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 past two years, Awlaki had been connected to three attacks against America. Officials say his emails inspired accused Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal Hasan. Awlaki helped plan the failed Underwear bomb attack, and was part of the plot to bring down cargo planes with explosives inside computer printers.

"Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said President Obama. "In that role he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

But it was Awlaki's command of English, and his understanding of American culture, that made him al Qaeda's most effective recruiter of homegrown radicals inside the U.S.

"This religion is about your willingness to sacrifice for Allah," Awlaki said in one video.

He offered a unique terror "talent," which al Qaeda may be hard-pressed to replace, said CBS News Homeland Security correspondent Bob Orr.

Also killed in the strike was another American. Samir Khan, from North Carolina, was the chief propagandist for Awlaki's terror group, and published the online jihadist newsletter Inspire; and the top al Qaeda bombmaker in Yemen, the Saudi Ibrahim al-Asiri."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/01/earlyshow/saturday/main20114273.shtml

Regards,
John

[tttompatz]

So now, not only is murder of US citizens without due process of law condoned, the reasons for their assassination were because of what they said (and you thought free speech was constitutionally protected).

"killed in the strike was another American. Samir Khan, from North Carolina, was the chief propagandist for Awlaki's terror group, and published the online jihadist newsletter Inspire..." Hardly justification for being assassinated. How about we make the editor in chief of the Washington Post the next on the list. I don't like what they say either. It is the same justification.

As to the declared war, the US is simply using it as a means to illegally chase wanted criminals in other SOVEREIGN countries and it does NOT have any justification in international law and does have international repercussions that will come back to bite them in the ass.

Down the slippery slope they go. Where they stop, nobody knows.

.

[johnslat]

Dear tttompatz,

As you doubtless realize, "international law" is about as effective as the United Nations. The World Court has no enforcement powers.

I certainly understand what you man by a "slippery slope," but using the term "slippery slope" can be - well - a slippery slope:

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done�an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

Often proponents of a "slippery slope" contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The "camel's nose" provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse.

As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon a great many trees would fall, but this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall (and thus a 9.75% chance of 1 or fewer additional trees falling), and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. The expected value of trees that will fall is 20. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability.

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.

Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.

The "slippery slope" approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring in sequence is less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone."

Nations - especially powerful ones - will do whatever they want, whatever they think is in their self-interest.

And that's the way it is.

Regards,
John

[dean_a_jones]

The US has also declared a war on poverty, so better bulk up those savings or you might be next...

[tttompatz]

So how would the US react if some country like Iran (Yemen or Pakistan) sent hit squads after former Pres. Bush or Obama on the same grounds?

Do you think the US would allow it or would they be on the receiving end of a vast military retaliation for their effort?

But in fact it is no different other than the fact that the US is able, by means of bankrupting the nation, to be the bully on the block at the moment. They have no moral justification for not using the rules in place to apprehend domestic criminals (in this case a US citizen wanted for crimes in and against the US) when they flee abroad that they themselves have argued to be put in place.

The US government are nothing more than terrorists of the worst sort. It is time to petition the Hague for indictments against the US presidents (current and previous) for crimes against humanity.

The US has lost the moral high ground. They no longer are a country where the rule of law reigns. They are, when you step back and look at it, not much different than your favorite banana republic using their goons and hit squads as a means to enforce policy.

.

[Mr. Kalgukshi]

Much too hot.

Thread will resume at a time not yet decided.

In the interim, you may want to consider posting on the following Current Events thread that has actually provoked smiles and laughter here and also on the Korean board:

http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=92057