7 ms·
> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too
by lapcat 2y ago
> Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much.
The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.
- rtkwe 2y agoThere is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that a lot of the expanded War on Terror activity are nominally authorized under according to the Executive. Challenging that is up to Congress as afaik there's no standing for a random person to sue.
- BobaFloutist 2y agoAnd Congress notably passed the dang thing and has pointedly refused to come back and limit it or curtail the admittedly expansive interpretations subsequent presidents have made of it, so I very much doubt they're going to ding a given president now.
- rtkwe 2y agoCorrect there's been several attempts to revoke or limit the 2001 AUMF and Congress has decided not to each time. It's pretty clear what is being done under the auspices of it too so failing to address the interpretation becomes a tacit endorsement at least at the institutional level. Personally I think it's been stretched to breaking but the fix is pretty simple and up to Congress.
- margalabargala 2y ago> The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ordering a drone strike without Congress' input would seem well within the scope of the President's powers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- saghm 2y ago> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? There are a number of amendments that could be pretty reasonable argued to give citizens the right not to get killed by drone strikes.
- golergka 2y agoKilled or targeted? There's a huge difference between ordering a drone strike on said citizens and ordering strike on legitimate military target that said citizens just happen to be in a vicinity of.
- bergen 2y agoIs there? One is actively killing citizens the other is still a reckless disregard for human life in general.
- jachee 2y agoWhy are actions being taken against military targets outside of a declaration of war?
- Buttons840 2y agoIs there a difference? Legally? Both would be official acts, right?
- InitialLastName 2y agoIn the case in question, the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- saghm 2y agoCan you give an example of a time when a "legitimate military target" needed to be killed so immediately that a unilateral presidential decision that also killed nearby citizens was warranted? My presumption is that there are very few circumstances where the threat of a military target is so immediate that killing nearby innocent civilians is justified over waiting to try to find a better time to attack the target. If anything, immediate threats that require action are generally threats to the nearby innocent civilians themselves, which would make such decisive action not particularly useful; I don't think anyone would suggest something like blowing up a bank where people are being held hostage, which seems like the closest hypothetical I can think of.
- haroldp 2y ago> We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. Since Thomas Jefferson sent Navy & Marines after the Barbary Pirates without consulting Congress.
- jkic47 2y agoI take your point, but quick action is occasionally necessary. Presidents knowing that their actions could be second guessed are more likely to use the minimum force needed to achieve an objective.
- Buttons840 2y agoWe ask every soldier to put their life on the line. But do we dare ask our President to subject himself to our laws? I mean, if Obama went to prison for the drone strikes he ordered, his sacrifice would be less than many common soldiers have made. I want Presidents willing to put their lives on the line and their actions under the law. Is that too much to ask?
- JamesBarney 2y agoNot less than the average sacrifice a soldier made. The average soldier would not sign up if they had a significant chance of going to prison afterwards. Yes it's too much to ask every president to significantly risk jail time for being president.
- InTheArena 2y agoyes, because throughout history this has been abused. This was the reason that Caesar crossed the Rubicon - his opponents were all queued up to sue him into oblivious on his term as counsel ended.
- Buttons840 2y agoWhy are we okay asking soldiers to die, but asking the President to risk prosecution and be subject to the law is "too much"?
- InTheArena 2y agoBecause we need governments and can't afford to make it so that anyone who ever wins elections spends the rest of their life fighting off lawsuits. Wars happen, and governments exist, people forget that laws are used as much to impede good governance as they are to enforce good governance.
- IamLoading 2y agoThen, what are american solidiers doing in Jordan dying out there. The reality is that we are sending troops using loopholes, and that's costing such unnecessary complexity.
- boredpeter 2y ago[dead]
- theshrike79 2y agoSo the US shouldn't be able to conduct any kind of military operations against any country they haven't declared war on?
- lapcat 2y agoCorrect.
- umvi 2y agoSo the US has to declare war on Russia and China in order to support Ukraine and Taiwan? Declaring war on those superpowers would be a serious act of aggression and start WW3.
- lapcat 2y agoThat depends on what you mean by "support". Selling weapons is not in itself an act of war, whereas using weapons is.
- kristjansson 2y agoNot without timely notification of and authorization by Congress.
- theshrike79 2y agoSo shooting at the Houthi rebels[0] would also require a declaration of war? Would that be against Yemen or the Houthis, who don't have a country? https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-red-sea-shipping-centcom-us-bb70acea5062a9952a5b983ecc047863 https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-red-sea-shipping-ce...
- insane_dreamer 2y agoWhile I don't agree with the strikes, such action was generally authorized by Congress (thanks to the "war on terror") which was never since rescinded by Congress. So was not unconstitutional.
- friend_and_foe 2y agoThe constitution clearly says that a declaration of war is needed, and only short periods of action that are necessary in the interim can be taken by the president absent that. Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional.
- piva00 2y ago> Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional. The ones that should judge if it's not constitutional just passed judgment stating that a ex-president is above the law. I think they can invalidate if a president explicitly needs declaration of war, given recent history I'd bet a lot they would find it totally constitutional.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoThen the question is whether the law passed by Congress was unconstitutional, which would have nothing to do with Obama. First someone with standing would have to challenge the law and then it would make its way up through the courts. But I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would uphold it (as much as I would want it struck down along with the Patriot Act and other "war on terror" measures).
- jasonlotito 2y agohttps://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-law-of-armed-and-unmanned-conflict/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-law-of-armed-and-unmanned-conf... > As the Supreme Court concluded, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, and Congress’s 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force—along with the president’s commander-in-chief authority under Article II of the Constitution—provides ample domestic legal authority to conduct military operations against al-Qaeda. tl;dr: We haven't been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time.
- dang 2y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40848146.