Discussion: US Justified Drone Killings By Citing Al-Qaeda Law

Discussion for article #224242

First President to directly order the assassination of U.S. citizens and their children with no due process what-so-ever. There’s your legacy you corrupt POS.

1 Like

Keeping this memo secret is proof they knew this was morally and legally wrong.

He was an enemy combatant, end of story.

6 Likes

Damn that POS Lincoln for ordering the killing of all those southern State’s soldiers without due process!

7 Likes

I’m not going to lose sleep over it. Let’s see how many concern trolls come out of the woodwork to argue on behalf of this guy’s constitutional rights, and make some argument based on the slippery slope theory. Gee, I can hardly wait…

Glenn Greenwald is sure to be preparing his next op-ed…as is Rand Paul. The dynamic duo.
Maybe its because I trust this President to keep me safe and not bullshit me like Bush did for 8 fucking years. Eh, I’m glad they got him.

4 Likes

I must be truly dense.
I would think that joining an organization that has killed thousands of Americans and being involved in operations to kill more is a de facto renunciation of your American citizenship.
I have a much bigger problem with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo than I do with this.

8 Likes

Is it just me, or did the headline writer intend to confuse or mislead the reader? What “Al-Qaeda Law” did the DOJ memo cite?

1 Like

How about the constitutional right of his 14 year old son, also assassinated? Or assuming you can actually find any humanity within yourself, how about simple human rights? Is anyone who points out how horrific the things you “don’t lose sleep over” are a concern troll? What a short-sighted right-wing fool you are.

Doesn’t it seem reasonable, if distasteful, to make war on those who have declared war on us? It would be nice and tidy to arrest these guys and try them for treason — what they do fits the definition perfectly — but that might be a little impractical. And as far as the son is concerned: the father must know all too well that there is a target on his back; if he cared for his son like a father should he would not want him anywhere close.
I am not a fan of terror hysteria (even though I walked by the corner with the smoking car on Broadway less than 24 hours earlier) but I don’t doubt that there are really people out there who want to kill Americans en masse and to me it makes more sense to attack them with relatively precise weapons (i.e. drones and missiles) then to storm in with ground troops. Or would you rather do nothing? or are you just enjoying a few moments of self-righteous indignation?

5 Likes

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001:

Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the 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.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
2 Likes

“the public still knows scandalously little about who the government is killing and why.”

The farther away from the Cold War we get, the less I’m sure who (from an ideological standpoint) won.

"The paper asserted that it would be legal to kill a U.S. citizen who had joined al-Qaida if “an informed, high-level official” concluded that the person could not be captured and posed “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

LOL!!!

“Informed High Level Official?”

Who is that Hal Holbrook in The Star Chamber?

They should be embarrassed by this charade. US Courts are not going to get in way of the President’s right to murder, but this paper is going to get laughed out of court…

Have fun dodging an international indictment the rest of your post presidential life, Barry.

It is one of the worst headlines I’ve seen in a long time. It looks like the administration was citing some law promulgated by al-Qaeda.

That the administration is using the AUMF as justification is totally unsurprising. Of course they are. That’s what it’s for.

I’m afraid that I can’t get too excited about al-Awlaki’s death. There were US citizens fighting for Germany and Japan during World War II. Nobody worried if a bomb fell on them. If a US citizen joins an organization at war with the US, they become a combatant just like anyone else.

5 Likes

I believe that strike that hit the son was an error and the US has apologized for it. The son was searching for his father, apparently, so in a place where he was never expected to be.

1 Like

If you are orchestrating an attack on the US, and you are in a lawless land where the host country is unwilling and unable to bring you to justice, then what choice is there?

Should we send process servers into the mountains of Pakistan to lob indictments attached to bricks at the Jihadis, and hope they show up for court?

2 Likes

Couldn’t have said it better.+100

terrorist is a terrorist if your intent is to kill Americans in the name of alqaeda, the taliban or any other terrorist orginazation then you need to have your ass droned.
This sack of shit your defending was not on american soil he had no american constitutional rights.

Bingo.