The New American: Proves that the assassination of Awlaki was illegal.

[momeNt]

According to the SCOTUS, Al Qiada and those aligned with them.

Fern

(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.

Perhaps they should have stricken out the lines;

against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

and simply had written

In order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines to be planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding terrorist attacks, or harboring such organizations or persons.


A few subtle changes can really change its meaning, and probably erase Dr. Paul's and my own interpretation of what happened with Awlaki.

 

[Fern]

Perhaps they should have stricken out the lines;

against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

and simply had written

In order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines to be planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding terrorist attacks, or harboring such organizations or persons.


A few subtle changes can really change its meaning, and probably erase Dr. Paul's and my own interpretation of what happened with Awlaki.

See the bolded part:

(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.

I think that bolded part indicates clearly the AUMF is for more than just tracking down and punishing those directly responsible for 9/11. Clearly the President is authorized to prosecute war with those who may commit future acts whether or not they were involved in 9/11.

Fern

 

[Matt1970]

If they are: "He aligned himself with those who declared war on the US. He was actively recruiting terrorist and organized attacks on the US."

then I see no problem.

Last time I checked, rapists weren't plotting against the U.S.

Exactly. What Awlaki did was no different than pointing a gun at someone.

 

[soundforbjt]

I could has sworn that Awlaki and Khan were collateral damage victims as they were with several known terrorists that were also killed during the drone attack.


If you don't want to be killed, don't hang out with known terrorists.

This^^^

 

[airdata]

Fuck sake...

I guaruntee that alot of people who are out screaming assassination would be cheering Bush if he had made the call, which he would have.

I'm more concerned about what Bin Ladens body is or if we actually killed him. Drones gon Drone... and if you leave the comforts of the US to mingle w\ militant islamist... drones may very well be drones.

 

[Fern]

Ah, but therein lies the problem. They try to give Gitmo detainees a trial with makeshift constitutional rights at the same time unconstitutionally executing American citizens. They can't have it both ways.

Well, I think it a bit different than that, at least at the SCOTUS level.

The SCOTUS in a split decision ruled that the AUMF did not free the President from all war power acts/laws passed by Congress etc. Basically, if you're going to do GITMO you have to abide by other Congressional acts regarding war time justice, like the UCMJ. I'm pretty sure they ruled the Geneva Convention did not apply (it may have been a technicality that they/SCOTUS/ did not have jurisdiction over that question.)

We still have GITMO. I think they just had to modify it to conform to existing law.

They did rule 'enemy combatants' could be detained indefinitely etc.

Fern

 

[YoungGun21]

2001 GOP "We are announcing a War on Terror." "Yay yay yay" say the peoples.

2011 Obama "I kill terrorists." "Boo hiss you murdering bitch" say the peoples.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Again, there is a difference between imminent danger and choosing expedience/convenience.

Define the threshold for imminent danger as it applies to GWOT please.

 

[xj0hnx]

2001 GOP "We are announcing a War on Terror." "Yay yay yay" say the peoples.

2011 Obama "I kill terrorists." "Boo hiss you murdering bitch" say the peoples.

It's amazing the left's ability to swallow the "War on Terror™" as long as it's their guy doing the killing. Issues like this really show off the true partisan nature of people.

 

[BladeVenom]

It's not like he was waterboarded.

 

[momeNt]

See the bolded part:



I think that bolded part indicates clearly the AUMF is for more than just tracking down and punishing those directly responsible for 9/11. Clearly the President is authorized to prosecute war with those who may commit future acts whether or not they were involved in 9/11.

Fern

Funny, I'm not even trying to be obtuse here, but I simply cannot read it the way you do. I'm reading the "in order..." part as simply a descriptive of the powers given to the POTUS in the initial part of the sentence.

Agree to disagree I suppose