4 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
  Killed 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 ago
    Is there? One is actively killing citizens the other is still a reckless disregard for human life in general.
  - jachee 2y ago
    Why are actions being taken against military targets outside of a declaration of war?
  - Buttons840 2y ago
    Is there a difference? Legally? Both would be official acts, right?
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    In the case in question, the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
  - saghm 2y ago
    Can 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.
    - TylerE 2y ago
      One might question how that standard applies to what Israel is doing in Gaza.
      - saghm 2y ago
        I would argue that the US law would not allow the president to order strikes like those that have occurred in Gaza on US citizens, but of course IANAL. I don't have any knowledge of what Israeli law allows or doesn't allow though. It's also worth noting that what someone thinks is legal is not necessarily what someone thinks _should_ be legal; I imagine that almost everyone here has at least some laws that they disagree with, but that's separate from the question of whether the law exists or not.
        TylerE 2y ago
        If the US continues to ship them large amounts of foreign aid, aren’t we at least a little bit complicit?
      - golergka 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - JamesBarney 2y ago
      Enemies are not static they can react to our policies. If our policies are never to kill anyone who is near a civilian, enemies would just always be near civilians.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  Citizens, sure. That's a much weaker claim than what the parent said, which is "The President should not be able to conduct drone strikes without an act of Congress". Drone striking (or otherwise killing) citizens without due process seems unconstitutional. Drone striking foreign targets does not have those constitutional protections.
hartator 2y ago
> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. It does. Armed forces killing people is a state of war. If not, it's policing then it's under the judiciary authority, not the president.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  > Armed forces killing people is a state of war. Real life is rarely this black and white.
  - clob 2y ago
    Which is why we invented laws and legal systems to codify such things. Did you commit a crime, yes/no? Let's bring it to trial. The circumstances are messy in all real world instances, but the outcome is binary. Refusing to even put a president on trial is more black and white, because it's a clear "no, not illegal" without even discussion.
    - davidmurdoch 2y ago
      Courts don't even decide yes/no. Maybe is an outcome. We don't know is also an outcome.
  - grotorea 2y ago
    Doubly so since almost everyone stopped bothering to declare war after WW2.
- nradov 2y ago
  Huh? Federal law enforcement falls under the executive branch, not judicial. Have you even read the Constitution?
  - nostrademons 2y ago
    Federal (and state, and local) law enforcement are not empowered to kill. Their job is to bring defendants to trial, where the judicial system determines innocence or guilt and then determines the sentence. If they were, the whole cop-killers, BLM, excessive use of force issue would not be an issue. The law would just say "Okay, a cop killed someone, that's their job, get over it." You can argue that the criminal justice system is too light on cops, but the fact that the criminal justice system is even involved means that killing people is not part of a cop's official job duties.
Exoristos 2y ago
The Constitution forbade the US even to have a standing army. A standing navy was instituted, however.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  The Constitution does not forbid a standing army, it merely mandates that funding be renewed every two years. This is functionally a standing army.
Empact 2y ago
> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? Drone strikes on foreign targets are most analogous to the historical practice of issuing “letters of marque and reprisal,” which allowed private actors (privateers) to act on behalf of the state to take out pirates. Issuing such letters is an enumerated power of Congress, not the Presidency. So if the President does so unilaterally, they are acting outside their Constitutional authority. The risks of abuse to military power are real and significant, which is why the power was placed in the body closest to the people - so that such actions would be consistent with the public will. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-11/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...
kristjansson 2y ago
> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Yes it does, by reserving for Congress the right to declare war. Obama's drone strikes were carried out under the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
jmbwell 2y ago
The president now has legal authority to do whatever he wants. At the same time, the president's agencies no longer have the authority to do whatever they want. So I guess the president can order the military to drone strike the FCC if he wants at this rate. I don't see what influence the Constitution is still going to have at this point.

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 ago
Killed 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 ago
  Is there? One is actively killing citizens the other is still a reckless disregard for human life in general.
- jachee 2y ago
  Why are actions being taken against military targets outside of a declaration of war?
- Buttons840 2y ago
  Is there a difference? Legally? Both would be official acts, right?
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  In the case in question, the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- saghm 2y ago
  Can 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.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    One might question how that standard applies to what Israel is doing in Gaza.
    - saghm 2y ago
      I would argue that the US law would not allow the president to order strikes like those that have occurred in Gaza on US citizens, but of course IANAL. I don't have any knowledge of what Israeli law allows or doesn't allow though. It's also worth noting that what someone thinks is legal is not necessarily what someone thinks _should_ be legal; I imagine that almost everyone here has at least some laws that they disagree with, but that's separate from the question of whether the law exists or not.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        If the US continues to ship them large amounts of foreign aid, aren’t we at least a little bit complicit?
    - golergka 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - JamesBarney 2y ago
    Enemies are not static they can react to our policies. If our policies are never to kill anyone who is near a civilian, enemies would just always be near civilians.
margalabargala 2y ago
Citizens, sure. That's a much weaker claim than what the parent said, which is "The President should not be able to conduct drone strikes without an act of Congress". Drone striking (or otherwise killing) citizens without due process seems unconstitutional. Drone striking foreign targets does not have those constitutional protections.

hartator 2y ago

> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. It does. Armed forces killing people is a state of war. If not, it's policing then it's under the judiciary authority, not the president.

psunavy03 2y ago
> Armed forces killing people is a state of war. Real life is rarely this black and white.
- clob 2y ago
  Which is why we invented laws and legal systems to codify such things. Did you commit a crime, yes/no? Let's bring it to trial. The circumstances are messy in all real world instances, but the outcome is binary. Refusing to even put a president on trial is more black and white, because it's a clear "no, not illegal" without even discussion.
  - davidmurdoch 2y ago
    Courts don't even decide yes/no. Maybe is an outcome. We don't know is also an outcome.
- grotorea 2y ago
  Doubly so since almost everyone stopped bothering to declare war after WW2.
nradov 2y ago
Huh? Federal law enforcement falls under the executive branch, not judicial. Have you even read the Constitution?
- nostrademons 2y ago
  Federal (and state, and local) law enforcement are not empowered to kill. Their job is to bring defendants to trial, where the judicial system determines innocence or guilt and then determines the sentence. If they were, the whole cop-killers, BLM, excessive use of force issue would not be an issue. The law would just say "Okay, a cop killed someone, that's their job, get over it." You can argue that the criminal justice system is too light on cops, but the fact that the criminal justice system is even involved means that killing people is not part of a cop's official job duties.

Exoristos 2y ago

The Constitution forbade the US even to have a standing army. A standing navy was instituted, however.

margalabargala 2y ago
The Constitution does not forbid a standing army, it merely mandates that funding be renewed every two years. This is functionally a standing army.

Empact 2y ago

> What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? Drone strikes on foreign targets are most analogous to the historical practice of issuing “letters of marque and reprisal,” which allowed private actors (privateers) to act on behalf of the state to take out pirates. Issuing such letters is an enumerated power of Congress, not the Presidency. So if the President does so unilaterally, they are acting outside their Constitutional authority. The risks of abuse to military power are real and significant, which is why the power was placed in the body closest to the people - so that such actions would be consistent with the public will. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-11/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

kristjansson 2y ago

> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Yes it does, by reserving for Congress the right to declare war. Obama's drone strikes were carried out under the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

jmbwell 2y ago

The president now has legal authority to do whatever he wants. At the same time, the president's agencies no longer have the authority to do whatever they want. So I guess the president can order the military to drone strike the FCC if he wants at this rate. I don't see what influence the Constitution is still going to have at this point.