Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts'

[TemplarKormac]

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

So, you're suggesting the President should have the power to override Congress anytime he wishes? Do you hear yourself right now?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

Except they haven't declared war on Yemen, which is where Abdulrahman and Anwar al-Awlaki were killed.

 

[Freewill]

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

Except they haven't declared war on Yemen, which is where Abdulrahman and Anwar al-Awlaki were killed.

Pakistan is our ally and that does stop the rain of death.

 

[Freewill]

You mean like what? Oops, we bombed a munitions factory in Germany in 1944 and killed a bunch of civilians that lived across the street?

That's what you mean by oops?

Not at all like when the Chinese Embassy was bombed during Clinton's 72 days of terror bombing Bosnia.

More like when a 16 year old innocent boy is tagged with a GPS device and summarily killed by our government.

Is that Alex Jones material? If it is please stop talking to me.

I am not talking to you I am lecturing you. If you don't know about the 16 year old boy that was killed then you are certain in line with the rest of the low information voters. I have posted links repeatdily. But you personify what I have said all along about liberals. You keep yourself low informed so you have plausible deniability when you don't know the facts.

Obama administration acknowledges drone strikes killed 4 Americans since 2009

Read more: Obama administration acknowledges drone strikes killed 4 Americans since 2009 | Fox News

Khan died in the same drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki. Abdurrahman, al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and a Denver native, was killed in Yemen two weeks later. Mohammed was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.

They are saying the killing of the boy was an accident, he is now less dead.

 

[Freewill]

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

So, you're suggesting the President should have the power to override Congress anytime he wishes? Do you hear yourself right now?

Gosh darn it they are now channeling Nixon's ghost: "If the President does it then it is not illegal."

 

[OriginalShroom]

You can't hide behind your American citizenship if you join forces with an enemy of the United States that the Congress has given the President the authority to use force against.

As I said, show me where Congress gave the office of the President of the United States of America the authority to kill an American Citizen anywhere in the world, even issuing secret Kill on Sight orders, lwithout review or oversight simply because the President determined them to be a danger to the country.

For the same reason that President Roosevelt did not have to have some committee sort through every planned bombing run at German emplacements in France to assure that none of the few American citizens who did in fact join the Nazis were in harm's way.

You are refusing to answer the question as well as refusing to provide any support for your position and for Obama's position.

I wonder why?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you believe it's unconstitutional for the Congress to authorize the use of force against some country or other organization that has attacked us.

That's in keeping with your desire to see this country disintegrate.

You keep asking the wrong questions, which is why you keep coming up with the wrong answers. Can the president use a declaration of war against, for example, Vietnam, to justify bombing Cambodia?

You keep making up strawmen that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Do you believe it's unconstitutional for the Congress to authorize the use of force against some country or other organization that has attacked us?

I'll assume a non-answer is a yes.

The issue is that the president thinks he has the authority to personally order the deaths of people without a trial. If you want to understand just how I feel about that, I will provide a quote from the latest Star Trek movie straight from the lips of Spock.

While I harbor only the ultimate disdain and contempt for the individual known as John Harrison, and desire strongly that he receive the punishment due him, I must point out that there is no Starfleet regulation that condemns a man to die without a trial—no matter how egregious his offenses.

Now I will give you the question you should ask yourself, do you think Congress has the authority to give the president the ability to kill people without a trial?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not a premise. It's a condition. There's nothing implicit or explicit in the AUMF, nor in any past precedent, that grants American citizens special protections when they join forces with the enemy, specifically in this case Al Qaeda.

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

Does Congress have the power to order people killed without trial? If the answer to that is no, how can they delegate it to anyone else? If the answer is yes, what do they not have the power to do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

Except they haven't declared war on Yemen, which is where Abdulrahman and Anwar al-Awlaki were killed.

Pakistan is our ally and that does stop the rain of death.

PressTV - Pakistan slams US drone strikes as violation of its sovereignty

 

[Clementine]

What gets me is that the same people who approve of Obama being judge and jury, then killing people are the same ones who whine about the GITMO prisoners deserving a fair trial in the states.

It's okay to kill people, including some innocents, but waterboarding is going too far. Military tribunals aren't good enough for terrorist suspects.

I guess Bush should have killed the terrorist suspects instead of putting them in GITMO and trying to get more information out of them.

Those killed with drones by order of Obama don't have a trial, so how does Obama declare them guilty? Aren't they considered suspects who are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't trust any politician with that kind of power, especially this administration.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What gets me is that the same people who approve of Obama being judge and jury, then killing people are the same ones who whine about the GITMO prisoners deserving a fair trial in the states.

It's okay to kill people, including some innocents, but waterboarding is going too far. Military tribunals aren't good enough for terrorist suspects.

I guess Bush should have killed the terrorist suspects instead of putting them in GITMO and trying to get more information out of them.

Those killed with drones by order of Obama don't have a trial, so how does Obama declare them guilty? Aren't they considered suspects who are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't trust any politician with that kind of power, especially this administration.

When an Army sniper in Afghanistan finds a target, who has to approve it before the sniper kills him?

