Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: ACLU objects to killing of al Qaeda leader
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief ... -to-killing-of-al-qaeda-leader
Published: Sep 30, 2011
Author: Erik Wasson
Post Date: 2011-09-30 12:40:46 by Sebastian
Keywords: None
Views: 126221
Comments: 179
The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the killing of the U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by U.S. forces. Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and the ACLU said President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American without due process of law. The White House confirmed the cleric was killed by a U.S. drone attack. “The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said. “As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.” The ACLU said the government only has the authority to kill Americans when a threat is imminent. “It is a mistake to invest the president — any president — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country,” Jaffer said. Ben Wizner, litigation director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, added: “If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state.” Obama’s actions also garnered criticism from GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-46) not displayed.
.
.
.
#47. To: war (#38)
Have you looked at the title recently? Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Or try the first line of the Joint Resolution: "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." You want to cherry pick phrases and forget the rest of the resolution.
The WPA does not impose a requirement to consult with Congress. It imposes a requirement to submit written reports. I don't believe there is a 10-year trail of such reports from GWB and Obama. The WPA at Section 8 provides: SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution. (b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date. (c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities. (d) Nothing in this joint resolution— (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or (2) shall be construed as grantmg any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
I am addressing the specific issue. Does the President have the authority to order the execution of an American citizen with no due process, non-military, not engaged in battle, not accused with taking up arms, neither charged nor convicted of any crime? It was claimed the killing of al-Aulaqi was authorized by U.S. law. I question what law. I continue to question what law contains such an authorization. I have provided complete texts of various laws and resolutions.
Yes you have. Big daddy trump card too.
You have NOT made the case that killing al-alwaki was an act of the executive that is inherently civilian in nature. In point of fact, you have conceded that no such judidical opinion exists. I've cited the resolution whcih clearly authorizes the POTUS to use ALL necessary force - which would incluide an order to "apprehend with lethal force".
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Your authority for this statement is what? He had engaged in hostilities aginst the US by encouraging Jihad. He purposefully and materially supported those hostilities AND he was a member of AQ.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law? How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable: Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States... Emphasis mine... What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
No. That does not describe al-alwaki, though.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Quite different from how you chracterized it. What is "flight" evidence of?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
What I, in fact, stated: Please show the slightest evidence that al-Aulaqi had anything to do with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011." Please show that "appropriate force" permits targeted assassination. While the AUMF related to September 11, 2001 is often cited, that AUMF is directly related to the events of 9/11. Also, the AUMF authorizes the use of military force under specified conditions. The CIA is not military. The non-uniformed CIA operatives would fall under the category of unlawful combatants. U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional. This argument will not be ultimately resolved until Congress directly addresses it, and the judicial branch rules on it. There are problems with the attempt to contort the law to hold as lawful, targeted assassination, absent any due process, based solely on bureaucratic placement on a list. Would it be proper and lawful for Yemen or some other country to declare the Wall Street banksters a terrorist organization, posing a threat to the national security of the world, and initiate attacks upon Wall Street? The courts have not ruled on the argument described, i.e., whether a President can order the execution of an American citizen, not a member of any uniformed service, not engaged in any combat, without charge or trial, in the complete absence of due process; i.e., may the President ignore the Constitution.
Your authority for this statement is what? He had engaged in hostilities aginst the US by encouraging Jihad. He purposefully and materially supported those hostilities AND he was a member of AQ. I cited, quoted, and provided the complete text of the law. Military commissions only pertain to aliens. al-Aulaqi was a natural born U.S. citizen born in New Mexico, eligible to run for President. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, Section 948c: ‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter. Or see Title 10 United States Code 948c (10 U.S.C. 948c) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title10/subtitlea/partii/chapter47a/subchapteri/section948c/ § 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable: Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States... Emphasis mine... What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only? When you must cite an authorization to use military force to justify the use of non-military force, you have a problem. The act did not constrain other than military means because it has nothing to do with non-military authority. It neither provides nor constrains what it has nothing to do with. The CIA is not a uniformed force or part of the U.S. Armed forces. CIA operation are constrained inside the United States. I provided the entire text of the resolution. All you had to do is scroll it. I will remove the burden of scrolling. And Section 2, which I assume is part of the resolution: And Section 2(b): (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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution is about the use of the United States Armed Forces. Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution: SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
No. That does not describe al-alwaki, though. Does too! I would respond to your specific point but you did not make one.
