President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[Quantum Windbag]

ONE of the main objections to the "targeted killing" tactic is that it vests too much power in the hands of the President (or his designee).

There is a demand for "due process." It is argued that the killing of an American citizen by resort to this tactic is somehow unConstitutional.

As food for thought, I wonder if it makes any difference if we stop and consider that the AUMF seems to specifically authorize the President's decision in this case?

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That makes it all right. We have an unconstitutionally vague law authorizing the president to commit criminal acts.

 

[HinduPatriot]

The USA needs to kill this and all muzzie terrorist fuckers, particularly those in Pakistan.

 

[High_Gravity]

ONE of the main objections to the "targeted killing" tactic is that it vests too much power in the hands of the President (or his designee).

There is a demand for "due process." It is argued that the killing of an American citizen by resort to this tactic is somehow unConstitutional.

As food for thought, I wonder if it makes any difference if we stop and consider that the AUMF seems to specifically authorize the President's decision in this case?

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That makes it all right. We have an unconstitutionally vague law authorizing the president to commit criminal acts.

Thats right tell em, the President has no right to put his filthy hands on innocent honorable clean Muslims like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

snip

If a guy is trying to "light up" downtown Denver as part of his "war" against the United States, killing him in the act is just what happens in war. The enemy gets killed. A guys' status as a U.S. citizen shouldn't cause anybody to hesitate in dropping that guy on the spot if he's caught in the act of attempting to commit such an atrocity.

snip

Condensed that because this is the only part of the post that I am discussing here.

We do that kind of thing all the time. Law enforcement sometimes has to take deadly force measures to protect citizens from felons who are in the process of committing a crime. But that is not what is happening here. If Al-Awlaki were killed attempting to commit a crime that would be one thing. If he is seen on the streets of Sanaa (Yes, I had to look up the name of the capital of Yemen) and a real life Jack Bauer puts a bullet in his head, that is completely different.

Hell, for all we know, Al-Awlaki could be a TV star in Yemen and simply be playing a terrorist on their version of "24" and those tapes that allegedly exist are only part of the program. Those are the kind of things that a trial are supposed to bring out. And this is the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect us from: a potentially over-zealous government.

Immie

If we had obtained a solid opportunity during WWII to take out Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, would it have been somehow wrong to act on that opportunity?

If your answer to that question is "yes," then I cannot discuss the matter with you further. We just disagree, which is fine. But the balance of the discussion would be kind of pointless.

HOWEVER, if your answer is "no, that would have been proper," then the sole remaining objection to taking out Al-Awlaki is the mere happenstance of his having been born within the territorial limits of the United States. That is, he is a U.S. citizen and thus he is somehow immunized from being treated like the Minister of Propaganda.

I don't believe that the fact of U.S. citizenship immunizes a person from the consequences of his action. Taking up arms against the U.S. and her people -- in this case, we ARE very much talking about actual war -- does have consequences. We cannot march into Yemen and "arrest" him. But as we have done to other al qaeda top leaders, we CAN take him out. Taking out such scum is a power that has been vested in the President under the AUMF.

We might debate the wisdom of the AUMF and whether it was drafted too broadly. But that's a separate debate. For now, at least, it is what it is. Very specific authority.

How about this argument to explain why one is justifiable and the other is not. Goebbels was a uniformed member of the military during a time of war. while specifically targeting him might be difficult to justify tactically, making him a target of opportunity is justifiable.

Al-Alwaki, on the other hand, is nothing more than a blow hard with a beard in a third rate country, and putting him on a hit list not only cheapens us, it elevates him from the status of blow hard to potential martyr. It puts the full force of the US behind his claims that we are a nation that is willing to ignore laws and target people who are speaking up against the Great Satan. It, quite simply, makes us the bad guys even if he is everything we say he is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CANDIDATE Barack Obama is quoted as having said, "I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes, you do it swiftly and surely." -- see, Special Report - How the White House learned to love the drone | Reuters

Getting back to a point I made earlier. President Obama has, in this regard, acted consistently with his campaign commitments. I realize that others have serious misgivings and some legitimate concerns. But for my part, I believe it is a good thing that this President is at least clear and consistent in this aspect of addressing the problem of al qaeda terrorists.

Being consistent does not make him right.

 

[Liability]

CANDIDATE Barack Obama is quoted as having said, "I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes, you do it swiftly and surely." -- see, Special Report - How the White House learned to love the drone | Reuters

Getting back to a point I made earlier. President Obama has, in this regard, acted consistently with his campaign commitments. I realize that others have serious misgivings and some legitimate concerns. But for my part, I believe it is a good thing that this President is at least clear and consistent in this aspect of addressing the problem of al qaeda terrorists.

Being consistent does not make him right.

