More good news in the war on terror..

[RobinFinderson]

al-awlaki had blood on his hands. he was not a cheerleader; a large body of evidence linking him to planning (not just inspiring) several terror plots exists.

My understanding is that none of this evidence has been presented in a court. I keep hearing 'linked to...' not 'planned by...' And what would constitute planning? He was definitely encouraging attacks. If someone comes to him seeking spiritual advice on how to wage jihad, and in the course of the conversation the person identified a target, and al-awlaki agrees that it would be a good target, is that 'planning?'

Hopefully links to the evidence will be produced in the coming days.

[SeattleUte]

Which now include killing American civilians without a trial.

Not the same thing as what you suggest.

[NorthwestUteFan]

What line is that? Is it a constitutional line? a statute? A moral line? What line, exactly, do you mean?

It all depends on how you define war and how you define opposing combatants.

What war? I don't recall having an official declaration by Congress, so it would seem to be very difficult to get a Treason charge to stick. This, along with bin Laden, is more 'frontier justice ' than anything else. Perhaps he was guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes or murders, or even having done the deed personally. Even still that should be presented in court, whether open, closed, or military tribunal.

I don't doubt for a second that these guys were bad, and perhaps horrifically so. But to simply push a button and take them out while claiming to have sufficient 'evidence', without actually proving said evidence, is disingenuous at best.

God help us all if we are somehow linked by hidden evidence to some crime. Or if we get caught without 'ze paperz', ja? Land of the Free, my ass.

[taekwondave]

[YOUTUBE]pj9LrH66PQo[/YOUTUBE]

[creekster]

What war? I don't recall having an official declaration by Congress, so it would seem to be very difficult to get a Treason charge to stick. This, along with bin Laden, is more 'frontier justice ' than anything else. Perhaps he was guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes or murders, or even having done the deed personally. Even still that should be presented in court, whether open, closed, or military tribunal.

I don't doubt for a second that these guys were bad, and perhaps horrifically so. But to simply push a button and take them out while claiming to have sufficient 'evidence', without actually proving said evidence, is disingenuous at best.

God help us all if we are somehow linked by hidden evidence to some crime. Or if we get caught without 'ze paperz', ja? Land of the Free, my ass.

Well then, under your defintion, one might argue it was wrong (although even then it may not be dispositive). But if he is seen as a combatant, then there is no problem.

Imagine an american in a machine gun nest with other soldiers of a foreign state known to want to kill americans in a current conflcit and he is manning a gun aiming at you. Would you insist on due process before allwoing the air force to blow the hell out of him? Not a perfect analogy, I agree, but it is possible to easily define this conflict in a way that makes the strike perfectly permissible.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Thank you for the rebuttal my friend. This is a situation entirely without absolutes, and I appreciate your argument. There is a difference between somebody with a finger on a trigger and one who was accused of fomenting acts of terror, but I can understand your point.

I did a bit more research on the matter. This person allegedly convinced Maj. Hassan to shoot up the army base in Texas, and also planned/controlled the underwear bombing, among many other things.

My problem with the whole situation is apparently the AG presented the evidence of links to the above acts to a grand jury, who then failed to return an indictment. You and I both know that a skilled DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, so who knows how solid the evidence truly is? Then the Press Secretary yesterday effectively stated, "He is dead, so what good is there in discussing the evidence?"

They may have done the world a HUGE service by taking out this dude. And it may very well have been impossible to pull off a snatch-and-grab operation. But I would prefer to capture the guy and perhaps figure out how he coordinated all of these attacks from a remote hideout.

It still feels like a cross between frontier justice and a mob hit to me.

[wuapinmon]

2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF)

“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.”

In a year or so, we will have people in the armed forces who were not alive when the September 11th attacks happened.

[Northwestcoug]

2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF)



In a year or so, we will have people in the armed forces who were not alive when the September 11th attacks happened.

It's crazy to think about this. It seems so long ago.

The one not batshit crazy thing about the libertarians is Paul's view of the AUMF. It can't continued to be used as it was in the early years after 9/11. It seems like everyone is content on keeping it in perpetuity.

[Commando]

2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF)



In a year or so, we will have people in the armed forces who were not alive when the September 11th attacks happened.

I guess that means I'm an old-ass.

[Walter Sobchak]

Remember when (then-candidate iirc) Obama promised to repeal the AUMF?