We are at war with Al Qaeda. Congress authorized it. Targeting the enemy's generals is legitimate.

[backscatter712]

Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on September 18, 2001, right after the attacks. Republicans and Democrats voted for the resolution (there was only one no vote, in the House.) Even the rest of the world joined with us in outrage against the attacks on 9/11 and were lining up to help us attack Al Qaeda. It was a tidal wave of good will that George W. Bush squandered in Iraq. Nevertheless, the AUMF remains in effect.

For constitutional purposes, this is equivalent to a declaration of war. Our President and our military has Congressional authority to pursue Al Qaeda and destroy them.

In war, one of the oldest tactics is to attack the enemy's generals or other leaders, which is exactly what happened when our Navy SEALs took out Osama bin Laden.

So for those arguing about whether this was justice or an assassination, I'll tell you what this really was - an act of war. A legitimate act of war. Nothing illegal about it.

[Hannah Bell]

1. show me the declaration of war. i don't remember there being one.

[backscatter712]

2. Here...

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[Hannah Bell]

9. not a declaration of war. us hasn't declared war on anyone since 1942.

i also note that says nothing about "al-qaeda".

just "terrorists".

and "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."

"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.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists


authorization to kill anyone the president tells us to forever

[SDuderstadt]

10. Remember that U.S. Attorney I...

referenced?

Take it up with him or her. This "justice for bin Laden" crusade is becoming really tiring.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Wrong...

as usual.

[meow mix]

7. eyeroll.

it was here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY&feature=related

[Hannah Bell]

12. there's been no declaration of war. sorry you don't get it, but nothing new there.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Stop everything!

Hannah does not approve nor agree!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meow mix]

19. whatever, i just showed you one. luckily the adults are in charge..

instead of children with fantastic imaginations.

[Bonobo]

20. Yes, by all means let the adults decide who should be killed by hit squads

without any recourse to the rule of law.

I hope it works out very well for you and that you and yours aren't injured when its time to pay the piper.

[meow mix]

21. by "who" your referring to bin laden and his helpers..

then good plan.
i dont see any other mass-murderers blowing up citys lately

[Hannah Bell]

25. the us is blowing up plenty of cities.

[Hannah Bell]

23. that's not a declaration of war.

[meow mix]

26. fishes thank you for the free dinner, regardless of what you want to call it

:patriot:

[Hannah Bell]

29. you mean they thank obama & the us military/government, i think.

[gratuitous]

13. Oh golly

Come on, "everybody" says we're at war, so at war we must be. All you "constitutional" types insisting on observing the legalities just make things so messy, and harsh everyone's mellow. Just get over this obsession you have with governments following their own written rules and feel good about the execution, can't you?

[Ignis]

38. +1

The Constitution appears to be continuing its 8+ year run as "just a goddamn piece of paper."

[knowbody0]

3. the rules of engagement!

where the enemy is an unlawful combatant because??? oh, yeah, they do not wear a uniform.

[wtmusic]

5. In Sharia law, the WTC attacks were legal too.

The point of having a United Nations and an ICC is to create a body of international law that is independent and (arguably) objective, and the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits targeted assassination.

Enemies of Julian Assange are using similar logical gymnastics to "legally" authorize his assassination.

[Bonobo]

6. Wrong and impossible.

War is something that occurs between two countries.
OBL committed crimes. He was a criminal, not a general.

[ProSense]

8. Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden

Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden

NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.

<...>

That was before 9/11 and the AUFM.

[Romulox]

11. You can't be at war with an individual or stateless entity.

The old conceptual rules simply do not fit.

[Recursion]

16. There was war before the modern nation-state, and there will be war after it

Nothing about war limits it to being between two states.

[Romulox]

22. Right, but the modern Geneva Conventions were ratified in 1949.

In WWII, both the Axis and Allies attacked civilian populations with "perfect legality", for example. In wars conducted "before the modern nation-state", women and children were acceptable primary targets.

So, if we are invoking the "law of the jungle", it's nothing more than might makes right.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. We're well on that road already. You think the modern college educated elite cares about civics?

Any level of atavistic behavior will be used by the state to protect their electronic, privileged bubble.

People are not judging this as an exception. They are judging it as one long line in a string of super-villains that America will inevitably be faced with. Like in the pages of Marvel comix.

