President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[FuriousSammy]

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

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

I hope somebody bombs them for their ways.

...

...I mean, bombs them with LOVE. and PEACE. Because that's how it SHOULD be.

 

[Liability]

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

We aren't all libs, thus not all of us engage in circle jerks.

But you can have an Al-Alwaki love-in with your hand if you're so inclined.

Praise be to Allah for blessing the World with the Religion of Pieces.

 

[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.

I hope somebody bombs them for their ways.

...

...I mean, bombs them with LOVE. and PEACE. Because that's how it SHOULD be.

Exactly my man, Islam is the religion of peace. All Islamic countries are open tolerant honorable beautiful societies with vibrant booming economies and their always inventing stuff like cars and the internet, we in the West could learn much from them.

 

[FuriousSammy]

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

I hope somebody bombs them for their ways.

...

...I mean, bombs them with LOVE. and PEACE. Because that's how it SHOULD be.

Exactly my man, Islam is the religion of peace. All Islamic countries are open tolerant honorable beautiful societies with vibrant booming economies and their always inventing stuff like cars and the internet, we in the West could learn much from them.

Amen, brother. We neeed to strive to be more like those dreamlike, Elysian societies.

 

[High_Gravity]

I hope somebody bombs them for their ways.

...

...I mean, bombs them with LOVE. and PEACE. Because that's how it SHOULD be.

Exactly my man, Islam is the religion of peace. All Islamic countries are open tolerant honorable beautiful societies with vibrant booming economies and their always inventing stuff like cars and the internet, we in the West could learn much from them.

Amen, brother. We neeed to strive to be more like those dreamlike, Elysian societies.

Plus their quality of life is much better, who needs a clean safe apartment with running water, electricity and heat when we could live out in the desert in mud huts with fat hairy women covered in burkas? thats the life right there man.

 

[Liability]

The world needs more Lotus and Honey and

Jinns.

We need lots of those Jinns.

 

[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?

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.

Do you realize that the authorization for use of military force is not actually a law? Or that, under this authorization, tribunals were ruled not to be authorized? That Congress actually had to go out and write a law to authorize military tribunals?

Your opinion that this is not a vague law is noted, but the courts are the final arbitrators on this, and they have already disagreed, at least in part.

 

[Liability]

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.

Do you realize that the authorization for use of military force is not actually a law? Or that, under this authorization, tribunals were ruled not to be authorized? That Congress actually had to go out and write a law to authorize military tribunals?

Your opinion that this is not a vague law is noted, but the courts are the final arbitrators on this, and they have already disagreed, at least in part.

Don't you realize that it IS a law? But it is, more funamentally, a declaration of war.

And President Bush SET UP tribunals. Tribunals would work just fine. No need to implicate our civilian Courts of Law. But nooooo. The Courts fucked that up, too. Wrongfully.

And no. You cannot find a Court ruling that says that the AUMF is "vague" or (worse yet) Unconstitutionally vague.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

 

[Liability]

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.

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

Actually, no. If they are caught in the act of committing an act of war, they are entitled to get shot on sight. There was no "due process" for the South's soldiers in the Civil War, either. President Lincoln and the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers didn't worry about whether shooting the enemy forces would deprive them of Constitutionally guaranteed "due process." That term is not without meaning. But its meaning is limited to the judicial process. It has precious little application to war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

That's not at all necessarily so. It is perfectly possible for anyone, American citizen or not, to be held indefinitely, even killed, w/o any due process at all, and not violate the constitution.

 

[Father Time]

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

That's not at all necessarily so. It is perfectly possible for anyone, American citizen or not, to be held indefinitely, even killed, w/o any due process at all, and not violate the constitution.

Unless they are actively engaging in war (which this guy is not) that's bullshit.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

That's not at all necessarily so. It is perfectly possible for anyone, American citizen or not, to be held indefinitely, even killed, w/o any due process at all, and not violate the constitution.

Unless they are actively engaging in war...

So you agree, it is possible. Thanks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Do you realize that the authorization for use of military force is not actually a law? Or that, under this authorization, tribunals were ruled not to be authorized? That Congress actually had to go out and write a law to authorize military tribunals?

