Posted on 02/15/2013 8:05:06 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
The nation’s vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama’s drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked. They must be separated to be clearly understood.
1. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of enemies abroad? What criteria justify assassination?
Answer: (a) imminent threat, under the doctrine of self-defense, and (b) affiliation with al-Qaeda, under the laws of war.
(snip)
2. But al-Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?
Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process.
(snip)
3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander-in-chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.
This looks troubling: Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding what individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?
Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.
...... (Be sure to read the whole article)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2986326/posts
This is further argument from Dr. Krauthammer on Obama's kill list. In previous 2986326 post, some of the questions had been address, you can go back and check if interested.
doglesby@comcast.net•13 hours ago−
"Excellent analysis. There are only three possible excuses why Obama/DoJ hasn't justified its actions using this analysis: (1) it legitimizes Bush's actions, including Gitmo; (2) it underscores how inconsistent Obama's pursuit of the war against jihadists has been (sometimes they view the fight as law enforcement, e.g., Major Nidal/Fort Hood, or take no action at all, e.g., Benghazi); or (3) DoJ analysts are stupid."
And others' response to doglesby by Michael Berry •5 hours ago−
"Good comment. If we are at war, duly approved by the Congress, then Mr. Krauthammer is correct. If we are engaged in a law enforcement action then Mr. Obama is wrong. And it is Mr. Obama that wants to make this a law enforcement action and for the reasons you articulate. Good comment."
Who are the terrorists? Anyone who does engage or plans to engage in acts of war against our people, our government, our institutions, our laws, our traditions or our way of life.
Kraut hammer has, er, jumped the shark on this one.
Other areas of the world such as Europe and mainland America no drone strikes as long as the courts remain open.
We've been in perma-war my whole life.
There needs to be a very sharp dividing line established in the future, between fighting an enemy overseas, and police actions in the US.
That is, only a small part of the Patriot Act has ever been used against foreign enemies in other nations. The vast majority has been used almost exclusively to erode and undermine the civil rights of Americans in America.
This must stop. While we can all support attacking and monitoring enemies in other nations, this does *not* means that we need to be controlled and policed in this way ourselves, in our nation.
The best argument that exists for doing this is still a farcical one: that unless we live in a police state, enemy agents who have infiltrated the US will be able to use our freedoms and liberties against us.
This is both paranoid and wasteful. Just because we put criminals in prisons doesn’t mean we all have to be imprisoned, “for our safety from criminals”.
Even if one is only ‘suspected’ of such actions? How about the specific elimination of 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi? The US now advocates assassination of US minors for ‘suspicion’? We are becoming those we fight.
Since when are we at war in Pakistan or Yemen? People really want to blow things up, don’t they? Any sliver of a rationalization will do.
bookmark
“under the laws of war”
What war? Did Congress ever declare war on Al Queda? And does that mean we can kill any Al Queda agent or anyone affiliated with Al Queda anywhere in the world for any reason? And what does “take up arms” mean? Not literal arms, presumably.
The president will decide when arms have been taken up, who is a terrorist, and when he can order their death. Because apparently to Krauthammer he is a dictator. I certainly got the feeling from most neocons that’s what they wanted Bush the Younger to be. I bet Krauthammer worships Lincoln.
See, they want to make this like some kid whose parents immigrated from Germany, and even though he was born a US citizen he answers the Fatherland’s call and our boys are face to face with him on Omaha beach. But it’s not like that.
By the way, since when are assassinations legal? I thought there were laws against it.
I know it sounds wrong, but I think the honest answer is that you have accurately described what now exists.
I remember when Ed Meese, Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, was asked about the need for innocent suspects to have access to an attorney during questioning. "That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
So, if a person isn't a dangerous terrorist, the president won't kill him. And, if the president kills someone, that someone obviously wasn't innocent.
This wouldn’t happen were Congress and the courts not simpering, cowardly enablers. I remember a judge not long ago admitting they had to take the administration’s word for something because piercing the National Security State veil, which has been drawn over the executive branch since Truman, is too much of a bother.
Even if that is a law, Al Queda foreign but it certainly isn’t a foreign government. It’s not even a military, persay. You don’t have to join it, but merely be somehow affiliated with it. And I don’t think it’s limited to Al Queda, but any terrorist group plotting against the US. Or suspected to be plotting. Or maybe not even a group, but one guy suspected of maybe not plotting, but badmouthing the US government.
I’m not being glib. We really have no idea what the standard is. As Krauthamner says, it’s up to the War Chief, err, president.
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander-in-chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.
Statist BS. Congress, who are the direct Representatives of the People, has ultimate authority, even in war. They can stop the funding of the military or make it illegal for the President to bomb certain people. They can Impeach him for not following the law.
“Who are the terrorists? Anyone who does engage or plans to engage in acts of war against our people, our government, our institutions, our laws, our traditions or our way of life.”
And who decides who the terrorists are? Obama.
And how does he define terrorists?
Returning veterans, pro-lifers and opponents of abortion, as well as other Americans he has, in the past, referred to as “enemies.”
Welcome to Changed America.
As President Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
I don't know why so many people don't understand these simple principles.
Haha, love your sarcasm. ;-)
I’m always amused at Krauthammer being hailed as some sort of ‘conservative’ seeing that he was a Mondale speechwriter trying to defeat Ronald Reagan.
If he ever expressed regret over that I never saw it. He’s just one more liberal opportunist posing as a conservative, of which we have far too many in the ‘conservative’ media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.