4 ms·

Reading the paper, the justification for this authority is the existence of military conflict between the US and Al Qaeda. From the AUMF: "The President is auth

by jowiar 14y ago

Reading the paper, the justification for this authority is the existence of military conflict between the US and Al Qaeda. From the AUMF: "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." There's a reasonable argument to be made that the AUMF in 2001 is too broad, but clearly, the intention is to declare the existence of a military conflict with Al Qaeda. The US has not, to my knowledge, declared war against Prophets of the Great Gazoob.

eropple 14y ago
Who is so empowered to declare that the Prophets of the Great Gazoob are not affiliated with Al Qaeda and are thus beyond the AUMF's purview? (The answer would be "the judicial branch", but funny how they're cut out of the equation.)
D9u 14y ago
The USA regularly arrests, tries, convicts, and imprisons, foreign nationals who violate US law. The unequal application of criterion for targeted assassination vs arrest-trial-conviction is what bothers me, from a constitutional standpoint. Even disgustingly vile child molesters are afforded a trial. Why not try terrorists? Doing so would be more in keeping with the ideals of the USA as opposed to the current "Empire Strikes Back" paradigm where the very foundations (right to trial, right to be secure in one's 'papers and effects,' innocent til proven guilty) of the USA are being sidestepped in the name of a "war on terror" which, in, and of, itself, is a form of terror. Thus we have arrived at a point where the government regularly abrogates its mandate, and those who are against such acts may be labeled as "terrorists" whose demise is expedited by said policy.
- mc32 14y ago
  I think one of the main reasons is that they, AQ, are 'outlaws' they operate outside the laws of places they operate from and most of their operational bases are in places which are too weak to locally deal with AQ in a more traditional method. So because they are outside the law construct (of extradition, reach of local enforcement, local complicity, etc.), they, almost by necessity require this approach -which some people question and some approve of. It's an an answer to the question, how does one deal with an entity which does not subject itself to a set of groundrules one expects/operates in. In this case, you meet them half way (in vernacular terms, that's a good deal) for the offender (since their, AQ's, whole existence is predicated on vanquishing Kafirs). The alternatives are you meet them in their terms adopting their groundrules for dealing with you (this is a strong position to work from), another is you deal with them as you deal with other entities with whom you have structured relationships (this is a weak position to work from) since they would not likely reciprocate. A tax evader, you attempt to extradite, if you have agreements, if not, you try to get them when they make a mistake (fly into a place with a treaty). But when a nation is concerned with national security, there is less pussyfooting and more serious action, where possible. (i.e if AQ were based in China, the approach would require some rethinking or at least some negotiation with the host country.)

by jowiar 14y ago

eropple 14y ago

Who is so empowered to declare that the Prophets of the Great Gazoob are not affiliated with Al Qaeda and are thus beyond the AUMF's purview? (The answer would be "the judicial branch", but funny how they're cut out of the equation.)

D9u 14y ago

The USA regularly arrests, tries, convicts, and imprisons, foreign nationals who violate US law. The unequal application of criterion for targeted assassination vs arrest-trial-conviction is what bothers me, from a constitutional standpoint. Even disgustingly vile child molesters are afforded a trial. Why not try terrorists? Doing so would be more in keeping with the ideals of the USA as opposed to the current "Empire Strikes Back" paradigm where the very foundations (right to trial, right to be secure in one's 'papers and effects,' innocent til proven guilty) of the USA are being sidestepped in the name of a "war on terror" which, in, and of, itself, is a form of terror. Thus we have arrived at a point where the government regularly abrogates its mandate, and those who are against such acts may be labeled as "terrorists" whose demise is expedited by said policy.

mc32 14y ago
I think one of the main reasons is that they, AQ, are 'outlaws' they operate outside the laws of places they operate from and most of their operational bases are in places which are too weak to locally deal with AQ in a more traditional method. So because they are outside the law construct (of extradition, reach of local enforcement, local complicity, etc.), they, almost by necessity require this approach -which some people question and some approve of. It's an an answer to the question, how does one deal with an entity which does not subject itself to a set of groundrules one expects/operates in. In this case, you meet them half way (in vernacular terms, that's a good deal) for the offender (since their, AQ's, whole existence is predicated on vanquishing Kafirs). The alternatives are you meet them in their terms adopting their groundrules for dealing with you (this is a strong position to work from), another is you deal with them as you deal with other entities with whom you have structured relationships (this is a weak position to work from) since they would not likely reciprocate. A tax evader, you attempt to extradite, if you have agreements, if not, you try to get them when they make a mistake (fly into a place with a treaty). But when a nation is concerned with national security, there is less pussyfooting and more serious action, where possible. (i.e if AQ were based in China, the approach would require some rethinking or at least some negotiation with the host country.)