Your opinion that this is not a vague law is noted, but the courts are the final arbitrators on this, and they have already disagreed, at least in part.

Don't you realize that it IS a law? But it is, more funamentally, a declaration of war.

And President Bush SET UP tribunals. Tribunals would work just fine. No need to implicate our civilian Courts of Law. But nooooo. The Courts fucked that up, too. Wrongfully.

And no. You cannot find a Court ruling that says that the AUMF is "vague" or (worse yet) Unconstitutionally vague.

Technically it isn't. Laws have to be signed by the president, or have a veto over ridden by Congress. All this did was authorize the president to act like we are at war. It is part of the constitutional checks and balances that prevents the president form unilaterally attacking anyone he wants to.

All the courts did was point out that an authorization to use force is not an authorization to hold tribunals. International treaties do not authorize one country to try POWs they capture on war crimes or criminal charges. When Congress wrote a law that set up tribunals the courts had no problems whatsoever. The law was rewritten after that to clarify the procedures, not because it was found unconstitutional.

And you are correct that no court ruled the law vague, they actually ruled that the way the administration was reading and applying it made it vague. My apologies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

Actually, no. If they are caught in the act of committing an act of war, they are entitled to get shot on sight. There was no "due process" for the South's soldiers in the Civil War, either. President Lincoln and the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers didn't worry about whether shooting the enemy forces would deprive them of Constitutionally guaranteed "due process." That term is not without meaning. But its meaning is limited to the judicial process. It has precious little application to war.

And, if they find him on a battlefield shooting at US troops they can blow his ass away. If he is in Yemen, as they believe, and making videos, they cannot. Why do you not see the difference?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Technically it isn't. Laws have to be signed by the president, or have a veto over ridden by Congress. All this did was authorize the president to act like we are at war. It is part of the constitutional checks and balances that prevents the president form unilaterally attacking anyone he wants to.

IIRC, GWB signed the Authorization of force. Thus, law.
There's nothing in the Constititon that gives Congress the power to restrict the operational autority of the CinC, DoW or otherwise. That Congress can declare war in no way limits the Article II powers of the CinC.

 

[Liability]

Do you realize that the authorization for use of military force is not actually a law? Or that, under this authorization, tribunals were ruled not to be authorized? That Congress actually had to go out and write a law to authorize military tribunals?

Your opinion that this is not a vague law is noted, but the courts are the final arbitrators on this, and they have already disagreed, at least in part.

Don't you realize that it IS a law? But it is, more funamentally, a declaration of war.

And President Bush SET UP tribunals. Tribunals would work just fine. No need to implicate our civilian Courts of Law. But nooooo. The Courts fucked that up, too. Wrongfully.

And no. You cannot find a Court ruling that says that the AUMF is "vague" or (worse yet) Unconstitutionally vague.

Technically it isn't. Laws have to be signed by the president, or have a veto over ridden by Congress. All this did was authorize the president to act like we are at war. It is part of the constitutional checks and balances that prevents the president form unilaterally attacking anyone he wants to.

All the courts did was point out that an authorization to use force is not an authorization to hold tribunals. International treaties do not authorize one country to try POWs they capture on war crimes or criminal charges. When Congress wrote a law that set up tribunals the courts had no problems whatsoever. The law was rewritten after that to clarify the procedures, not because it was found unconstitutional.

And you are correct that no court ruled the law vague, they actually ruled that the way the administration was reading and applying it made it vague. My apologies.

It is a "law." Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001 see, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

President Bush DID sign the AUMF Resolution. 9/18/2001. See: President Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force bill

And yes. Congress DOES have to authorize the President's use of our nation's military might in most cases. (There are some exceptions, of course.) This is indeed part of the Constitutionally crafted checks and balances. And Congress so acted in this case.

I do not disagree with you (and have not disagreed with you) that the attempt by the Bush Administration to use the AUMF as authority for the Military Tribunals was rejected. I contend (although it does no good) that the "rejection" was itself improper. But it is what it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Technically it isn't. Laws have to be signed by the president, or have a veto over ridden by Congress. All this did was authorize the president to act like we are at war. It is part of the constitutional checks and balances that prevents the president form unilaterally attacking anyone he wants to.

