Obama justifies assassination of US Citizens?

[Coito ergo sum]

Your arguments would make sense if we were at war with Yemen. We aren't.

We haven't attacked Yemen. We've attacked our enemies who have declared war on the United States IN Yemen. The justification for that is the same as the justification for killing Germans in North Africa during WWII. It doesn't matter where one's enemies are, when a nation is at war it reserves the right to kill those enemies wherever they may be found. This is particularly true of terrorists, who have no nation.

This is interesting, but if Yemen bombed a building in New York City, claiming that their enemies were there, we would take that as an act of war.

The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.

Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war. If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested. If he is a soldier in a war, then he can be bombed, but not in a country where the US doesn't have authorization from Congress to use force (except, arguably, under the War Powers Act, which Democrats and Left leaning folks almost always say is unconstitutional when exercised by a Republican).

[Seth]

Your arguments would make sense if we were at war with Yemen. We aren't.

We haven't attacked Yemen. We've attacked our enemies who have declared war on the United States IN Yemen. The justification for that is the same as the justification for killing Germans in North Africa during WWII. It doesn't matter where one's enemies are, when a nation is at war it reserves the right to kill those enemies wherever they may be found. This is particularly true of terrorists, who have no nation.

This is interesting, but if Yemen bombed a building in New York City, claiming that their enemies were there, we would take that as an act of war.

Um, we had the permission of the Yemeni government to launch drone strikes:

In interview, Yemeni president acknowledges approving U.S. drone strikes
By Greg Miller,September 29, 2012

Yemen’s leader said Saturday that he personally approves every U.S. drone strike in his country and described the remotely piloted aircraft as a technical marvel that has helped reverse al-Qaeda’s gains.

President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi also provided new details about the monitoring of counterterrorism missions from a joint operations center in Yemen that he said is staffed by military and intelligence personnel from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Hadi’s comments mark the first time he has publicly acknowledged his direct role in a campaign of strikes by U.S. drones and conventional aircraft targeting an al-Qaeda franchise that is seen as the most potent terrorist threat to the United States.

“Every operation, before taking place, they take permission from the president,” Hadi said in an interview with reporters and editors from The Washington Post in his hotel suite in the District. Praising the accuracy of the remotely operated aircraft, he added, “The drone technologically is more advanced than the human brain.”

The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.

And the Yemeni government invited us.

Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war.

There was no doubt whatsoever about his participation in terrorist activities. He himself openly advertised his participation, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" place to attack an enemy in a war. There may places where doing so will have political and diplomatic repercussions, but we can legally kill our enemies anywhere in the world we find them if we choose to do so.

If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested.

Says who?

If he is a soldier in a war, then he can be bombed, but not in a country where the US doesn't have authorization from Congress to use force (except, arguably, under the War Powers Act, which Democrats and Left leaning folks almost always say is unconstitutional when exercised by a Republican).

Actually, the President, under his war powers, can prosecute attacks anywhere in the world he finds it necessary to do so, either overtly or covertly. All Congress can do is "defund" military adventures. This is because the President, as chief executive of the nation, is the Commander in Chief of our military, and has plenary control over how it is deployed outside the United States.

You're right about the liberal hypocrisy however.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your arguments would make sense if we were at war with Yemen. We aren't.

We haven't attacked Yemen. We've attacked our enemies who have declared war on the United States IN Yemen. The justification for that is the same as the justification for killing Germans in North Africa during WWII. It doesn't matter where one's enemies are, when a nation is at war it reserves the right to kill those enemies wherever they may be found. This is particularly true of terrorists, who have no nation.

This is interesting, but if Yemen bombed a building in New York City, claiming that their enemies were there, we would take that as an act of war.

Um, we had the permission of the Yemeni government to launch drone strikes:

In interview, Yemeni president acknowledges approving U.S. drone strikes
By Greg Miller,September 29, 2012

Yemen’s leader said Saturday that he personally approves every U.S. drone strike in his country and described the remotely piloted aircraft as a technical marvel that has helped reverse al-Qaeda’s gains.