True. It surely doesn't make him wrong, either, however.

I wasn't suggesting that consistency makes him right. I was merely noting that his position has been consistent. In this instance, there is no justification for anybody to complain that he mislead them.

 

[DiamondDave]

ONE of the main objections to the "targeted killing" tactic is that it vests too much power in the hands of the President (or his designee).

There is a demand for "due process." It is argued that the killing of an American citizen by resort to this tactic is somehow unConstitutional.

As food for thought, I wonder if it makes any difference if we stop and consider that the AUMF seems to specifically authorize the President's decision in this case?

That makes it all right. We have an unconstitutionally vague law authorizing the president to commit criminal acts.

Thats right tell em, the President has no right to put his filthy hands on innocent honorable clean Muslims like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Well.. I hope one day you can 'honor' him in memoriam after his head explodes into goo when hit with a .50 cal round

 

[High_Gravity]

That makes it all right. We have an unconstitutionally vague law authorizing the president to commit criminal acts.

Thats right tell em, the President has no right to put his filthy hands on innocent honorable clean Muslims like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Well.. I hope one day you can 'honor' him in memoriam after his head explodes into goo when hit with a .50 cal round

Pfft yeah right no ones gonna catch the honorable Anwar Al-Awlaki. Keep dreaming.

 

[Liability]

Condensed that because this is the only part of the post that I am discussing here.

We do that kind of thing all the time. Law enforcement sometimes has to take deadly force measures to protect citizens from felons who are in the process of committing a crime. But that is not what is happening here. If Al-Awlaki were killed attempting to commit a crime that would be one thing. If he is seen on the streets of Sanaa (Yes, I had to look up the name of the capital of Yemen) and a real life Jack Bauer puts a bullet in his head, that is completely different.

Hell, for all we know, Al-Awlaki could be a TV star in Yemen and simply be playing a terrorist on their version of "24" and those tapes that allegedly exist are only part of the program. Those are the kind of things that a trial are supposed to bring out. And this is the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect us from: a potentially over-zealous government.

Immie

If we had obtained a solid opportunity during WWII to take out Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, would it have been somehow wrong to act on that opportunity?

If your answer to that question is "yes," then I cannot discuss the matter with you further. We just disagree, which is fine. But the balance of the discussion would be kind of pointless.

HOWEVER, if your answer is "no, that would have been proper," then the sole remaining objection to taking out Al-Awlaki is the mere happenstance of his having been born within the territorial limits of the United States. That is, he is a U.S. citizen and thus he is somehow immunized from being treated like the Minister of Propaganda.

I don't believe that the fact of U.S. citizenship immunizes a person from the consequences of his action. Taking up arms against the U.S. and her people -- in this case, we ARE very much talking about actual war -- does have consequences. We cannot march into Yemen and "arrest" him. But as we have done to other al qaeda top leaders, we CAN take him out. Taking out such scum is a power that has been vested in the President under the AUMF.

We might debate the wisdom of the AUMF and whether it was drafted too broadly. But that's a separate debate. For now, at least, it is what it is. Very specific authority.

How about this argument to explain why one is justifiable and the other is not. Goebbels was a uniformed member of the military during a time of war. while specifically targeting him might be difficult to justify tactically, making him a target of opportunity is justifiable.

Al-Alwaki, on the other hand, is nothing more than a blow hard with a beard in a third rate country, and putting him on a hit list not only cheapens us, it elevates him from the status of blow hard to potential martyr. It puts the full force of the US behind his claims that we are a nation that is willing to ignore laws and target people who are speaking up against the Great Satan. It, quite simply, makes us the bad guys even if he is everything we say he is.

You draw distinctions without differences. Goebbels was one of the uniformed leaders of the enemy nation with whom we were at war, and the Nazis were evil in their own right.

Al-Alwaki propagandizes as part of his main mission. He is "credited" (that is an odd but accurate word choice) with motivating Reid, the shoe bomber, and Lt. Hassan, the inside agent/killer.

That Goebbels wore a uniform was merely a condition of his military service for that Nazi regime in Germany. That Al-Alwaki doesn't wear a uniform of that kind is a product of the fact that these animals choose not to engage in warfare according to the rules, customs and laws of war. Certainly he gets no benefit from that choice. He sure as hell deserves to get no such benefit.

And we are not ignoring laws. We have a valid Resolution IN PLACE that authorizes taking out the nations, organizations and person responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks (that's al qaeda) and who threaten to do more of the same.

There are about two pages worth of names on the "list." (I saw this factoid earlier in some Wiki article). There is a process in place to cull the list as well as add to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

Obvious question:
Where are the whines and cries and howls from the liberals that opposed this when GWB did it.
I mean, didnt The Secular Messiah promise to deliver us from the evils of the Bush Administration? And now, He continues, expands and defends those evils?