IIRC, GWB signed the Authorization of force. Thus, law.
There's nothing in the Constititon that gives Congress the power to restrict the operational autority of the CinC, DoW or otherwise. That Congress can declare war in no way limits the Article II powers of the CinC.

My bad on the AUMF. I was thinking of something else.

The War Powers Act does limit the powers of the president, and the Constitution says that Congress has to declare war. The war powers act has never actually been challenged in court, nor really enforced, as both sides want to limit the potential political damage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't you realize that it IS a law? But it is, more funamentally, a declaration of war.

And President Bush SET UP tribunals. Tribunals would work just fine. No need to implicate our civilian Courts of Law. But nooooo. The Courts fucked that up, too. Wrongfully.

And no. You cannot find a Court ruling that says that the AUMF is "vague" or (worse yet) Unconstitutionally vague.

Technically it isn't. Laws have to be signed by the president, or have a veto over ridden by Congress. All this did was authorize the president to act like we are at war. It is part of the constitutional checks and balances that prevents the president form unilaterally attacking anyone he wants to.

All the courts did was point out that an authorization to use force is not an authorization to hold tribunals. International treaties do not authorize one country to try POWs they capture on war crimes or criminal charges. When Congress wrote a law that set up tribunals the courts had no problems whatsoever. The law was rewritten after that to clarify the procedures, not because it was found unconstitutional.

And you are correct that no court ruled the law vague, they actually ruled that the way the administration was reading and applying it made it vague. My apologies.

President Bush DID sign the AUMF Resolution. 9/18/2001. See: President Signs Authorization for Use of Military Force bill

And yes. Congress DOES have to authorize the President's use of our nation's military might in most cases. (There are some exceptions, of course.) This is indeed part of the Constitutionally crafted checks and balances. And Congress so acted in this case.

I do not disagree with you (and have not disagreed with you) that the attempt by the Bush Administration to use the AUMF as authority for the Military Tribunals was rejected. I contend (although it does no good) that the "rejection" was itself improper. But it is what it is.

Already had to eat crow on the AUMF.

We could argue about the military tribunals under the AUMF being improperly rejected, but I personally have not thought about it enough to have an opinion. Let us just just agree that it is what it is, and accept that tribunals have been authorized since then. There are some that think they are inherently wrong, Obama and Holder belong to that group, but I disagree with them. Us arguing about the details of what we both think is legal, and justified, is stupid.

 

[Liability]

Exactly, U.S. citizens are entitled to their 5th amendment rights to due process, no matter what they are accused of doing.

Actually, no. If they are caught in the act of committing an act of war, they are entitled to get shot on sight. There was no "due process" for the South's soldiers in the Civil War, either. President Lincoln and the editorial boards of the nation's newspapers didn't worry about whether shooting the enemy forces would deprive them of Constitutionally guaranteed "due process." That term is not without meaning. But its meaning is limited to the judicial process. It has precious little application to war.

And, if they find him on a battlefield shooting at US troops they can blow his ass away. If he is in Yemen, as they believe, and making videos, they cannot. Why do you not see the difference?

Why do you assume there is a difference? Why do you not see that there is NO difference?

In conventional warfare, troops meet on a field of battle. Enemies shoot at each other. Lives are lost.

In this non conventional warfare directed against us, there are no soldiers needed to be arrayed against THEIR combatants. Instead, as we clearly saw on 9/11/2001, these illegal enemy combatants buy tickets for civilian passenger jet flights, hijack those flights, fly them into building and kill thousand of innocent civilians. What "battlefield" are we NOW talking about?

And Al-Alwaki does his mischief in preaching his version of hate AND IN TRAINING some of the mutants who then serve as human explosives, etc. That his version of "fighting" our civilians in this war they started doesn't come with a uniform, flag, insignias of rank, military command structure, clearly delineated fields of battle, etc., absolutely doesn't change the nature of what he's doing. JUST as we could have taken-out Goebbles for his Propaganda services on behalf of our enemy in WWII, so too we should be able to take out that bitch for his services to the Jihadist War underway against us by our present enemy.