Quite different from how you chracterized it. What is "flight" evidence of? Of course you "forgot" the other part: You might call that sufficient evidence to execute that American citizen with any charge or trial or due process. I dissent. Under this more recent non-process, all of the Gitmo detainees would have been executed. As it is, almost all the supposed worst of the worst were released with ever being charged with anything.
:) Good one. Ever notice war always takes the government position. Never relents on it even when busted. Maybe that is his job. You know to spout off the government line.
I know what "in fact" you stated. I also know, "in fact" that you did not make your case, i.e. killing al-alwaki was an act of the executive that is inherently civilian in nature.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
The 9/11 Commision Report - a report that you yourself have taken to task on its accuracy (rightly, IMHO) - is no better than a re-created snapshot of a specific time. Over time, more information regarding al-awlki's role in 9/11 and AQ took shape. The report is no better than a "what happened" rather than a "why" it did happen. Given JUST the relationship of al-Awlaki to some of the hijackers alone and knowing the relationship between martyrs in waiting and their Imam. I would have been fully satisfied that he was in the thick of it.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Yep. He supports the Goobermint position no matter how obviously wrong; Of course any impartial, thinking observer of the political arena can easily point out how wrong the goob is on any number of issues. But NOT war. OR yukon. It's almost as though both are paid by the same goob source. But maybe they perform their respective statist clapping seal routine for free, eh? War and yukon clearly represent the opposite sides of the same statist coin.
"It's not surprising, then, they [White Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ~ Comrade-in-Chief Barry Hussein 0bama
Awesome post.
"It's not surprising, then, they [White Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ~ Comrade-in-Chief Barry Hussein 0bama
As opposed to representing the same sides [sic] of the sexual identity coin that YOU share with Yukon.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
You asked me a question which I determined would require one of a "yes" or a "no" in response and, after such determination was made, I then answered it. Why were you expecting a point to be made?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
If you stick to humor like this, you're ok in my book.
"It's not surprising, then, they [White Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." ~ Comrade-in-Chief Barry Hussein 0bama
In 1801, President Jefferson denied the authority of himself, as president, to take offensive action without the sanction of Congress. On September 20, 2001, President G.W. Bush said to the nation before a joint session of Congress, "we will meet violence with patient justice." Senator Byrd stated in the Senate on October 1, 2001, "First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack." Senator Byrd, on October 20, 2001, read the White House proposed draft of the AUMF nto the record and pointed out how the Senate had rejected that open-ended language and deliberately changed it and narrowed it. Sen. Byrd explained, "the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack." Senators Warner and Wellstone thanked Sen. Byrd for placing the White House proposed legislation directly into the Congressional Record. Senator Warner commented, "The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11—not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11." Senator Wellstone commented, "I thought it was too broad, too open ended. I think Senator LEVIN did say this, but while you were busy on that appropriations bill, Senator LEVIN was one of the key Senators—along with staff—who really did yeomen’s work to try to have that resolution focus on the September 11 attacks. It was entirely different wording." In 2002, President George W. Bush sought authorization to use military force against Iraq. The resulting joint resolution contained the following: Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; And the Congressional Record for October 9, 2002 shows: Of course, if the AUMF of 2001 actually was an open-ended grant of power as some claim, then there would have been no need for President Bush to seek any resolution to invade Iraq, nor for Congress to debate it at great length. In a letter of August 7, 2002 in response to an inquiry by Sen. Byrd, William Van Alstyne of Duke University School of Law rendered his opinion: In a letter of July 31, 2002 in response to an inquire by Sen. Byrd, Laurance H. Tribe of Harvard University Law School rendered his opinion: Excerpts from the Congressional Record re Authorization to Use of Military Force - - - - - Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Congressional Record, H5632-33, 14 Sep 2011, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Rep. DeFazio. He told Congress that he was ‘‘unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.’’ It further noted that it was up to Congress to authorize ‘‘measures of offense also.’’ I believe maintaining this solemn congressional prerogative to send our young men and women into battle is critical to protecting the delicate balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. This balance of power was carefully crafted by our founders in Philadelphia more than 2 centuries ago and has allowed the United States to remain one of the most stable and enduring democracies in the world. There was a time when such a power was threatened. