Job Discussion Forums

[Captain_Fil]

An American-born al-Qaeda leader, named Anwar al-Aulaqi, was killed in Yemen by a CIA drone...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html

[tttompatz]

[Ajarn Miguk]

Traitors are often executed and this is particularly true in time of war when the the traitor is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

This sometimes happens without the benefit of a trial.

Such is war.

[Opiate]

[Ajarn Miguk]

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech.htm

[tttompatz]

[Ajarn Miguk]

[tttompatz]

So the US has in fact declared war in Yemen or is there some other legal means for such an invasion of their sovereignty?

Other than numbers, how is this act of terrorism by US agents against people in a 3rd country any different than terrorists attacking the pentagon (a known and admitted military target)?

US citizens are now targets without due process of law because of alleged associations with outlawed organizations?

Sorry. Don't buy it.

.

[johnslat]

"On Sept. 15 (2001,) Congress declared "war" on terrorism. Was the declaration a formal war declaration, and what powers does it give the president?

The Use of Force Resolution is not a formal declaration of war. The joint resolution, adopted unanimously in the Senate and 420-1 in the House, authorized President Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" as well as against anyone who "harbored" them.
The wording was substantially changed from the draft version sought by the White House, which would have granted the president authority "to deter and prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States." That second clause, giving Bush open-ended authority to fight any future terrorism, was removed from the final resolution.
The legal effect of the joint resolution is unclear. For one thing, the White House takes the position that it doesn't need congressional permission to protect and defend the United States and that the War Powers Act, which allows Congress to check the president's war-making authority, is not constitutional. History supports his claim. While the United States has waged about 125 military actions, war has only been formally declared five times. This resolution gave the president a victory of appearances, offering him a broad grant of congressional authority, without forcing the issue of whether such a grant was constitutionally necessary.
What's in it for Congress? On its face, the Use of Force Resolution looks like a blank check (although it came with a signed check, in the amount of $40 billion). The resolution does not define "terrorism" or "harbored" or any other key terms. It passed with almost no debate. But while the resolution appears almost absurd in its vagueness, it's most notable for what it is not. It is not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which really was the blank check that arguably allowed President Johnson to unilaterally escalate the war in Vietnam. Thus, while the wide-open wording of the joint resolution appears to give congressional approval to any act of war undertaken by President Bush, it contains several important checks on his powers: by omitting the language sought by the White House, the resolution does not authorize Bush to use force to deter and prevent future acts of terrorism. It also expressly invokes the War Powers Act to subtly remind Bush that--at least on paper--he must answer to them once any military action is undertaken."

and

"CBS News) Anwar al Awlaki's rise from American-born cleric to key terror plotter had put him atop the U.S. terror "hit list." Under the code name Objective Troy, intelligence tracked Awlaki for months near his hideout in Yemen.
Early Friday, a CIA drone found its target.

The Washington Post reports that a secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.

The administration has faced criticism - and a legal challenge - over its targeting of Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve a legal debate over whether a U.S. president can order the killing of American citizens.

With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of one officials, "due process in war."

The killing of a U.S. jihadist

"The administration has tried to make very clear that this was an act of self-defense, that Awlaki was part of not only al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, but he was the external operations chief. He was ongoing in his plotting against American citizens - not only having done so in the past, but continuing to do so in an imminent way," said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.

"So based on the rules of self-defense, based on the principles that we're at war with al Qaeda and the fact that he was a part of the group, self-professed, all of that suggests that it's lawful and appropriate to go after him and to kill him," Zarate said.

When asked if the drone attack against a U.S. citizen - in effect, execution without trial - sets a precedent, Zarate said, "It's a good question - you run the risk of a slippery slope here. I think people are asking very appropriate questions about what the limits of the government's power can be in terms of going after Americans who are part of al Qaeda, and we've seen in the recent past that Americans have formed more and more part of the al Qaeda network - not just Anwar al-Awlaki, but others. There are important questions to ask about what the process is and what the procedures are to determine who is an imminent danger to the United States."

Over the