5 ms·

WW2 was a declared war, with uniformed soldiers, citizens of foreign nations. What does WW2 have to do with Al Awlaki? Am I misunderstanding your question?

tptacek 13y ago
The war against al Qaeda was a declared war. al Qaeda is specifically called out in the 2001 AUMF. Nobody in al Qaeda wears a uniform; they deliberately avoid them, to maximize the probability that their opponents will kill innocent civilians. And, we killed Americans fighting for the Nazis during WW2.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of executive power in the face of an existential threat to the republic are profoundly relevant to this debate. WW2... I'm at a loss. The 2001 AUMF, for example, is as far removed from the US declaration of war against the axis as you can get. It's everything that a typical formal declaration of war isn't, with the vaguest possible definitions of who the enemy is and where the battle can be fought. It has no real limits of any kind, and has henceforth been used as a license for indefinite military action. >"Nobody in al Qaeda wears a uniform; they deliberately avoid them, to maximize the probability that their opponents will kill innocent civilians." I may be a bit slow, but honestly I already knew this :) Yes this conflict is very different from the canonical 20th century wars which naturally shape our views of what war "ought" to be. Our laws and treaties are inadequate, and leave us in troubling gray areas, and I'm not convinced there are any good ways out. BUT... I'm also pretty sure a good solution is NOT to simply give the president the license to do whatever he wants to whomever he labels a "terrorist", regardless of location or citizenship. This is precisely the license assumed by the Bush administration during John Yoo's tenure. It appears to be the basis of your own assertions as well; please tell me I'm wrong.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, but unfortunately, that's all it is. We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001, and because al Qaeda is a brand name and not a nation state, at war we will remain until Congress repeals the AUMF. The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis. We didn't read them their rights before we killed them. American citizenship did not shield them from the consequences of armed conflict. If al-Awlaki wanted to prosecute his cause using the mechanisms of due process, it was a decidedly stupid idea for him to take up residence in territory controlled by AQAP, where the only reasonable mechanism the US had available to it to stop him from killing innocent civilians was an airstrike. Also, you're wrong about the President's authorization to kill whomever he labels a "terrorist". The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11. The President cannot authorize airstrikes against, say, Basque separatists, or the Tamil Tigers.
    - D9u 13y ago
      JSOC answers directly to the POTUS, and acts outside the normal channels of the US military. So, yes, the POTUS can, and does, decide who JSOC will be going after next.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        That's an irrelevant detail; the distinction between "JSOC" (when it's JSOC doing the dirty work) and POTUS isn't at issue. The issue is that the entire Executive Branch is limited in who it can target.
    - nate_meurer 13y ago
      >"The AUMF was a declaration of war. " I'm not really disputing that. I'm saying that using the AUMF to draw comparisons to WW2 is not helpful. >"The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis." Yes, in uniforms, on the battlefield. We didn't, as far as I know, bomb a dude writing anti-american propaganda in a city far from the battlefield. This whole WW2 analogy of yours is really tortured, and I feel foolish even arguing about it. >"The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11." Not according to the current president. I'll let Eric Holder speak here: It is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is from his speech at Northwestern, wherein he uses the phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" five times. Guess who gets to decide what "associated" and "operational leader" mean. I'm frustrated that I have to spell it out like this. This administration has made it perfectly clear that if you're an American citizen abroad, the president can have you killed based on an evaluation that he alone can make. The customary checks of the judicial branch can be waved at will if the president can link you to AQ in some way. Apparently, moving to Yemen and claiming to be a leader in AQ in some shitty youtube videos counts. The bar will possibly be lower in future administrations. Or not. The point is that the process is completely opaque and unchecked.

tptacek 13y ago

The war against al Qaeda was a declared war. al Qaeda is specifically called out in the 2001 AUMF. Nobody in al Qaeda wears a uniform; they deliberately avoid them, to maximize the probability that their opponents will kill innocent civilians. And, we killed Americans fighting for the Nazis during WW2.