 

[Freewill]

What gets me is that the same people who approve of Obama being judge and jury, then killing people are the same ones who whine about the GITMO prisoners deserving a fair trial in the states.

It's okay to kill people, including some innocents, but waterboarding is going too far. Military tribunals aren't good enough for terrorist suspects.

I guess Bush should have killed the terrorist suspects instead of putting them in GITMO and trying to get more information out of them.

Those killed with drones by order of Obama don't have a trial, so how does Obama declare them guilty? Aren't they considered suspects who are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't trust any politician with that kind of power, especially this administration.

When an Army sniper in Afghanistan finds a target, who has to approve it before the sniper kills him?

Well certainly the rules of engagement have been a complaint from those fighting the war. They just don't go out and find some brown skinned guy and kill him. Targets are authorized. Even with that we are not discussing what goes on in the heat of battle we are talking about the singling out of Americans and killing them along with innocent people who just happen to be sitting around. But if you want to equate that to using the hydrogen bomb then go ahead and drop that bit of hyperbole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

Except they haven't declared war on Yemen, which is where Abdulrahman and Anwar al-Awlaki were killed.

We've had Yemeni cooperation since 2002.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What gets me is that the same people who approve of Obama being judge and jury, then killing people are the same ones who whine about the GITMO prisoners deserving a fair trial in the states.

It's okay to kill people, including some innocents, but waterboarding is going too far. Military tribunals aren't good enough for terrorist suspects.

I guess Bush should have killed the terrorist suspects instead of putting them in GITMO and trying to get more information out of them.

Those killed with drones by order of Obama don't have a trial, so how does Obama declare them guilty? Aren't they considered suspects who are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't trust any politician with that kind of power, especially this administration.

When an Army sniper in Afghanistan finds a target, who has to approve it before the sniper kills him?

Well certainly the rules of engagement have been a complaint from those fighting the war. They just don't go out and find some brown skinned guy and kill him. Targets are authorized. Even with that we are not discussing what goes on in the heat of battle we are talking about the singling out of Americans and killing them along with innocent people who just happen to be sitting around. But if you want to equate that to using the hydrogen bomb then go ahead and drop that bit of hyperbole.

The sniper singles out targets every day.

Is your position that we should effectively end our war against Al Qaeda?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then how about addressing the fact that we don't allow the executive branch to assign guilt to people and then summarily execute them?

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

So, you're suggesting the President should have the power to override Congress anytime he wishes? Do you hear yourself right now?

He's not overriding Congress. The AUMF is still in effect.

The fact that NONE of you here will address what I say, and instead have to pretend I said something else and then address that proves that I'm absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.

 

[Freewill]

The authorization for the use of military force is a delegation of power to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. He is in no way obligated to clear with Congress every military action he takes on daily basis. That's the point of an authorization.

So, you're suggesting the President should have the power to override Congress anytime he wishes? Do you hear yourself right now?

He's not overriding Congress. The AUMF is still in effect.

The fact that NONE of you here will address what I say, and instead have to pretend I said something else and then address that proves that I'm absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

 

[Freewill]

Legal Analysis | Living Under Drones

In the Absence of Armed Conflict, Only International Human Rights Law Applies

IHRL permits the intentional use of lethal force only when strictly necessary and proportionate. Thus, “targeted killings” as typically understood (intentional and premeditated killings) cannot be lawful under IHRL, which allows intentional lethal force only when necessary to protect against a threat to life, and where there are “no other means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, of preventing that threat to life.”[55] There is little public evidence that many of the targeted killings carried out fulfill this strict legal test. Indeed, and as described above, many particular strikes and practices suggest breaches of the test, including: signature strikes; strikes on rescuers; the administration’s apparent definition of “militant;” the lack of evidence of imminent threat; and the practice of extensive surveillance and presence on a list before killing.

The nature and effect of the US targeted killing policy may also contravene in some instances other sections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),[56] an international human rights treaty ratified by the US. Sections of the ICCPR potentially violated by US drone practice include Article 7 (prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment), Article 9.1 (right to liberty and security), Article 17 (right to freedom from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, and home), Article 21 (right to peaceful assembly), and Article 22 (right to freedom of association).[57] Thus, for example, Articles 21 and 22 might be violated where drone strike practices cause individuals to fear assembling in groups—as described by many interviewees—out of concern that they might be assumed to be engaged in suspicious activity that might result in a signature strike.

US Domestic Law

US drone strikes must also comply with US domestic law. Under Article II of the US Constitution, the President wields significant authority over questions involving national security and the use of force.[58] The Constitution, though, also entrusts key responsibilities, including the authority to declare war, to Congress.[59] When acting pursuant to Congressional authorization in an area delegated to him under the Constitution, the President has relatively expansive authority to act.[60]

The principal domestic legislative basis offered to justify drone strikes is the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), a joint resolution of both houses of Congress passed exactly one week after 9/11. The AUMF permits the President 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.”[61] While subsequent legal and judicial developments expanded the government’s detention authority beyond the parameters of the AUMF,[62] the AUMF continues to provide the legal basis for the use of force against Al Qaeda. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for example, while affirming the President’s power to detain forces “associated” with Al Qaeda and Taliban and “engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,”[63] notes that “nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”[64] Congress, which has been more engaged recently in oversight of the drone program,[65] has yet to expand or limit the authorization for the executive to use force under the AUMF at this writing.