We have no time to think about things like "nuance" or "reasoning"!

If you're talking history, don't forget the origin of the term "gentleman": A person whom fellow gentlemen (i.e. college educated first-world citizens) must treat with civility. Non-gentlemen can be treated in whatever fashion suits us best. That is why, if you get a mass murderer among the ranks of Western college grads, like, say, Milosevic, people will demand a trial.

[backscatter712]

28. Nations wage war with non-nations all the time.

Case in point: virtually any civil war is between one faction that is the state, and another non-governmental faction that wants to become the state.

[Odin2005]

42. So we weren't at war with the Barbary Pirates? News to me.

[oneshooter]

14. No difference than the killing of Isoroku Yamamoto

Directly targeted and ordered by FDR.

Operation Vengence

http://www.militaryhistory.org/2009/07/operation-vengeance/


The success of Operation Vengeance heralded the American success which was to meet the continued Americans offensive in the Pacific Theatre of World War Two. The operation also stands out as an effective and controversial moment in American military history. Was Yamamoto killed in a military action or purposefully assassinated, an action which would be in direct conflict from the American policy of not singling out foreign leaders as targets to be eliminated?


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Jokerman]

18. "A legitimate act of war..."

is what ever the war mongers say it is.

[G_j]

30. +1000

just ask the last administration

[Better Believe It]

24. So why didn't Bush request and Congress pass a declaration of war?

[Recursion]

36. They did

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Sorry, no.

You can't go to war with a non-state group. This is something that's well-established in international law. Police action, maybe. Not war.

[backscatter712]

32. See post #28. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Irrelevant to the discussion.

And in any civil war only one side is usually recognised as legitimate. The Geneva and Hague Conventions do not apply. Under international law, a civil war is not a war, it is an insurrection, unless the insurgents are recognised as belligerents or as the legitimate government de jure of the territory that they are claiming. See here and here.

[BOG PERSON]

47. yup

you're right. it's as simple as that.

[poli_ticks]

33. "Legal" doesn't mean it's right.

Congress could declare black to be white. That doesn't mean that it's so.

In fact, there are lots of things that the Congress does that people feel it's total BS. For instance, delegating its power to declare war to the executive branch. Some people would argue that it's not simply a power that can be delegated, that given the fear the founders had of a powerful executive branch exploiting the opportunity to aggrandize and enhance its power during times of war, it's also a duty that the Congress should not be able to shirk.

And in any case, the disagreement is precisely on how we ought to view organizations like Al-Qaeda. Are they akin to an enemy country or army? Or are they akin to a violent gang or a crime syndicate? The BushCo position was the former. And they were critized for it by Liberals back when they were in charge. So for people to now say military action/war is the appropriate way to deal with them, you should be aware you are accepting the BushCo position as being correct.

[Raffi Ella]

35. a-fucking-men.

GOBAMA.

K&R

[chowder66]

37. Question....If OBL and/or Al Qaeda obtained and used

a nuclear device against the U.S what should have been done? Declare War, which we really can't according to the no-state, no regulated uniform issue or declare authorization to use military force?


Terrorist attacks and even more so large scale international terrorist attacks encompass both criminal acts (attacking and/or killing civilians)and national security acts (attacking u.s. embassies in 1998, national security interests). Attacks on national security is an act of war.



There are several conventions, international laws, UN resolutions and national laws that have to be considered. On top of that this was a new type of attack that had not been clearly defined in previous definitions therefore new reviews, definitions, resolutions and laws were sure to follow.

[moodforaday]

43. And if he had pulled the moon out of orbit

and crashed it into the Earth, give me one, one reason he should be executed on sight and not brought before a court, judged and sentenced on the basis of valid evidence.

If you agree that a president has or should have that kind of power, then you agree that the president is so far above any law that there is no longer any difference between president and a king or a pharaoh.

We know what a war is. This is not a war. Bush having called it a war does not make it so. It is one thing to kill in immediate response to an attack; it's quite another to kill in cold blood when the party who attacked you no longer poses any danger to you. This much should be obvious.

Just as it is obvious that Osama's trial would be a lot of bad PR for us, the supposed good guys, if only they let Osama talk. When they put Saddam on trial, they televised it, but muted the sound. I guess even that was too much hassle.