President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi also provided new details about the monitoring of counterterrorism missions from a joint operations center in Yemen that he said is staffed by military and intelligence personnel from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Hadi’s comments mark the first time he has publicly acknowledged his direct role in a campaign of strikes by U.S. drones and conventional aircraft targeting an al-Qaeda franchise that is seen as the most potent terrorist threat to the United States.

“Every operation, before taking place, they take permission from the president,” Hadi said in an interview with reporters and editors from The Washington Post in his hotel suite in the District. Praising the accuracy of the remotely operated aircraft, he added, “The drone technologically is more advanced than the human brain.”

Yes, but we had no Congressional approval for military action in Yemen. The President can't just bomb places because the government there says it's o.k. And, I'm not sure, but I don't think there was War Powers Act notice given in these drone situations. If the WPA is unconstitutional, though, I think that Congressional approval would be required, even if Yemen invites us to bomb things there.

The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.

And the Yemeni government invited us.

That is only half the analysis, and some of the countries out there being bombed did not "invite" us.

Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war.

There was no doubt whatsoever about his participation in terrorist activities. He himself openly advertised his participation, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" place to attack an enemy in a war.

Of course there is. You can't just bomb neutral countries just because some enemy went there. That's why people were so pissed at Laos and Cambodia in Vietnam.

There may places where doing so will have political and diplomatic repercussions, but we can legally kill our enemies anywhere in the world we find them if we choose to do so.

That is not the current state of international law, or US law.

If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested.

Says who?

Federal law and the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War, among other things.

If he is a soldier in a war, then he can be bombed, but not in a country where the US doesn't have authorization from Congress to use force (except, arguably, under the War Powers Act, which Democrats and Left leaning folks almost always say is unconstitutional when exercised by a Republican).

Actually, the President, under his war powers, can prosecute attacks anywhere in the world he finds it necessary to do so, either overtly or covertly. All Congress can do is "defund" military adventures. This is because the President, as chief executive of the nation, is the Commander in Chief of our military, and has plenary control over how it is deployed outside the United States.

You're right about the liberal hypocrisy however.

That isn't correct. There are no "war powers" for the President set forth in the Constitution. He does not have "plenary" control over how the military is deployed.

[Seth]

Your arguments would make sense if we were at war with Yemen. We aren't.

We haven't attacked Yemen. We've attacked our enemies who have declared war on the United States IN Yemen. The justification for that is the same as the justification for killing Germans in North Africa during WWII. It doesn't matter where one's enemies are, when a nation is at war it reserves the right to kill those enemies wherever they may be found. This is particularly true of terrorists, who have no nation.

This is interesting, but if Yemen bombed a building in New York City, claiming that their enemies were there, we would take that as an act of war.

Um, we had the permission of the Yemeni government to launch drone strikes:

In interview, Yemeni president acknowledges approving U.S. drone strikes
By Greg Miller,September 29, 2012

Yemen’s leader said Saturday that he personally approves every U.S. drone strike in his country and described the remotely piloted aircraft as a technical marvel that has helped reverse al-Qaeda’s gains.

President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi also provided new details about the monitoring of counterterrorism missions from a joint operations center in Yemen that he said is staffed by military and intelligence personnel from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Hadi’s comments mark the first time he has publicly acknowledged his direct role in a campaign of strikes by U.S. drones and conventional aircraft targeting an al-Qaeda franchise that is seen as the most potent terrorist threat to the United States.

“Every operation, before taking place, they take permission from the president,” Hadi said in an interview with reporters and editors from The Washington Post in his hotel suite in the District. Praising the accuracy of the remotely operated aircraft, he added, “The drone technologically is more advanced than the human brain.”

Yes, but we had no Congressional approval for military action in Yemen. The President can't just bomb places because the government there says it's o.k.

Actually he can. Federal law permits the President to send troops into battle for up to 60 days, although he must inform Congress within 48 hours.

And, I'm not sure, but I don't think there was War Powers Act notice given in these drone situations. If the WPA is unconstitutional, though, I think that Congressional approval would be required, even if Yemen invites us to bomb things there.