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in response to the military activities of successive Presidents while waging war in rescuing victims, my heart and my soul soar like an eagle, knowing that this country’s promise is yet ahead; and yet the dark days are still engulfing our memories. - - - - - Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Congressional Record, H5861-62, 20 Sep 2011, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Address to The Nation by the President of the United States, President George W. Bush. - - - - - Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Congressional Record, S9949, 20Sep 2001, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Sen. Byrd. I was reassured by the President’s remarks. But as I delved more deeply into the resolution passed by Congress, I began to have some qualms over how broad a grant of authority Congress gave him in our rush to act quickly. Because of the speed with which it was passed, there was little discussion establishing a foundation for the resolution. Because of the paucity of debate, it would be difficult to glean from the record the specific intent of Congress in approving S.J. Res. 23. There were after-the-fact statements made in the Senate, and there was some debate in the House, but there was not the normal level of discussion or the normal level of analysis of the language prior to the vote that we have come to expect in the Senate. And so I think it is important to take a second look at S.J. Res. 23, to examine its strengths and weaknesses, and to put on record the intent of Congress in passing the resolution. I am not sure we are doing that. Just as this is my speech, just as it is one Senator’s observations, those observations might have been worth a little more had we made them before we passed that resolution in such a great hurry. Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack. Let me at this point read into the RECORD the original text of proposed joint resolution submitted to the Senate leadership by the White House on September 12 this year of our Lord, 2001. [...] And here is the resolving clause that was in the proposed legislation submitted by the White House to the Senate leadership— [...] The resolution as passed by the Senate on September 14 is as follows: [...] This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’. Sec. 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces. (a) 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. - - - - - Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Congressional Record, S9951, 20 Sep 2011, Authorizing Use of Military Force in Response to Terrorist Attacks, Sen. Warner. The resolution we adopted, as the Senator from West Virginia said, is much narrower in terms of its authority. The draft we began with, that the White House submitted to us, had unprecedented broad authority, far too broad for most of us. It was unlimited by time and by other limits, as to what the President could do in response to these attacks. The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11—not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11, and also, as the Senator from West Virginia said, made specific reference and inclusion by reference to the provisions of the War Powers Act. Those and other changes in the language of the resolution were significant. Our good friend from West Virginia pointed out that there was much greater care and caution—to use his words—in the final resolution we adopted. I hope history proves that those of us who worked so hard on that final resolution indeed used enough care and caution to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and just good common sense. But history will judge that one—and I hope will judge it well—because the differences between the original draft resolution submitted to us and the one we adopted are indeed significant changes, major changes. - - - - - Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Congressional Record, S9954, 20 Sep 2011, Thanking Senator Byrd, Sen. Wellstone. I say to my colleague that up until about 1 o’clock in the morning, I did not think I could support it. I thought it was too broad, too open ended. I think Senator LEVIN did say this, but while you were busy on that appropriations bill, Senator LEVIN was one of the key Senators—along with staff—who really did yeomen’s work to try to have that resolution focus on the September 11 attacks. It was entirely different wording. But I thank you, Senator BYRD, for what you have done today in this Senate Chamber. - - - - - Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Congressional Record, H7189, 10-08-2002, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, The Speaker. [...] Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; - - - - - Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Congressional Record, H7706, 10-09-2002, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Rep. Becerra. - - - - - Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Congressional Record, S10642, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack, Sen. Byrd (quoting a letter from William Van Alstyne). DUKE UNIVERSITY, Senator ROBERT C. BYRD, DEAR SENATOR BYRD: I am writing in response to your letter of July 22 inquiring whether in my opinion, ‘‘the Bush Administration currently has authority, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into imminent or actual hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from Power.’’ You raise the question because, as you say, in your letter, you are ‘‘deeply concerned about comments by the Bush Administration and recent press reports that our nation is coming closer to war with Iraq.’’ I was away from my office at Duke University During the week when your inquiry arrived. Because you understandably asked for a very prompt response, I am foregoing a fuller, more detailed, statement to you just now, the day just following my reading of your letter, on August 6. I shall, however, be pleased to furnish that more elaborate statement on request. Briefly, these are my views: A. The President may not engage our armed forces in ‘‘war with Iraq,’’ except in such measure as Congress, by joint or concurrent resolutions duly passed in both Houses of Congress, declares shall be undertaken by the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief, i.e., in fulfilling that role, the President is solely responsible for the conduct of whatever measures of war Congress shall authorize. It is not for the President, however, to presume to ‘‘authorize himself’’ to embark on war. Whether the President deems it essential to the National interest to use the armed forces of the United States to make war against one of our neighbors, or to make war against nations yet more distant from our shores, it is all the same. The Constitution requires that he not presumed to do so merely on his own assessment and unilateral order. Rather, any armed invasions of or actual attack on another nation by the armed forces of the United States as an act of war requires decision by Congress before it proceeds, not after the President would presume to engage in war (and, having unilaterally commenced hostilities, then would merely confront Congress with a ‘‘take-it-or-leave it’’ fait accomplis). The framers of the Constitution understood the difference vividly— and made provision against vesting any warinitiating power in the Executive.1 [...] 1 It is today, even as it was when Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris, in September, 1789, referring then to the constitutional clauses putting the responsibility and power to embark on war in Congress rather than in the Executive. And thus Jefferson observed: ‘‘We have given, in example, one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.’’ C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 481 n. 1 (1928). (See also Chief Justice Johnson Marshall’s Opinion for the Supreme Court in Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1,28 (1803) (‘‘The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides.’’) Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Congressional Record, S10644, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack, Sen. Byrd (quoting a letter from Laurence H. Tribe). HON. ROBERT C. BYRD [...] My study of the United States Constitution and its history, as a scholar and teacher of American constitutional law over the past thirty years, has suggested to me no authority for the President, acting as the Commander in Chief, to wage a purely preemptive war against another nation without at least consulting with Congress first, and without obtaining from Congress a formal authorization, whether in the form of a declaration of war or, at the least, a joint resolution expressing the assent of both the House and the Senate—with the exception of so exigent an emergency as to admit of no time for such consultation and authorization without mortal and imminent peril to our nation. [...] As many have famously observed, our Constitution is not a suicide pact. But that exception for cases of self-defense cannot be treated so elastically that the exception threatens to swallow the rule. [...] That said, it remains my view, as I wrote in volume one of the 2000 edition of my treatise, ‘‘American Constitutional Law,’’ § 4–6, at page 665, ‘‘although the Constitution does not explicitly say that the President cannot initiate hostilities without first consulting with and gaining the authentic approval of Congress, that conclusion flows naturally, if not quite inescapably, from the array of congressional powers over military affairs and especially the provisions in Article I, § 8, clause 11, vesting in Congress the power to declare war. To permit the President unilaterally to commit the Nation to war would read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress, and to it alone, the authority ‘to declare war.’ ’’ (Footnotes omitted.) Whether with the aid of the War Powers Resolution of 1973—a resolution that some have regarded as a quasi-constitutional articulation of the boundaries between the Presidency and the Congress—or without regard to that much mooted (and arguably question-begging) assertion of congressional power to draw those boundary lines for itself—one would be hard-pressed to defend the proposition that, simply because the President thinks it inconvenient to bring Congress into his deliberations and to await Congress’s assent, he may suddenly proceed, like the kings and emperors of old, unilaterally to unleash the dogs of war. [...] It seems quite clear that S.J. Res. 23 (Pub. L. No. 107–40), the joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, would not furnish the requisite congressional assent to any such strike against Iraq, or even to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into imminent or actual military hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Unless convincing evidence of Iraq’s involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 were to emerge, that joint resolution could not be said to offer even a fig leaf of cover for such a military campaign. To its credit, the Bush Administration does not appear to have suggested the contrary. Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7268-H7301, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7739-H7799, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Cong Rec S10063-S1007, 10-08-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Cong Rec S10164-S10217, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10233-S10342, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
I didn't need the history lesson. Post 53 asked you several questions, not one of which you answered in your history lesson. Here they are again: Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law? How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable: Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States... Emphasis mine... What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Thanks for the reply.
Look Mildred!!! NIGGERS!!!! war posted on 2011-10-03 14:29:18 ET
You obviously did need the history lesson and an update of your short term memory loss. Your untenable position, which my history lesson just viscerated, is that the AUMF of 2001 authorized the action in Yemen of CIA and military in killing American citizen al-Aulaqi. No Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorizes the non-military CIA to do anything. The authorization to do stuff does not come from any military authorization. The AUMF of 2001 was deliberately narrowed from the White House proposed language so that it only pertained to the events in 2001. Here they are again: Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law? Did you not read the resolution text? The heading of Section 2 is in bold faced caps in the original. And Section 2(b): (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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution: The War Powers Resolution is about the use of the United States Armed Forces. Section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution: SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution. As the history lesson from the Congressional Record showed, Let me at this point read into the RECORD the original text of proposed joint resolution submitted to the Senate leadership by the White House on September 12 this year of our Lord, 2001. Cong Rec S9951, Sen. Warner: The final resolution we adopted provided that the authority granted to the President is to respond to the attack of September 11—not to some unspecified future attacks but to that particular attack of September 11, and also, as the Senator from West Virginia said, made specific reference and inclusion by reference to the provisions of the War Powers Act. S9954, Sen Wellstone: S10642, Byrd quoting letter of William Van Alstyne, Duke University, School of Law: DUKE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW, Durham, NC., August 7, 2002. Senator ROBERT C. BYRD, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC DEAR SENATOR BYRD: I am writing in response to your letter of July 22 inquiring whether in my opinion, ‘‘the Bush Administration currently has authority, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into imminent or actual hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from Power.’’ You raise the question because, as you say, in your letter, you are ‘‘deeply concerned about comments by the Bush Administration and recent press reports that our nation is coming closer to war with Iraq.’’ I was away from my office at Duke University During the week when your inquiry arrived. Because you understandably asked for a very prompt response, I am foregoing a fuller, more detailed, statement to you just now, the day just following my reading of your letter, on August 6. I shall, however, be pleased to furnish that more elaborate statement on request. Briefly, these are my views: A. The President may not engage our armed forces in ‘‘war with Iraq,’’ except in such measure as Congress, by joint or concurrent resolutions duly passed in both Houses of Congress, declares shall be undertaken by the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief, i.e., in fulfilling that role, the President is solely responsible for the conduct of whatever measures of war Congress shall authorize. It is not for the President, however, to presume to ‘‘authorize himself’’ to embark on war. Whether the President deems it essential to the National interest to use the armed forces of the United States to make war against one of our neighbors, or to make war against nations yet more distant from our shores, it is all the same. The Constitution requires that he not presumed to do so merely on his own assessment and unilateral order. Rather, any armed invasions of or actual attack on another nation by the armed forces of the United States as an act of war requires decision by Congress before it proceeds, not after the President would presume to engage in war (and, having unilaterally commenced hostilities, then would merely confront Congress with a ‘‘take-it-or-leave it’’ fait accomplis). The framers of the Constitution understood the difference vividly— and made provision against vesting any warinitiating power in the Executive. [1] [...] [1] It is today, even as it was when Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris, in September, 1789, referring then to the constitutional clauses putting the responsibility and power to embark on war in Congress rather than in the Executive. And thus Jefferson observed: ‘‘We have given, in example, one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.’’ C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 481 n. 1 (1928). (See also Chief Justice Johnson Marshall’s Opinion for the Supreme Court in Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1,28 (1803) (‘‘The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides.’’) S10644, Byrd quoting ltr of Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard University, Law School: HARVARD UNIVERSITY, LAW SCHOOL, Cambridge, MA, July 31, 2002 HON. ROBERT C. BYRD [...] It seems quite clear that S.J. Res. 23 (Pub. L. No. 107–40), the joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, would not furnish the requisite congressional assent to any such strike against Iraq, or even to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into imminent or actual military hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Unless convincing evidence of Iraq’s involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 were to emerge, that joint resolution could not be said to offer even a fig leaf of cover for such a military campaign. To its credit, the Bush Administration does not appear to have suggested the contrary. Harumph is not an effective rebuttal. Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States... As for your nonsense expansion of the AUMF of 2001 to authorize unrelated attacks in Yemen in 2011, it is clear that it would not even authorize attacks on Saddam Hussein in 2002. It would not even offer a fig leaf of cover for military action. If you are to find authority for the action in Yemen, it cannot be found in the AUMF of 2001. "Whereas..." whatever is not a grant of authority to do anything. At S99489, Senator Byrd identified the resolving part. That ain't it. I provided the entire resolution in a scribd reader. As scrolling proved too great an impediment, I provided the entire resolution as an image. I will do it again. For the action in Yemen, not the AUMF of 2001. As that is your claim, and it has failed badly, your attempt to divert from your claim is your to answer with your next attempt to find a viable justification for the 2011 action in Yemen. It was a purposely limited authorization to use military force. The president is not constrained from using non-military assets. An AUMF is irrelevant to the authorization to use, or refrain from using, those assets. Non-military forces are not the subject of an AUMF. The CIA is not a military force. To put you back on topic, your untenable position is that the AUMF of 2001 authorized the action in Yemen of CIA and military in killing American citizen al-Aulaqi. That's dead. The Congressional Record verifies it is an impossible stretch. The WPA bars such a stretch. The legal experts say it is wrong. And the GWB administration, in 2002, alleged a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and still sought another AUMF to go into Iraq, demonstrating that such an interpretation was wrong. This is the nonsense your are defending: (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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's pretty clear that such a "determination" about this asshole was so made. That was just skewered by a history lesson which your are attempting to ignore.
