparently it's been going on for over 11 hours already....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Rand Paul is doing a good ole-fashioned talking filibuster over Brennan's nomination to CIA director- he says its until he gets clarifications about the power of the POTUS to kill Americans on US soil. He's attracted a few supporters to help him, including at least one Democrat senator. Rubio is speaking at the moment.

Watch it here while you can- I've never seen a "real" filibuster before this. Apparently it's been going on for over 11 hours already....

---

I wish all filibusters had to be conducted in this fashion. If an issue is important enough to block the Senate from doing anything, then you ought to have to go out and blather it to death personally -- not via some sub-rosa pseudo-vote.

This is when you use spin doctors.

Holder did declare either that:
A: US military security isn't competent enough on it's own soil to twart a threat that can be resolved by a drone.
Or B: It's not a last resort.

Or if it's already spun, what's the status of using military as police in the US during a crisis?

This is one of those moments where people should actually get upset, but they won't.

The correct Presidential response would be to absolutely deny the legitimacy of killing US citizens without due process. In the event of another 911, a decent President would break the law and take down a jet on its way into a tower and deal with the consequences. If he can expect a jet full of individuals to die so that others may live, he should be willing to face his own criminal indictment and rely on the wisdom of a jury of his peers to nullify conviction. Sense would prevail without leaving the door open to arbitrary extra-judicial killings of US citizens on US soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

The correct Presidential response would be to absolutely deny the legitimacy of killing US citizens without due process. In the event of another 911, a decent President would break the law and take down a jet on its way into a tower and deal with the consequences. If he can expect a jet full of individuals to die so that others may live, he should be willing to face his own criminal indictment and rely on the wisdom of a jury of his peers to nullify conviction. Sense would prevail without leaving the door open to arbitrary extra-judicial killings of US citizens on US soil.

---

I'm more or less agreeing. Shocking.
Any such move should never be done with anything less than the presidency on the line. The question is not about resignation or worse, it's about justifying staying on the post. Guilty until proven otherwise so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Or if it's already spun, what's the status of using military as police in the US during a crisis?

---

Congressional approval is necessary. Since they are talking drones in this theoretical discussion, this might imply Christians In Action involvement, which is a whole different can of worms on US soil.

Another problem with Theory meets Reality.

Yes, you can have an academic discussion that this kind of targeted killing is justified but so many things would need to be true to make it even a remote possibility. It's only disturbing when people take steps to implement it. This is along the lines of shooting a passenger plane down to prevent a terrorist attack but requires a much more elaborate infrastructure and set of statutes and circumstances. This is post-911 style talk you'd expect to hear out of the Bush administration.

Remember Federal and State governments legally kill U.S. citizens all the time: Either after due process or in response to an imminent threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I wish all filibusters had to be conducted in this fashion.

---

Agreed. Two weird things happening here:

1. A Republican says Obama is ignoring the Constitution, and is correct.
2. A filibuster is not only being performed correctly, but for a legitimate reason.

Consider my gob well and truly smacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Agreed. Two weird things happening here:

1. A Republican says Obama is ignoring the Constitution, and is correct.
2. A filibuster is not only being performed correctly, but for a legitimate reason.

Consider my gob well and truly smacked.

---

Even the insane parties like the Republicans get things right occasionally.

I take it no other of the anti terrorist laws have been broadened to be used on other criminal cases.

No chance that the mobsters will be taken out by drones in the future...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I take it no other of the anti terrorist laws have been broadened to be used on other criminal cases.

No chance that the mobsters will be taken out by drones in the future...

---

The Republicans arent crazy enough to bomb themselves yet.