3 ms·

There are international treaties governing this kind of thing and of course the US is nominally bound by several different laws that should prevent unilateral a

There are international treaties governing this kind of thing and of course the US is nominally bound by several different laws that should prevent unilateral action like this from the Executive. But Congress has completely abdicated so here we are.

rayiner 1y ago
None of those things implicate “due process,” which is a very old, very specific concept. It dates back to the Magna Carta, and refers to the legal process subjects of the sovereign are entitled to before deprivation of property rights: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due-process-of-law.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due.... Due process doesn’t and has never applied to military actions against foreigners outside the country’s jurisdiction. Indeed, I’m unaware of any western country that applies its concept of domestic legal process rights to military actions against foreign actors in international waters. Such a concept would totally turn upside down how legal systems think about the boundaries between the sphere of domestic law and law enforcement and the sphere of military action. As to Congressional abdication, you might have an argument that we need some sort of Congressional sanction, as Jefferson obtained against the Barbary Pirates: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/first-barbary-war https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers.... But that ship sailed a long time ago. Under the War Powers Resolution, the President is authorized to basically shoot first, ask for permission later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  The War Powers Act isn't a 'get out of jail free' card to drone strike anyone on earth - it still demands that; 'The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." And then within 48 hours of the strikes; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth; (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. The ongoing Middle East and Northern Africa strikes have comically stretched the rationale of the 9/11 AUMF - but there's absolutely no authority to carry out strikes in Venezuela or in Mexico like they've been threatening to do and congress was never consulted about carrying out these strikes and of course there's no legislative or constitutional authority to do so. It's fine that you don't think we should be bound by international law, but surely the President should be bound by our laws? And morally, what the fuck are we doing here drone striking a small boat that could have been easily boarded and captured.

rayiner 1y ago

None of those things implicate “due process,” which is a very old, very specific concept. It dates back to the Magna Carta, and refers to the legal process subjects of the sovereign are entitled to before deprivation of property rights: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due-process-of-law.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due.... Due process doesn’t and has never applied to military actions against foreigners outside the country’s jurisdiction. Indeed, I’m unaware of any western country that applies its concept of domestic legal process rights to military actions against foreign actors in international waters. Such a concept would totally turn upside down how legal systems think about the boundaries between the sphere of domestic law and law enforcement and the sphere of military action. As to Congressional abdication, you might have an argument that we need some sort of Congressional sanction, as Jefferson obtained against the Barbary Pirates: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/first-barbary-war https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers.... But that ship sailed a long time ago. Under the War Powers Resolution, the President is authorized to basically shoot first, ask for permission later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

mikeyouse 1y ago
The War Powers Act isn't a 'get out of jail free' card to drone strike anyone on earth - it still demands that; 'The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." And then within 48 hours of the strikes; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth; (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. The ongoing Middle East and Northern Africa strikes have comically stretched the rationale of the 9/11 AUMF - but there's absolutely no authority to carry out strikes in Venezuela or in Mexico like they've been threatening to do and congress was never consulted about carrying out these strikes and of course there's no legislative or constitutional authority to do so. It's fine that you don't think we should be bound by international law, but surely the President should be bound by our laws? And morally, what the fuck are we doing here drone striking a small boat that could have been easily boarded and captured.