It’s hard for me to escape the conclusion that the people who support this decision (well, mostly XT since Bricker’s post is so brief) are posting a lot more content than the people who oppose it - mostly they’re just saying “evil” and “fascist.” Those are scare words and not an argument.
Legally that’s probably about the beginning and the end of this issue. Congress authorized military action. They can amend or withdraw that authorization and perhaps they could require a review process even if it’s not public, but unless they do something like that the bottom line is the president has the power to carry out the military action they authorized. The president is the commander in chief of the military and the courts don’t have a role in reviewing his decisions or military operations in general. I do want to see a more transparent and accountable review process behind the drone program but the general ruling here doesn’t seem like news to me.
I’m reminded of the scene in My Cousin Vinny, in which Joe Pesci is cross-examining an elderly witness about her ability to see clearly:
Vinny: “How many fingers am I holding up?”
Judge: [before the witness can respond] “Let the record show the counselor is holding up two fingers.”
Only this time:
General Holder: “Your Honor, we’ve located an American member of Al Qaida in a hidden cave in Abombabad. He’s plotting to do horrible things, and here is a stack of evidence against him.”
Judge: “Very well. Let’s now hear from defense counsel on this matter. Is it true that your client is in that cave?”
Counsel: “Please allow me a moment to confer with my client… [phone call] No, he is no longer in that cave.”
I’m saying this wasn’t a military strike. It was a targeted assassination of an American citizen. There was no battlefield, this wasn’t collateral damage, it was a targeted assassination. Al-alwaki (sp?) was on the CIA kill list and was killed.
No, but it’s OK – that is, legally permissible – as long as your death is part of a military operation conducted by the executive branch under authority of the legislative branch.
Note, however, that the loud howls of outrage direct at Bush have been reduced to small mumbles of discontent when Obama does it. You, personally, may be complaining just as loudly, but if you’ll sample a few of the threads fom this board during the Bush years, you will see that not all posters are complaining just as loudly.
Is there any legal or Constitutional distinction a drone attack and some other type of military strike? I’m pretty sure there isn’t.
If he’s believed to be involved in planning terrorist attacks, he’s on the battlefield. The authorization makes this clear, and since we’re discussion a a terrorist network, insisting the guy has to be in some particular space is bizarre. By design, these people are not wearing a uniform and are not moving in formation, so you can’t define them that way.
By eating away at our rights to due process, we are heading down an bad path. I don’t think that the executive branch has to go through a whole trial before targeting someone, but there should be some form of oversight from another branch. There could be evidence presented to a special secret court like FISA before taking action, or before putting names on the kill list at least. Otherwise, there really is nothing eventually stopping a future executive branch from taking out its political enemies.
We’ve given up far too much due to irrational fear in this country. With warrantless wiretapping, targeted killings, indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, it really does feel like we’ve taken those first steps in the wrong direction. Do I think the Obama administration (or a Romney administration) would use it to become tyrannical dictators? No. Do I think some future administration might? Maybe. If there was another large terrorist attack in this country 10 years from now, it’s difficult to say how many rights would get stripped away.
But now, as a private individual citizen, are you okay with that state of affairs existing in perpetuity (since by definition the “War on Terror” will never be over)?
Are you comfortable with “military operations” now encompassing the murder of Americans by CIA robots anywhere at any time? Is it okay to take out a college dorm if one of the students inside donated some money over the internet to Al Qaeda? Is it okay to drop bombs on my home if I expressed sympathy towards Islamist violence somewhere on earth? Morally (not simply legally) okay?
This sentiment is neither here nor there. Most of those who have posted in this thread (and similar ones in the past) disagree with the court ruling and the policy in general.
I am one of the few on this board who has defended the legality of these types of strikes. Are you accusing me of only supporting it because Obama is doing it? Are you implying that I would oppose them if Bush were doing it? If not, who, exactly, are you accusing of this hypocrisy? Because it certainly seems as though you are grousing about something that has no substantive relevance to this discussion whatsoever.
It’s not at the bottom, but rather appears in Art I, Sec. 8, unnumbered paragraph 11, listing the powers of Congress: “To declare War…”
And Congress did so, by passing Pub Law 107-40 on September 18th, 2001, which provided:
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and Congress did so. The President now has the constitutional authority to make war against – and kill – persons that 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 – such as Al Qaeda.
Actually, I see outrage right here right now. I don’t know why you think this is a clever or worthy point, and I can only wonder to myself as to your motivations.
I have voted for every Republican I could who promised to end the drone strikes. That is, all none of them. Sedulously it is because of.people like yourself that we have no reasonable alternative than center right leaders. Instead of snarking about it you ought to be celebrating.
Why do you care? Why don’t you seek my opinion on the morality of abortion? Why is my opinion on the morality of drone strikes so fascinating, and my opinion on the morality of abortion so useless?
I will say one more thing on this and then end my half of the hijack: There is definitely some fatigue on my part regarding the erosion of civil liberties. That is, what Bush was doing seemed unprecedented to me (since WWII, at least) and I thought it was a terrible mistake. I was worried that it would become part of what we do. Now that it has, it’s difficult to maintain the same level of passion.
Marley23, I don’t believe you are planning terrorist attacks, but if Eric Holder does, you’d better watch out, because he doesn’t have to check with anyone. That is my issue – there is no one outside of the executive branch who has to be consulted, only a bunch of inner-circle yes-men.
There’s a tone to this debate, and that tone is, at best, measured disapproval.
The same debate during the Bush administration produced a tone of howling outrage.
I don’t know what you, specifically, said or did during the previous debate. I’m pointing out that many people here measure their outrage by metrics other than the actions being discussed.
That may not be relevant for the discussion, but it pisses me off.
Personally, I’m not okay with obviously frivolous, slippery slope questions posed as though they are matters that should be seriously discussed.
“If we allow the cops to carry guns to defend themselves against armed robbers, does that mean we are okay with police shooting unarmed children in the head while they sleep at night?”
Ok, guys. Time to crank up the shrillness! The talk of college students being bombed in their dorms isn’t quite making the grade. Quick, somebody ask a question about when it is acceptable for the US women’s Olympic gymnastics team to be kidnapped, interned in Guantanamo, waterboarded, assassinated, and their heads put on pikes, all at the unchecked hands of Herr Obama. That would make this thread more satisfying!
Al-alwaki (sp?) neither planned, authorized, committed, nor aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.
(Note, I had to edit the formatting to separate the law from the rest of your quote. I have no intention of modifying the meaning of your quote in any away, and I apologize in advance if this editing went against the rules of this board)