US officials have cited the AUMF to support their position that the country is at ‘war’ not only with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also with all alleged affiliated groups, wherever they may operate, and at any point when they emerge.[66] For example, Jeh Johnson, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, has stated that the US government considers the AUMF to authorize force against “associated forces.”[67] An associated force, according to Johnson, is “(1) an organized, armed group that has entered the fight alongside Al Qaeda, and (2) is a co-belligerent with Al Qaeda in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”[68] The plain language of the AUMF, though, would appear only to authorize the use of force against those tied to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and not any “associated forces” who may subsequently allegedly join with Al Qaeda.[69] While the AUMF would thus cover actions against Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban, strikes against groups not involved with the 9/11 attacks, including, for example, the Haqqani Network and TTP, would not be covered under the currently existing language.

The express legislative authorization in the AUMF, read in conjunction with the wartime powers of the executive under Article II, endow the President with expansive authority to act on use of force questions in the post-9/11 context.[70] In addition, the President has the authority to issue findings to authorize CIA action beyond the parameters of Congressional authorization as long as such action does not otherwise violate domestic law.[71] Some argue that this allows the President to authorize the CIA to take pre-emptive lethal action in self-defense against terrorists in response to an imminent threat, without first obtaining Congressional approval.[72] While all US presidents have embraced an executive order issued by President Gerald Ford in 1976[73] prohibiting political assassination,[74] at least two presidents have reportedly relied on classified legal memoranda to conclude that “executive orders banning assassination do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action.”[75]

To the extent that strikes may occur pursuant to executive findings authorizing CIA action beyond the parameters of Congressional authorization, the legal framework guiding CIA engagement must be examined. Many have questioned what rules govern the CIA,[76] with some even suggesting that the express purpose of the CIA is to safeguard vital national interests by means of covert action that may go beyond the parameters of the law.[77] The CIA’s involvement in drone strikes in Pakistan does not absolve the US from its responsibility to adhere to binding domestic law. Although the CIA is governed by a different section of the US Code (Title 50) than that which regulates the armed forces (Title 10), the CIA “may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States.”[78] Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in a January 2012 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that the entirety of Harold Koh’s March 2010 speech at the American Society of International Law’s annual conference, which laid out the legal requirements to which the US is bound and the administration’s legal justification for targeted killings, applied equally to intelligence agencies.[79]

Executive orders to the CIA authorizing covert action (such as drone strikes), though, are not public, and thus their terms cannot be examined. Should they not provide a legal basis for actions of this sort or should the US invocation of self-defense be invalid in particular instances, individual strikes could constitute acts of illegal extrajudicial assassination. Assassination has long been condemned in the US. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison in 1789 that “assassination, poison, [and perjury]” were all “legitimate purposes in the dark ages…but exploded and held in just horror in the 18th century.”[80] As recently as 2001, the US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk declared that “the United States government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassinations… they are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”[81] Strikes of this sort occurring outside of authorized armed conflict would be subject to US domestic law.[82] If US citizens are targeted, constitutional protections and due process requirements also apply.[83]

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, you're suggesting the President should have the power to override Congress anytime he wishes? Do you hear yourself right now?

He's not overriding Congress. The AUMF is still in effect.

The fact that NONE of you here will address what I say, and instead have to pretend I said something else and then address that proves that I'm absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

There has yet to be a war where even the good guys have managed not to kill anyone who wasn't the enemy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, you're suggesting the President should have the power to override Congress anytime he wishes? Do you hear yourself right now?

He's not overriding Congress. The AUMF is still in effect.

The fact that NONE of you here will address what I say, and instead have to pretend I said something else and then address that proves that I'm absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

You totally ignore the nature of Al Qaeda. Your implied restraints would effectively end the war against Al Qaeda.

 

[Freewill]

He's not overriding Congress. The AUMF is still in effect.

The fact that NONE of you here will address what I say, and instead have to pretend I said something else and then address that proves that I'm absolutely correct and you are absolutely wrong.

Snipers are in war zones not in Nevada directing killer drones. The President may have, and does have all kinds of power but he has and is killing people that are not necessarily our enemy. At least with a sniper there is ONE target, which is authorized and ONE kill. Unlike the drone that kills the target and everyone in the vicinity. Sorry I don't buy the kill them all and let God sort them out mentality.

You whole argument amount to saying what AUMF says that was passed 12 years ago to deal with the 9/11 attack. YOU don't know, and have not produced the evidence, of what it does exactly say. Even if it gives the President the power doesn't mean he has to use it. I seriously doubt the AUMF ever was written for what is going on today.

The burden is on you, produce the part of the AUMF that states clearly that a GPS device can be placed by a paid informant and the President of the United States can then authorize their death based on where someone unknown has placed a GPS device.

There has yet to be a war where even the good guys have managed not to kill anyone who wasn't the enemy.

Only true for modern warfare during and after WW2. Prior to that civilian deaths were accidents not directed.

Why was the My Lai Massacre such a big deal using your logic?