[chowder66]

46. Whoa....hang on there....

I was asking a general question for anyone to answer if they wanted to. There is no agenda behind that question. Why is that question so offensive? It is just that....a question.

Since you did not even take a stab at it but instead responded with an odd scenario (which is what I assume you think about my question - which is obviously not possible at this point) I will actually engage in response to you instead of "at you".

If OBL pulled the moon out of orbit and it crashed to earth....he would not be able to be tried, there would be no one around to try him or even judge him. There would be no evidence to be reviewed nor a planet to store that evidence on. There would be no president, king or pharoah. All of life would be obliterated. Poof! Unless of course the moon IS made out of cheese. Then it would be a giant fondue party!!!! I personally hope the B-52's play that gig.

You state "If you agree that a president has or should have that kind of power, then you agree that the president is so far above any law that there is no longer any difference between president, king and pharaoh."

I find this rather confusing since nowhere in my post do I mention a single thing about agreeing that "a presiden"t has ANY kind of power..... I don't even know what you are talking about!
Which power are YOU referring to? Which president and what situation? Are you reading between the lines because if you are then you are reading into it something I didn't even discuss.

I really can't decipher what you are a) upset about and b) saying here. I can't respond to anything else because I am wondering if you meant to respond to someone else or if I really just don't get where you are coming from.

[philly_bob]

40. Order apparently was "Kill or Capture" (nt)

[Odin2005]

41. If we could send the Marines to go after North African pirates, we can...

...use the SEALS against terrorist leaders. I really don't get the issue here.

[moodforaday]

44. Incidentally, do you know why there are pirates

at East Africa shores? Because some European countries, including Italy and Switzerland, have been dumping all kinds of toxic waste in these waters for 20 years, including spent radioactive fuel from nuclear power plants. The kind of toxic sh*t that you cannot legally dispose of anywhere in Europe, I guess.

The people who are now pirates used to be fishermen.

And now - as you have mentioned - we are sending the Seals to kill them, the human trash that they are. Another job well done!

[fascisthunter]

45. there's been no Declaration of War

...lets be honest. Let the politicians make up their own arguments for themselves.... they can defend themselves.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. There hasn't been a declaration of war by any state since World War II

With the possible exception of 1967 and the Six Day War. http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/mar/26/con-congressional-declaration-war-unnecessary/

[fascisthunter]

52. amazing

thanks for that.

[poli_ticks]

49. Who do you mean "we", kemo sabe?

The American Government, an institution completely controlled by the American Ruling Class, is at war with... the little people. Us, middle easterners, indigenous peasants in South and Central America, Chinese peasants to whom we export our pollution, etc. etc. etc.

The "war against al-qaeda" is but the latest gimmick, scam that the American Ruling class has come up with to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, who largely have not figured out that their real enemies are... their rulers and overlords.

When they tell you "We're doing this to protect you! To keep you safe!" remember this: These are the same heartless bastards that exported your middle class jobs overseas, threw 10+ million people out of their jobs, additional millions out of their very homes, are perfectly content to let ordinary Americans die for lack of health care, let cops taze people to death for no good reason, imprison millions of people with their BS "War on Drugs", and are now angling to steal your retirement money.

So when they say "we", ask "Who do you mean 'we', kemo sabe?"

[sibelian]

50. You are entirely too logical for this site.

Carry on with this sort of thing and you will receive only the tiniest smattering of responses that address your subject.

[bluedigger]

51. There's all kinds of "law".

To include: codified civil law, criminal law, constitutional law, treaty law, and the one to apply in this case - "customary" international law. Quite simply, we can act to protect ourselves as a nation state, and it is quite legal.

The Statute of the International Court of Justice acknowledges the existence of customary international law in Article 38(1)(b), incorporated into the United Nations Charter by Article 92: "The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply...international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law."
Customary international law "... consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way."<1> It follows that customary international law can be discerned by a "widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice); Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris); Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States." A marker of customary international law is consensus among states exhibited both by widespread conduct and a discernible sense of obligation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law

It's a great catch-all for all the extra legal activities that nation states engage in. It's like playing basketball without a referee - if nobody calls "foul", it didn't happen. :shrug:

I haven't heard much belly aching from the rest of the world about what went down. As far as I'm concerned our armed forces encountered and eliminated an enemy belligerent. That's what I pay them for. :thumbsup: