It was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, intense deliberation by lawyers working for President Obama and turf fights between the Pentagon and the C.I.A., whose parallel drone wars converged on the killing grounds of Yemen. For what was apparently the first time since the Civil War, the United States government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial.
The latter two were taken out as collateral damage, a reminder that what we are talking about is war, a blunt instrument and one not well suited to legal niceties.
Failing to draw a hard line between war powers and civilian legalities does damage to both.
Failing to clearly define the enemy is equally damaging. Who, exactly, are we at war against? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Syria? Mali? Yemen? Palestine? Lebanon? Egypt? The "terrorist"? The Islamist "extremist"? A religion called Islam? The Taliban (who we trained and armed)? Al-Qaida (who we trained as well, and seem to be as elusive and vaguely wide spread as "terrorism")?
Exactly who are we at war with?
so, you agree that this target was viewed as the 'enemy' of our nationI think our present government is at war with anyone (including US citizens) that say "no" to their loony demands.
Failing to clearly define the enemy is equally damaging. Who, exactly, are we at war against? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Syria? Mali? Yemen? Palestine? Lebanon? Egypt? The "terrorist"? The Islamist "extremist"? A religion called Islam? The Taliban (who we trained and armed)? Al-Qaida (who we trained as well, and seem to be as elusive and vaguely wide spread as "terrorism")?
Exactly who are we at war with?
That's for the Commander in Chief to determine.
That's for the Commander in Chief to determine.
so, you agree that this target was viewed as the 'enemy' of our nation
making him a legitimate military target, no matter his birth heritage
I saw a proposal to create a special court to review the cases if any Americans overseas. The evidence would have to meet certain standards and "adequate proof" that capture was not plausible.
I agree with that approach as long as the committee was truly bi-partisan.
and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning
Anwar-al-Awlaki was a terrorist and was guilty of treason - a charge that carries the death penalty.
Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot.
Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?
Targeting terrorists in foreign lands require some extreme measures. If they were hiding out in Michigan...then they would have been entitled to protections of the Constitution and subject to the law of the land. By becoming a terrorist and hiding out in foreign lands...well...all I can say is "Nice shootin' Tex." Obama should ABSOLUTELY continue to target terrorists at home and abroad. The rules change based on the playing field. Would you have been aghast had a republican president aggressively targeted terrorists in other lands, regardless of nationality?
Article 3 Section 3
“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… …The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”
How do you know what the evidence is if it was never presented in a court of law? Are you saying that media convictions, or the Executive simply saying so, under arbitrary legal precedent (as the OP points out) is sufficient?
It is a crime that must be answered for, of course, but is targeting such a criminal for execution, prior to conviction, consistent with the rule of law? If someone murders someone else on video tape and then goes bragging about it, and admitting it proudly, do we really dismiss due process and execute him on the spot?
I think the point of the OP was saying that the same civilian rights which exist in a time of peace, must yield to precedent in time of war. I can agree. However, that is what leads me to insist on a definition of who we are at war with, and if we are legitimately at war at all.
show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinionSo did Bush in many of the instances that legally defined his presidency. But I am far from believing that you view such legal opinions on par with law, or failed to see how such could be totally self serving
If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?
It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.
show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion
until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon
i suspect Obama would agree with that as would dicknbush
You mean the memos that they have, until very recently, kept in secret? How generous of you, and of course I am sure such latitude was shown towards Bush, as well
Come now. You act as if this is the first time a sitting President has kept executive memos out of the public eye. I my lifetime, from JFK to Obama, they've all done it.
If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?
It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?