Every President since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was approved over a presidential veto has claimed that the resolution is a violation of the Constitution. It's never come before the courts, even though several presidents have ignored it. The whole matter is somewhat of a constitutional conundrum at the moment.

One might take the position that each drone attack is a separate military action and therefore the President can commit US forces to that attack anew for each strike without ever breaching the 60 day rule or the 48 hour rule. Because an actual strike might only take a few hours, and then the "forces" would be withdrawn from the field, it's arguable that the President notifying Congress "post facto" meets the standard of the War Powers Resolution.

The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.

And the Yemeni government invited us.

That is only half the analysis, and some of the countries out there being bombed did not "invite" us.

Nor need they. Since the Battle of Derna in 1805, the United States has attacked its enemies when and where it chooses to do so, acknowledging no limitations on its right to wage war against our enemies.

Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war.

There was no doubt whatsoever about his participation in terrorist activities. He himself openly advertised his participation, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" place to attack an enemy in a war.

Of course there is. You can't just bomb neutral countries just because some enemy went there.

Yes, we can.

That's why people were so pissed at Laos and Cambodia in Vietnam.

And yet we bombed both Laos and Cambodia anyway. That "people were so pissed" is irrelevant to whether the President had the authority under the Constitution to do so. He did. There is no question about that. Whether it was politically wise to do so is another matter entirely. A country which harbors our enemies and gives them a base of operation to launch attacks against the United States is not "neutral," and therefore it's wishes and desires can be ignored. If a nation wants to remain neutral, then it must prevent both sides from using its soil as a haven or refuge or a base of operations, as in the case of Argentina prior to June 25, 1945, otherwise it becomes a legitimate military target.

There may places where doing so will have political and diplomatic repercussions, but we can legally kill our enemies anywhere in the world we find them if we choose to do so.

That is not the current state of international law, or US law.

Sure it is.

If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested.

Says who?

Federal law and the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War, among other things.

If he's not a soldier in war, then we have no need of a drone strike.

If he is a soldier in a war, then he can be bombed, but not in a country where the US doesn't have authorization from Congress to use force (except, arguably, under the War Powers Act, which Democrats and Left leaning folks almost always say is unconstitutional when exercised by a Republican).

Actually, the President, under his war powers, can prosecute attacks anywhere in the world he finds it necessary to do so, either overtly or covertly. All Congress can do is "defund" military adventures. This is because the President, as chief executive of the nation, is the Commander in Chief of our military, and has plenary control over how it is deployed outside the United States.

You're right about the liberal hypocrisy however.

That isn't correct. There are no "war powers" for the President set forth in the Constitution. He does not have "plenary" control over how the military is deployed.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, and therefore by common understanding he is authorized to order our troops into battle at his discretion for up to 60 days if he deems it necessary to respond to an attack or imminent threat of an attack on the United States. This is what the War Powers Resolution says. The War Powers Resolution is a Congressional act taken under the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution, which means it's federal law authorized by the Constitution. Like most laws of the United States, they are not enunciated in the Constitution, but Congress is given the power to make such laws under the authority OF the Constitution, and such laws are presumptively constitutional and lawful until overturned by the courts.

Al Quaeda's declaration of war on the United States and their repeated attacks both on US soil and elsewhere against Americans and United States property certainly pose an imminent threat. "Plenary" is, I agree, too strong a term. Still, he is the Commander in Chief and has authorized the drone strikes pursuant to a valid Congressional Resolution giving him the authority to do so.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually he can. Federal law permits the President to send troops into battle for up to 60 days, although he must inform Congress within 48 hours.

That is the war powers act (applies not just to troops, but also to any military action) and proper notice must be given, which is not done in the case of drones. Also, this is the federal law which many folks, particularly those on the "Left" say is unconstitutional. They have a good argument, but they only apply it when Republicans are in office. Note -- Bush did have Congressional authority for Afghanistan and Iraq.