nate_meurer 13y ago
I'm unaware of any U.S.-sponsored assassinations of non-uniformed American citizens outside the theater of war during WW2. I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. Look, I understand you're trying to support your argument by drawing comparisons to another better-defined war, but your particular choice of wars is baffling. Most often, comparisons are made to the American civil war; Lincoln's explorations of executive power in the face of an existential threat to the republic are profoundly relevant to this debate. WW2... I'm at a loss. The 2001 AUMF, for example, is as far removed from the US declaration of war against the axis as you can get. It's everything that a typical formal declaration of war isn't, with the vaguest possible definitions of who the enemy is and where the battle can be fought. It has no real limits of any kind, and has henceforth been used as a license for indefinite military action. >"Nobody in al Qaeda wears a uniform; they deliberately avoid them, to maximize the probability that their opponents will kill innocent civilians." I may be a bit slow, but honestly I already knew this :) Yes this conflict is very different from the canonical 20th century wars which naturally shape our views of what war "ought" to be. Our laws and treaties are inadequate, and leave us in troubling gray areas, and I'm not convinced there are any good ways out. BUT... I'm also pretty sure a good solution is NOT to simply give the president the license to do whatever he wants to whomever he labels a "terrorist", regardless of location or citizenship. This is precisely the license assumed by the Bush administration during John Yoo's tenure. It appears to be the basis of your own assertions as well; please tell me I'm wrong.
- tptacek 13y ago
  These aren't meaningful rebuttals. The AUMF was a declaration of war. The Constitution doesn't lay out the specific form of a "declaration of war"; the Korean War, for instance, was fought under the aegis of a UN declaration. Wars fought under informal authorization by Congress date all the way back to Jefferson and the First Barbary War. It's a popular myth that we're fighting an "undeclared" war against al Qaeda, but unfortunately, that's all it is. We really did declare war against al Qaeda, by name, in 2001, and because al Qaeda is a brand name and not a nation state, at war we will remain until Congress repeals the AUMF. The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis. We didn't read them their rights before we killed them. American citizenship did not shield them from the consequences of armed conflict. If al-Awlaki wanted to prosecute his cause using the mechanisms of due process, it was a decidedly stupid idea for him to take up residence in territory controlled by AQAP, where the only reasonable mechanism the US had available to it to stop him from killing innocent civilians was an airstrike. Also, you're wrong about the President's authorization to kill whomever he labels a "terrorist". The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11. The President cannot authorize airstrikes against, say, Basque separatists, or the Tamil Tigers.
  - D9u 13y ago
    JSOC answers directly to the POTUS, and acts outside the normal channels of the US military. So, yes, the POTUS can, and does, decide who JSOC will be going after next.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      That's an irrelevant detail; the distinction between "JSOC" (when it's JSOC doing the dirty work) and POTUS isn't at issue. The issue is that the entire Executive Branch is limited in who it can target.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    >"The AUMF was a declaration of war. " I'm not really disputing that. I'm saying that using the AUMF to draw comparisons to WW2 is not helpful. >"The comparison to WW2 is simple: during WW2, scores of German-Americans traveled to Europe to fight on behalf of the Nazis." Yes, in uniforms, on the battlefield. We didn't, as far as I know, bomb a dude writing anti-american propaganda in a city far from the battlefield. This whole WW2 analogy of yours is really tortured, and I feel foolish even arguing about it. >"The President does not have a blanket authorization to use the military against "terrorists". He has authorization only to strike against al Qaeda and those persons and organizations who assisted in the attacks on 9/11." Not according to the current president. I'll let Eric Holder speak here: It is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is from his speech at Northwestern, wherein he uses the phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" five times. Guess who gets to decide what "associated" and "operational leader" mean. I'm frustrated that I have to spell it out like this. This administration has made it perfectly clear that if you're an American citizen abroad, the president can have you killed based on an evaluation that he alone can make. The customary checks of the judicial branch can be waved at will if the president can link you to AQ in some way. Apparently, moving to Yemen and claiming to be a leader in AQ in some shitty youtube videos counts. The bar will possibly be lower in future administrations. Or not. The point is that the process is completely opaque and unchecked.