 

[DiamondDave]

Thats right tell em, the President has no right to put his filthy hands on innocent honorable clean Muslims like Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Well.. I hope one day you can 'honor' him in memoriam after his head explodes into goo when hit with a .50 cal round

Pfft yeah right no ones gonna catch the honorable Anwar Al-Awlaki. Keep dreaming.

Hopefully soon they eliminate the scum... along with many many more who operate under him and support him

 

[High_Gravity]

Well.. I hope one day you can 'honor' him in memoriam after his head explodes into goo when hit with a .50 cal round

Pfft yeah right no ones gonna catch the honorable Anwar Al-Awlaki. Keep dreaming.

Hopefully soon they eliminate the scum... along with many many more who operate under him and support him

Why do you say that? Islam is the religion of peace.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CANDIDATE Barack Obama is quoted as having said, "I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes, you do it swiftly and surely." -- see, Special Report - How the White House learned to love the drone | Reuters

Getting back to a point I made earlier. President Obama has, in this regard, acted consistently with his campaign commitments. I realize that others have serious misgivings and some legitimate concerns. But for my part, I believe it is a good thing that this President is at least clear and consistent in this aspect of addressing the problem of al qaeda terrorists.

Being consistent does not make him right.

True. It surely doesn't make him wrong, either, however.

I wasn't suggesting that consistency makes him right. I was merely noting that his position has been consistent. In this instance, there is no justification for anybody to complain that he mislead them.

I will leave that to the moonbats.

 

[FuriousSammy]

Anwar is a good honest man, he has done nothing wrong.

And those who adhere(d) to his clarion calls for a bright shining Islamic version of Justice are also wonderful human beings in their own right!

No doubt man, I for one am sick and tired of people trying to give honest men like Anwar Al-Awlaki a bad rep, Islamic radicals are nice, honest humble people who are accepting of other peoples religions and cultures.

Exactly. Why can't all these racist bigots just give this poor, humble man a break?

 

[High_Gravity]

And those who adhere(d) to his clarion calls for a bright shining Islamic version of Justice are also wonderful human beings in their own right!

No doubt man, I for one am sick and tired of people trying to give honest men like Anwar Al-Awlaki a bad rep, Islamic radicals are nice, honest humble people who are accepting of other peoples religions and cultures.

Exactly. Why can't all these racist bigots just give this poor, humble man a break?

I don't know b but this is pure racism, the US should be trying to appoint Mr. Al-Awlaki as the President not trying to kill him.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys enjoying your little "look at the evil Islamic guy" circle jerk?

 

[FuriousSammy]

No doubt man, I for one am sick and tired of people trying to give honest men like Anwar Al-Awlaki a bad rep, Islamic radicals are nice, honest humble people who are accepting of other peoples religions and cultures.

Exactly. Why can't all these racist bigots just give this poor, humble man a break?

I don't know b but this is pure racism, the US should be trying to appoint Mr. Al-Awlaki as the President not trying to kill him.

I dream of a world in which heroes like Anwar and Kobe are honored instead of hated.

 

[High_Gravity]

Exactly. Why can't all these racist bigots just give this poor, humble man a break?

I don't know b but this is pure racism, the US should be trying to appoint Mr. Al-Awlaki as the President not trying to kill him.

I dream of a world in which heroes like Anwar and Kobe are honored instead of hated.

Anwar Al-Awlaki has went on record saying Kobe Bryant is an honorable man and his favorite basketball player.

 

[High_Gravity]

You guys enjoying your little "look at the evil Islamic guy" circle jerk?

HAHA I know right? I can't stand those guys.

 

[Liability]

ONE of the main objections to the "targeted killing" tactic is that it vests too much power in the hands of the President (or his designee).

There is a demand for "due process." It is argued that the killing of an American citizen by resort to this tactic is somehow unConstitutional.

As food for thought, I wonder if it makes any difference if we stop and consider that the AUMF seems to specifically authorize the President's decision in this case?

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That makes it all right. We have an unconstitutionally vague law authorizing the president to commit criminal acts.

There is nothing particularly "vague" about it. If anything, it is arguably overly broad. But vague? Not at all. And certainly not "unconstitutionally" so, unless you have become the SCOTUS.

And the acts are, by definition, not "criminal" in any event. An act specifically authorized by law cannot, by definition, be "illegal."

I get the fact that you don't care for the AUMF (or for the tactic of "targeted killing.") I further "get" the fact that your problem with the tactic of "targeted killing" is highlighted when the authorized "target" is a U.S. citizen. You express some legitimate concerns, imho. I'm just not sold on the notion that we have any viable alternatives or that one's status as a citizen serves to immunize one from the consequences of waging war on our people.