And, I'm not sure, but I don't think there was War Powers Act notice given in these drone situations. If the WPA is unconstitutional, though, I think that Congressional approval would be required, even if Yemen invites us to bomb things there.

Every President since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was approved over a presidential veto has claimed that the resolution is a violation of the Constitution. It's never come before the courts, even though several presidents have ignored it. The whole matter is somewhat of a constitutional conundrum at the moment.

Well, there is no War Power issued to the President in the Constitution. Both sides have arguments about its Constitutionality, and the Presidents have argued it's unconstitutional because of its limitations on his power, but most objections are that it GRANTS power to the President which is Congress' power Constitutionally.

One might take the position that each drone attack is a separate military action and therefore the President can commit US forces to that attack anew for each strike without ever breaching the 60 day rule or the 48 hour rule. Because an actual strike might only take a few hours, and then the "forces" would be withdrawn from the field, it's arguable that the President notifying Congress "post facto" meets the standard of the War Powers Resolution.

A law which allows the President carte blanche to bomb anyplace in the world at any time. Don't find that anywhere in the Constitution, actually.

The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.

And the Yemeni government invited us.

That is only half the analysis, and some of the countries out there being bombed did not "invite" us.

Nor need they. Since the Battle of Derna in 1805, the United States has attacked its enemies when and where it chooses to do so, acknowledging no limitations on its right to wage war against our enemies. [/quote]

That's false. The US has definitely acknowledged limitations under international law on its right to wage war against its enemies, not the least of which is the United Nations Charter, which outlaws "aggressive" war. So, you're wrong on that.

Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war.

There was no doubt whatsoever about his participation in terrorist activities. He himself openly advertised his participation, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" place to attack an enemy in a war.

Of course there is. You can't just bomb neutral countries just because some enemy went there.

Yes, we can. [/quote] Physically, yes. But, not legally.

That's why people were so pissed at Laos and Cambodia in Vietnam.

And yet we bombed both Laos and Cambodia anyway.

Because someone does a thing doesn't make it legal.

That "people were so pissed" is irrelevant to whether the President had the authority under the Constitution to do so. He did.

Didn't. Where do you find that authority? What provision of the Constitution?

There is no question about that. Whether it was politically wise to do so is another matter entirely. A country which harbors our enemies and gives them a base of operation to launch attacks against the United States is not "neutral," and therefore it's wishes and desires can be ignored. If a nation wants to remain neutral, then it must prevent both sides from using its soil as a haven or refuge or a base of operations, as in the case of Argentina prior to June 25, 1945, otherwise it becomes a legitimate military target.

There may places where doing so will have political and diplomatic repercussions, but we can legally kill our enemies anywhere in the world we find them if we choose to do so.

That is not the current state of international law, or US law.

Sure it is.

Cite your law. Your argument amounts to only that we do it and can physically accomplish it and nobody can stop us. That doesn't make it legal.

If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested.

Says who?

Federal law and the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War, among other things.

If he's not a soldier in war, then we have no need of a drone strike. [/quote]

Right. Not all drone strikes are needful or legal.

[Gerald McGrew]

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terr ... 3.enr.html

[T]he 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.

[Coito ergo sum]

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terr ... 3.enr.html

[T]he 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.

Yes, I know that is what it says. We've been aware of it for 12 years. From 2001 through 2008, however, it was not good enough for those opposing Bush's actions.

That is the much-maligned "Bush doctrine" of the war on terrorism (one of the Bush Doctrines, anyway) which is that if you harbor terrorists, or aid the terrorists in any way, they you'll be treated like the terrorists. That's the "with us or agin' us" policy.

[Gerald McGrew]

So your only angle on this issue is to bitch about those who opposed Bush's actions, but give Obama a pass. Hasn't that been covered already? I mean....10 pages + and the verdict is a lot of people are partisan hypocrites on political issues? Well I'm just shocked!!!

[Coito ergo sum]

So your only angle on this issue is to bitch about those who opposed Bush's actions, but give Obama a pass. Hasn't that been covered already? I mean....10 pages + and the verdict is a lot of people are partisan hypocrites on political issues? Well I'm just shocked!!!

