Secret panel can put Americans on kill list

[BasketCase]

Questions: should President Obama be impeached for the extrajudicial execution of an American citizen?

No. In fact, the U.S. covert ops apparatus is probably a lot more accurate at getting to the facts than a public trial controlled by twelve idiots in a jury box.

 

[Colonel]

I'm assuming you meant Article I: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Letter+of+marque+and+reprisal

One could say that, but they would, in my opinion, be wrong, especially if you take Justice Scalia's stated approach to the Consitution (publically understood meaning of a word or phrase at the time of the Framing).


Representatives of his estate would likely have standing as would perhaps his spouse and/or parents and children. But that would be merely for wrongful death damages and would be an uphill climb on the merits. Impeachment and conviction via Congress or an election loss are the remedies available to everyone else.

I think Mobboss has said this a couple times but it is worth repeating since it seems to be ignored. Congress authorized military action against Al Qaeda in 2001 after the attacks. Regardless of his citizenship status he is a member of an enemy force which is authorized for kill or capture.

 

[Seon]

Just because the Congress authorized it doesn't mean discussions on whether or not it is right or wrong, a matter separate from legality, should discontinue.

Legally those who ordered Bomber attacks are clear. Are they clear morally? Maybe not.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think Mobboss has said this a couple times but it is worth repeating since it seems to be ignored. Congress authorized military action against Al Qaeda in 2001 after the attacks. Regardless of his citizenship status he is a member of an enemy force which is authorized for kill or capture.

Where in the Constitutioin does Congress get to "authorize military force" short of declaring war?

 

[BasketCase]

The War Powers Act allows the President to kick ass without involving Congress at all. And it takes considerably less than sixty days to prep a Predator drone for a missile strike.

 

[JollyRoger]

The War Powers Act allows the President to kick ass without involving Congress at all. And it takes considerably less than sixty days to prep a Predator drone for a missile strike.

Where in the Constitution is the War Powers Act authorized?

Also, it did take more than 60 days to drone this guy from when he made the list.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Where in the Constitution is the War Powers Act authorized?

Also, it did take more than 60 days to drone this guy from when he made the list.

I thought that passed in the 70s (despite a Nixon veto)? As a sort of check to keep the president from taking power congressional power?

 

[JollyRoger]

I thought that passed in the 70s (despite a Nixon veto)? As a sort of check to keep the president from taking power congressional power?

What power was it keeping safe for COngress?

 

[MobBoss]

Where in the Constitution is the War Powers Act authorized?

Come on Jolly....are you now going to argue that the Constitution prevents congress from making law?

Asking a bunch of non-attorneys that arent constitutional experts pendantic questions they may find hard to answer isnt helping the discussion.

Isnt it up to SCOTUS to determine if said act is constitutional or not?

Has anyone run it up to SCOTUS to challenge it?

The guy was a leader in group our government has declared as military targets. If someone has a problem with this constitutionally, let them challenge it via SCOTUS.

 

[JollyRoger]

Come on Jolly....are you now going to argue that the Constitution prevents congress from making law?

Sometimes it does. Many of those here cheering the government power are hoping a certain health care law gets struck down as unconstitutional.

I am just asking a group that generally like to argues that the Feds don't have power unless the Constitutional text explicitly says so to show me the text. I have given the 5th Amendment as a restriction on power (No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law). Show me the text that overrides the 5th.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Congress makes unconstitutional laws all the time, especially with Republican majorities. And no telling how many times GWB and friends broke US and international law given the number of cases where we know they did just that. And the currently far-right stacked Supremes are now supposed to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights? What are the odds of that occurring given their recent cases?

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Sometimes it does. Many of those here cheering the government power are hoping a certain health care law gets struck down as unconstitutional.

I do notice a large amount of praising upholding the constitution only when it's something they like, but ignoring constitutional infractions for things they don't. Wishy Washy maybe?

 

[MobBoss]

Sometimes it does. Many of those here cheering the government power are hoping a certain health care law gets struck down as unconstitutional.

So...has the War Powers act been struck down as unconstitutional?

No?

Lets move along then.

 

[JollyRoger]

So...has the War Powers act been struck down as unconstitutional?

It enjoys the same standing as Obamacare - not yet tested before the Supreme Court, but divided opinion among respected legal scholars on its Constitutionality. Nevertheless, the War Power Act was never given as a justification of depriving this American of his 5th Amendment rights. I'm sure you agree with me that this killing isn't related to the War Powers Act.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure this killing wont be challenged in any meaningful way. Oh, I'm sure some politicians will use it to make some points in a few polls; but in the long run, the guy was still a leader in Al Qaeda and was killed legitimately in the conflict with that terrorist organization. No amout of bellyaching by Ron Paul or whomever is going to change that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Apparently, it doesn't take much to be a "leader" with the al-Qaeda anymore if they are now assassinating their cheerleaders. He was probably in charge of an entire pep squad though.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm sure this killing wont be challenged in any meaningful way.

I agee with that.

 

[bombshoo]

I might be wrong about this, but when invoking the War Powers Act, isn't the President still required to issue a report to Congress on his actions beforehand?

 

[squadbroken]

That is a fair point which I do not have a ready answer for except that we have SWAT team stationed everywhere who are trained just for the purpose of dealing with such people.

Imperfect logic, I admit.
...
Repulsive to you, but seen as necessary by others. China restricts people to remain in certain areas and force them to carry passes, kind of like the apartheid in South Africa. Yet if those practices were gone, then quite a lot of people in Chinese farmlands would want to come to the cities, which are already quite overcrowded. Its infrastructure would not be able to sustain such a large population.

It's an authoritarian action which is repulsive, but if it wasn't there, China could collapse, which would make a lot of life like hell.

So who's right here?
...
If it were only that easy.
...
I don't want to convince you. Government needs people like you if there's to be any hope of change whatsoever. Shout loudly enough and the powers that be have to listen to you at some point.

If you force me to take a side on this issue, I will say that downtown may be on to something with using a public panels, although that comes with a wholly new set of cons and does not remove the underlying problem: blowing people up with hellfire drones.

I understand where you are coming from. I've had to argue this position to a number of otherwise reasonable and intelligent people in real life. But what this comes down to is doing what is right versus what is safe or convenient.
China oppressing its people is not right even if they think they are doing it for their own good.
The US killing suspected criminals with drone strikes is not right just because it might be difficult or costly to apprehend them.
And so on.

There's all sorts of quotes I could farm for effect but I think I'll just use a verse from the Bible:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

I'm not a Christian, but I think it's pretty appropriate.

 

[BasketCase]

Also, it did take more than 60 days to drone this guy from when he made the list.

It took a lot less than sixty days from the moment the drone was launched.

I might be wrong about this, but when invoking the War Powers Act, isn't the President still required to issue a report to Congress on his actions beforehand?

I think so. But that's a bad idea. Congress is almost as bad as Pakistan at keeping secrets (which is to say, really, REALLY bad.....)