Si modo
Diamond Member
Excellent post, especially what I bolded.Joint Resolution
(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.
Clearly a dangerous and unfortunate resolution. Passed in 2001, the resolution is also clearly in conflict with subsequent case law concerning due process rights of enemy combatants and detainees, the latter not even considered by the resolution.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that:
"The Judiciary lacks the 'competence' to make 'complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force,' and 'the ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability.' "
This is not at issue.
As another poster correctly noted in another thread, we havent been at war since 1945. We are not at war with al-Qaeda now. The Court has ruled with regard to the status of enemy combatants, both citizen and non-citizen, determining that some basic level of due process is in order.
You can bomb a barracks full of sleeping soldiers in war. Or a mess hall full of soldiers having lunch.
Members of Al-Qaeda are not soldiers, nor do they deserve being referred to as such. They are criminals, subject to due process in the context of criminal prosecution.
Although practiced by the Allies with impunity during World War II, today this could be construed as a war crime, obviously depending on the circumstances. Also, it could be argued that Japanese or German munitions workers, although civilian, were serving the war effort of recognized nation- states and armed forces upon whom war had been officially declared, which is not the case with civilians in a criminal origination such as Al-Qaeda.Or a munitions factory employing civilians.
And to return to the basic troubling theme: the idea of investing in the Executive the sole authority to kill a criminal suspect without an objective review of the evidence (or if evidence indeed exists) is a dangerous precedent clearly in conflict with the Constitution and the original intent of the Framers.
Over the span of history many free people have lost their freedom because they believed it cant happen here.