No. The real angle is that the broad grant of force to go anywhere and everywhere - authorizing a global war -- is not a lawful authorization of force and is improper, and was improper. However, that does effect the Afghan and Iraq Actions because those two wars had specific authorizations for the use of force.

The question is just as applicable to Bush drone strikes as Obama drone strikes. However, Obama has utilized drone strikes to a degree Bush never did. E.g. - Bush had like 52 drone strikes in Pakistan, and Obama had like 312 drone strikes in Pakistan.

[Gerald McGrew]

The real angle is that the broad grant of force to go anywhere and everywhere - authorizing a global war -- is not a lawful authorization of force and is improper, and was improper.

Well, it's been authorized. The question is whether or not that authorization is constitutional.

The question is just as applicable to Bush drone strikes as Obama drone strikes. However, Obama has utilized drone strikes to a degree Bush never did. E.g. - Bush had like 52 drone strikes in Pakistan, and Obama had like 312 drone strikes in Pakistan.

So it's a matter of quantity?

[Seth]

Actually he can. Federal law permits the President to send troops into battle for up to 60 days, although he must inform Congress within 48 hours.

That is the war powers act (applies not just to troops, but also to any military action) and proper notice must be given, which is not done in the case of drones.

"Proper notice" to whom, pray tell? The enemy? Please. I saw nothing about "proper notice" to the target of military action.

And which "war powers act" specifically are you referring to? The First War Powers Act of 1941, the Second War Powers Act of 1942, or the War Powers Resolution of 1973?

Also, this is the federal law which many folks, particularly those on the "Left" say is unconstitutional. They have a good argument, but they only apply it when Republicans are in office. Note -- Bush did have Congressional authority for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yup. But every president since Nixon has also claimed that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

And, I'm not sure, but I don't think there was War Powers Act notice given in these drone situations. If the WPA is unconstitutional, though, I think that Congressional approval would be required, even if Yemen invites us to bomb things there.

Every President since the 1973 War Powers Resolution was approved over a presidential veto has claimed that the resolution is a violation of the Constitution. It's never come before the courts, even though several presidents have ignored it. The whole matter is somewhat of a constitutional conundrum at the moment.

Well, there is no War Power issued to the President in the Constitution.

So what? There was no School Food Power issued to the President in the Constitution either, and yet he still wields it.

Both sides have arguments about its Constitutionality, and the Presidents have argued it's unconstitutional because of its limitations on his power, but most objections are that it GRANTS power to the President which is Congress' power Constitutionally.

So the situation is legally unclear, and given that it has not been litigated to finality by the Supreme Court, the law is PRESUMPTIVELY constitutional.

One might take the position that each drone attack is a separate military action and therefore the President can commit US forces to that attack anew for each strike without ever breaching the 60 day rule or the 48 hour rule. Because an actual strike might only take a few hours, and then the "forces" would be withdrawn from the field, it's arguable that the President notifying Congress "post facto" meets the standard of the War Powers Resolution.

A law which allows the President carte blanche to bomb anyplace in the world at any time. Don't find that anywhere in the Constitution, actually.

Well, that's because it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, it merely needs to be enacted by Congress as federal law, as is the case with virtually all of the tens of thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations.

The North Africa thing doesn't actually support your argument, since during WW2, those countries were French and British colonies. The French and the Brits didn't need permission to go there, and they invited the Americans.

And the Yemeni government invited us.

That is only half the analysis, and some of the countries out there being bombed did not "invite" us.

Nor need they. Since the Battle of Derna in 1805, the United States has attacked its enemies when and where it chooses to do so, acknowledging no limitations on its right to wage war against our enemies. [/quote]

That's false. The US has definitely acknowledged limitations under international law on its right to wage war against its enemies, not the least of which is the United Nations Charter, which outlaws "aggressive" war. So, you're wrong on that.

The United States is free to ignore any and all limitations it has "acknowledged" at any time that it chooses to do so. That's the nature of national sovereignty, the nation is sovereign and is not bound by any other nation or group of nations if it chooses not to be so bound. And we've engaged in war against the "advice" of the United Nations many times.

