Can you point to the place in the law that permits one but forbids the other?
Except that, as I have just cited above, Congress did NOT declare war just against Elbonia. Congress authorized the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” that he (not you, not Vinyl Turnip, not Mozart1220) determines were a part of the 9/11 attacks.
So in your hypo, the lieutenant who says, “Congress only declared war against Elbonia,” is not describing Congress’ actions correctly, and in fact may be safely said to be full of shit.
And of course, if Congress feels that the President is not making his determinations well, they may modify or repeal their grant of authority.
So if the president claims you were involved in the 9/11 attacks, he can decide to have you assassinated without judicial review? After all, you’re in the United States, a prime “battlefield” in the War on Terror.
Also, remember all the hand-wringing over Bush detaining non-citizens and letting them rot in captivity? Now you want to claim there’s no problem with the president having an actual citizen killed without due process?
No, because Congress cannot modify the Constitution, which prevents a unilateral determination of guilt. But the Constitution’s guarantees do not protect persons in Yemen.
In Yemen.
No problem
In Guantanamo? That was the key issue. Bush said, “Hey, Gitmo is outside the US.” Courts didn’t agree completely with that formulation.
No one’s saying Yemen is under US control.
More like Lieutenant, you are relieved for cause, report back to division for reassignment.
Snuffy, you have the platoon, go take that hill and count coup.
Declan
Not even citizens? So if I publicly criticize the president here in the U.S., he can’t do anything because that’s my right, but if I take a trip overseas, he can have me killed?
Recall in Hamdi that although the government had the power to detain citizens as enemy combatants, they couldn’t do so indefinitely; a citizen has the right to challenge his detainment in court. Are we going to allow the government to sidestep that requirement by letting them kill everyone instead?
You can be put on no-fly lists, have all your phones bugged and your home raided by the FBI. The final evolution of the POTUS into a God King who can kill anyone he wants is still a few years away, but we have capable people in legal working on it.
Right, right - Bush did terrible things like wiretapping and detention in Gitmo and the “Wanted: Dead or Alive” stuff. So he was untrustworthy. Obama, on the other hand…
Well, it’s different.
Regards,
Shodan
Obama is apparently pushing for more and easier access to personal internet messaging. Saving our freedoms by taking them away ,does not work for me. I hate it. They argue that it allows them to connect the dots, but all it really does it take away privacy by creating more dots.
The idea that they can assassinate people is reprehensible. Everybody gets a trial . Just declaring guilt is insufficient. America is going astray. We are making Osama Benladen a winner.
It bears pointing out, Shodan, that the bulk of commentary here is against Obama for articulating this argument. That is, most commentators here are NOT turning a blind eye to Obama’s conduct when they criticized Bush for doing something similar. Most in this thread are taking consistent positions in opposing this assertion of Presidential power, no matter who wields it.
Of course, they’re wrong. 
When did you get the freedom from government access to internet messaging, that is being taken away from you?
Aren’t you pro-life? You should recognize that legality and morality are not the same at all. Laws are just what our betters say they are.
Of course I’m pro-life.
Self-defense is a recognized justification for taking another human’s life.
As is a just war.
Of course I’m pro-life.
Self-defense is a recognized justification for taking another human’s life.
And on a similar note, I would never call an abortionist a murderer as long as abortion is legal.
Bricker, has there been a specific court ruling that cites Public Law 107-40 and says that it does not apply within the United States? Because it doesn’t set any domestic limitation within the text of the law itself. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld doesn’t seem to have addressed that issue. Lincoln v. Davis obviously sets a precedent for Presidents ordering military operations within the United States.
So what prevents a President form deciding that a person living in the United States (even an American citizen) is a potential terrorist threat and he is ordering the military to take action, including lethal force, against them? To me, this would seem like an equivalent of a bill of attainder but I don’t believe the courts have ruled it such.
It’s not a bill of attainder because its not an act of congress (i think, i’m sure Bricker can correct me if i’m wrong).
The problem here is a lack of definition for the justification for these acts. A police officer can shoot someone in defense of themselves or others. But there are standards which must be applied. In this case, the standards are vague, and it;s pretty much: become president, kill anybody you want because you perceive them to be a threat to national security. And it doesn’t take 270 electors to become president. Ford became president with 0 electors.
Er, no. I can’t point to the place in the law that permits accidental collateral death in wartime. In fact, I don’t believe it’s mentioned at all.
Can you? Or even better, could we perhaps direct the debate away from your absurd comparison?