4 ms·

>"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 compari

>"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
I don't understand your argument. If an American citizen wears a Nazi uniform while fighting for the Germans in Holland, it's OK that we kill him. But if an American citizen wears the garb of an al Qaeda terrorist while working for al Qaeda in lawless Shabwa Province, Yemen, the site of an ongoing armed conflict between AQAP and the government of Yemen, it's not OK that we kill him. Why not? What's the difference? In reality, the guy in Shabwa is far, far more dangerous than the random lunatic fighting with the Nazis was in Holland. The lunatic wasn't about to coordinate the bombing of a commercial airliner filled with innocent people. But that's exactly what al-Awlaki was doing. Meanwhile, your Holder quote doesn't rebut my argument. Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda. You made a broader claim, the administration can designate people "terrorists" and kill them. You were incorrect. They cannot do that. You also drastically oversimplify the charges against al-Awlaki. He wasn't designated a leader of al Qaeda because of "shitty Youtube videos", nor was he killed simply because he wrote articles advocating for al Qaeda. Similarly, Osama bin Laden wasn't targeted because he himself bombed an embassy in Tanzania, blew a giant hole in the USS Cole, or stabbed someone on an airplane with a box cutter.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  >"Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda." He actually took great care not to say that. He is carefully not limiting the president to action only against AQ. The phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" is deliberate. He is expressly reserving the power to decide who is "associated" to AQ and in a "leadership" position, and to take lethal action based on those decisions. All of these decisions are completely opaque and unchecked by any power outside of the executive. The 2001 AUMF is a sideshow. Holder doesn't think he needs it. He has opined that congress has no authority over the president in this area anyway, and that includes military action on U.S. soil: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_law/ http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la... I consider this a dangerous concentration of power that the president should reject. This appears to be the crux of our disagreement, yes?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No, it is not.

tptacek 13y ago

I don't understand your argument. If an American citizen wears a Nazi uniform while fighting for the Germans in Holland, it's OK that we kill him. But if an American citizen wears the garb of an al Qaeda terrorist while working for al Qaeda in lawless Shabwa Province, Yemen, the site of an ongoing armed conflict between AQAP and the government of Yemen, it's not OK that we kill him. Why not? What's the difference? In reality, the guy in Shabwa is far, far more dangerous than the random lunatic fighting with the Nazis was in Holland. The lunatic wasn't about to coordinate the bombing of a commercial airliner filled with innocent people. But that's exactly what al-Awlaki was doing. Meanwhile, your Holder quote doesn't rebut my argument. Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda. You made a broader claim, the administration can designate people "terrorists" and kill them. You were incorrect. They cannot do that. You also drastically oversimplify the charges against al-Awlaki. He wasn't designated a leader of al Qaeda because of "shitty Youtube videos", nor was he killed simply because he wrote articles advocating for al Qaeda. Similarly, Osama bin Laden wasn't targeted because he himself bombed an embassy in Tanzania, blew a giant hole in the USS Cole, or stabbed someone on an airplane with a box cutter.

nate_meurer 13y ago
>"Holder is saying the administration can launch strikes against al Qaeda." He actually took great care not to say that. He is carefully not limiting the president to action only against AQ. The phrase "al Qaeda and associated forces" is deliberate. He is expressly reserving the power to decide who is "associated" to AQ and in a "leadership" position, and to take lethal action based on those decisions. All of these decisions are completely opaque and unchecked by any power outside of the executive. The 2001 AUMF is a sideshow. Holder doesn't think he needs it. He has opined that congress has no authority over the president in this area anyway, and that includes military action on U.S. soil: http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_law/ http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/does_eric_holder_know_the_la... I consider this a dangerous concentration of power that the president should reject. This appears to be the crux of our disagreement, yes?
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, it is not.