Fuck the United Nations, it has no power to enforce its "advice" against the United States, so our participation and cooperation is entirely voluntary and may be revoked at any time.

Now, the real question is whether a guy like Awlaki is actually a soldier in a war, and then whether he is in a location that can be legally attacked in a war.

There was no doubt whatsoever about his participation in terrorist activities. He himself openly advertised his participation, and there is no such thing as an "illegal" place to attack an enemy in a war.

Of course there is. You can't just bomb neutral countries just because some enemy went there.

Yes, we can. [/quote]

Physically, yes. But, not legally.

Depends on whose "law" you're talking about. The United States, as a sovereign nation, can do whatever it wants to do in that regard. Period. The only check upon our power is another power capable of defeating us, which hasn't happened in a long time. The winners write the history, and the law.

That's why people were so pissed at Laos and Cambodia in Vietnam.

And yet we bombed both Laos and Cambodia anyway.

Because someone does a thing doesn't make it legal.

Because you don't think it was legal doesn't make it illegal.

That "people were so pissed" is irrelevant to whether the President had the authority under the Constitution to do so. He did.

Didn't. Where do you find that authority? What provision of the Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

There is no question about that. Whether it was politically wise to do so is another matter entirely. A country which harbors our enemies and gives them a base of operation to launch attacks against the United States is not "neutral," and therefore it's wishes and desires can be ignored. If a nation wants to remain neutral, then it must prevent both sides from using its soil as a haven or refuge or a base of operations, as in the case of Argentina prior to June 25, 1945, otherwise it becomes a legitimate military target.

There may places where doing so will have political and diplomatic repercussions, but we can legally kill our enemies anywhere in the world we find them if we choose to do so.

That is not the current state of international law, or US law.

Sure it is.

Cite your law. Your argument amounts to only that we do it and can physically accomplish it and nobody can stop us. That doesn't make it legal.

Sure it does. There is no law which PROHIBITS the President from prosecuting a war anywhere in the world, and as the Commander in Chief he is authorized to do what he believes to be necessary to defend the United States and its interests. As I said, Congress can declare war, but Congress does not HAVE to declare war for the President to have the authority to deploy troops and engage in hostilities. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 says so.

If he is not a soldier in a war, then technically he has to be arrested.

Says who?

Federal law and the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment of Civilians in Time of War, among other things.

If he's not a soldier in war, then we have no need of a drone strike. [/quote]

Right. Not all drone strikes are needful or legal.

Prove it.

[Seth]

So your only angle on this issue is to bitch about those who opposed Bush's actions, but give Obama a pass. Hasn't that been covered already? I mean....10 pages + and the verdict is a lot of people are partisan hypocrites on political issues? Well I'm just shocked!!!

No. The real angle is that the broad grant of force to go anywhere and everywhere - authorizing a global war -- is not a lawful authorization of force and is improper, and was improper.

How so? Congress deliberated and passed the measure, which is within IT'S authority. The authority is limited in duration to 60 days plus 30 days for withdrawal, and the President is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of initiating such force. There's nothing in any law or provision of the Constitution that FORBIDS the President from exercising authority duly granted to him by Congress.

[JimC]

The question is just as applicable to Bush drone strikes as Obama drone strikes. However, Obama has utilized drone strikes to a degree Bush never did. E.g. - Bush had like 52 drone strikes in Pakistan, and Obama had like 312 drone strikes in Pakistan.

The drones available to the US military have rapidly grown in numbers in recent years, as the technology has matured. Bush did not have the availability of drones that Obama did, so your point is not comparing like with like.

However, using them because there's lots available doesn't make it right - that is a separate argument...

[pErvinalia]

Obama-lover!

[Warren Dew]

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terr ... 3.enr.html

[T]he 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.

And Awlaki does not fit that definition. Even if you trust Fox, they've backed down their claim that Awlaki was involved:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _hijackers

In addition, the use of personal assassination as a tactic in war is questionable at best.