4 ms·

The legal justification is that we are at war and these people have been deemed combatants in that war. If these people are not terrorists, what would the US h

The legal justification is that we are at war and these people have been deemed combatants in that war. If these people are not terrorists, what would the US have to gain by killing them? I am all for oversight and checks and balances. We need to be sure that we are killing actual threats. But I also understand that, as a practical consideration, it might be counterproductive to make the oversight public. We don't have the luxury of doing full investigations and putting people on trial. It sounds nice, but it is impossible. For the record: I think it is unfair that you charge me with "Using strong language" and in the same breath deride my position as merely parroting PR "Turrist" propaganda. Cheap shot.

insuffi 12y ago
Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen. The US declared an open-ended war against those people and organizations that the President determines were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and al-Qaeda is one of those organizations. While one might argue (as many have) that the an open-ended declaration of war was a bad idea, or (as others have) that "al-Qaeda", given its nature, is more of an ideological alignment than an actual organization, the power to declare war has never been Constitutionally limited to declarations with nation-states as the target of the war declared.
  - insuffi 12y ago
    Alright, I stand corrected. However, I must point out one important characteristic of these pseudo-wars the U.S. keeps having - it's always on foreign soil.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Not at all. You forgot the "War" on Some Drugs.
  - bradleyjg 12y ago
    > The US declared an open-ended war No it did not. There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things. No, they aren't different Constitutionally at all. The AUMF is an exercise of the Constitutional power to declare war, which does not require any particular language to be used in exercising it, just as the Constitutional power to levy a tax depends only on whether the effect is a tax, not whether the Congressional action imposing the liability calls it a tax. (It's possible that statutory provisions passed by Congress under its other powers may be conditioned on the specific language in a declaration, such that there may be different effects of something like the 9/11 or Iraq AUMF and something that explicitly uses language like "declares war", but that's a distinction caused by the exercise of other Congressional powers, not a Constitutional distinction that makes the former something other than an declaration of war from a Constitutional perspective.)
      - bradleyjg 12y ago
        How exactly do you know that the AUMF-2001 invoked Congress' power to declare war rather than Congress' power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."?
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > How exactly do you know that the AUMF-2001 invoked Congress' power to declare war Because its the only Constitutional power of Congress which could support it. > rather than Congress' power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."? The necessary and proper clause isn't an independent alternative to other Constitutional powers, there still has to be a base Constitutional power to which the function is necessary and proper.
CamperBob2 12y ago
The legal justification is that we are at war and these people have been deemed combatants in that war. Who exactly are we at "war" with? On what Constitutional basis was this "war" declared? Under what conditions will hostilities cease? On the enemy's side, who has the authority to sue for peace or sign surrender documents? What laws of war under the UN, Geneva Convention, and/or various treaties apply to this one? You don't get to do anything you want, and kill anyone you want, just by declaring a "war" on an abstract noun.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
If all those jews were not terrorists, what did Germany have to gain by killing them? Not that the question is bad, it's just that it's not rhetorical at all, you might want to try to actually answer it. And while you are at it, you might also want to read up on how most of the things that were done to jews (and some other minorities) in the third reich were also legal, at least according to german law at the time. (edit: and mind you, they also had ways to justify those laws, it's not like they just made the "be evil law", of course it was all about protecting the home country or race or whatever, if you wait for an abuser of power to declare themselves an abuser, you'll generally wait until after all the bad stuff has happened ...)

insuffi 12y ago

Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Please show me where the U.S. has officially declared war on these countries it continues to blow up civilians in e.g. Yemen. The US declared an open-ended war against those people and organizations that the President determines were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and al-Qaeda is one of those organizations. While one might argue (as many have) that the an open-ended declaration of war was a bad idea, or (as others have) that "al-Qaeda", given its nature, is more of an ideological alignment than an actual organization, the power to declare war has never been Constitutionally limited to declarations with nation-states as the target of the war declared.
- insuffi 12y ago
  Alright, I stand corrected. However, I must point out one important characteristic of these pseudo-wars the U.S. keeps having - it's always on foreign soil.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Not at all. You forgot the "War" on Some Drugs.
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  > The US declared an open-ended war No it did not. There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > There was no declaration of war, there was an authorization for the use of military force. Two very different things. No, they aren't different Constitutionally at all. The AUMF is an exercise of the Constitutional power to declare war, which does not require any particular language to be used in exercising it, just as the Constitutional power to levy a tax depends only on whether the effect is a tax, not whether the Congressional action imposing the liability calls it a tax. (It's possible that statutory provisions passed by Congress under its other powers may be conditioned on the specific language in a declaration, such that there may be different effects of something like the 9/11 or Iraq AUMF and something that explicitly uses language like "declares war", but that's a distinction caused by the exercise of other Congressional powers, not a Constitutional distinction that makes the former something other than an declaration of war from a Constitutional perspective.)
    - bradleyjg 12y ago
      How exactly do you know that the AUMF-2001 invoked Congress' power to declare war rather than Congress' power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."?
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > How exactly do you know that the AUMF-2001 invoked Congress' power to declare war Because its the only Constitutional power of Congress which could support it. > rather than Congress' power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."? The necessary and proper clause isn't an independent alternative to other Constitutional powers, there still has to be a base Constitutional power to which the function is necessary and proper.

CamperBob2 12y ago

The legal justification is that we are at war and these people have been deemed combatants in that war. Who exactly are we at "war" with? On what Constitutional basis was this "war" declared? Under what conditions will hostilities cease? On the enemy's side, who has the authority to sue for peace or sign surrender documents? What laws of war under the UN, Geneva Convention, and/or various treaties apply to this one? You don't get to do anything you want, and kill anyone you want, just by declaring a "war" on an abstract noun.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

If all those jews were not terrorists, what did Germany have to gain by killing them? Not that the question is bad, it's just that it's not rhetorical at all, you might want to try to actually answer it. And while you are at it, you might also want to read up on how most of the things that were done to jews (and some other minorities) in the third reich were also legal, at least according to german law at the time. (edit: and mind you, they also had ways to justify those laws, it's not like they just made the "be evil law", of course it was all about protecting the home country or race or whatever, if you wait for an abuser of power to declare themselves an abuser, you'll generally wait until after all the bad stuff has happened ...)