3 ms·
In this case, you are right. I made my earlier comment before reading the actual paper, and the paper makes it pretty clear that they are not talking about "ter
by nemothekid 14y ago
In this case, you are right. I made my earlier comment before reading the actual paper, and the paper makes it pretty clear that they are not talking about "terrorists" but "Senior members of Al-Qaeda and Associates."
So yes, I can see why such a response is necessary. I guess now the issue falls specifically on the wording of the issue. Terrorist can really mean anything and are we on a "slippery slope" where the President is being given power to assassinate any citizen he can label?
- jowiar 14y agoThe wording is key. The reasoning in this paper is pretty sound. I think the bigger issue, if there is one, is that the AUMF in 2001 grants the President too much power to determine which "nations, organizations, or persons planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That wording is a bit of a recipe for endless war (as written a dozen years later).