That was just skewered by a history lesson which your [sic] are attempting to ignore. I can cite "speeches" from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship. You and I both **know** that it does in fact so convey. So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one. Thanks.
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
The "perpetrators" under your narrow interpretation, perished in the planes. Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..."figments of my imagination" is what I believe you called them...
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
Can you cite any law which forbids the CIA from acting in a military capacity?
Stay Hungry...Stay Foolish --Steve Jobs
So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one. Apparently you need another history and law lesson. Congresscritters pass laws. They do not ratify amendments to the Constitution. Acting in their sovereign capacity, the people, not government officials, ratify amendments and breathe life into them. They act based on the black letter text of proposed amendments. The preferred interpretation is in accord with the meaning of the black letter text as understood by the people, upon which they based their ratification. The opinion of a particular Senator, or the entire Congress is not controlling. If the Congress does not like the interpretation by SCOTUS, their only recourse is to propose to the people to change the amendment, because Congress cannot change it or override the SCOTUS interpretation. Congress passes Federal laws, not amendments to the Constitution. But go ahead and humor me and cite the irrelevant speech[es] you say you can cite, but have neither cited nor provided. On the AUMF, I actually posted relevant pages from the Congressional Record on scribd, and linked, cited, and quoted here. Cong-Rec H5632-5633, 09-14-2001, DeFazio, AUMF in Response to Terrorist Attacks Cong Rec H5859-H5862, Pres George W Bush, Address to Nation, 09-20-2001 Cong Rec H7189-H7247, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7268-H7301, 10-08-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec, H7706-H7735, 10-09-2002, AUMFAgainst Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec H7739-H7799, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S9948-S9954, 10-01-2001, Use of Force Authority by the President Cong Rec S10063-S1007, 10-08-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack Cong Rec S10164-S10217, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10233-S10342, 10-10-2002, AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Cong Rec S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
I need only show that your interpretation is legally impossible. Your interpretation, inferring in what Congress deliberately removed from the White House draft, is directly contrary to the War Powers Act, Section 8(a). AUMF of 2001, Section 2(b): (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 supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. War Powers Resolution, Section 8(a): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred— (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
The "perpetrators" under your narrow interpretation, perished in the planes. This text does not appear in my #72 to which you are nominally responding. They are the words of Senator Robert Byrd, and appear in my #69. Just for context, I provide Sen. Byrd's full presentation below. As you seem to need a lesson on the meaning of the word perpetrator, I will provide the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Perhaps not all the agents of the acts perished in planes. If they did, I wonder who the hell we have been chasing after for the past ten years. Congressional Record, S9948-S9954 10-01-2001 Use of Force Authority by the President - - - Congressional Record, S10642-S10645, 10-17-2002, Presidential Ability to Launch an Attack
AP I, 43.1, AP I, 37. There's that whole uniform thing going on. Without one, your CIA operative is prohibited from taking part in military hostilities. Military combat is not clothing optional. Falsely wearing a military uniform to get combatant POW eligibility status is perfidy. See Vincent-Joël Proulx, If the Hat Fits Wear It, If the Turban Fits, Run for your Life: Reflections on the Indefinite Detention and Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists, Hastings Law Journal, Volume 56, 2004-2005, page 888, discussing the targeted killing, by drone strike, of Mullah Mohammed Omar. At 888:
I believe this claim is a figment of your imagination, but if you believe I said I believed there were no planes on 9/11, you can produce the link and post it. This claim is a figment of your imagination. I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims that you find yourself unable to defend with any substance.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1198379522001/the-plain-truth-about-executive-assassination/
Gotta love that guy. He asks "Who will the President kill next?". You guys agree with the Judge?
War. You weren't there. That has already been proven on the 911 thread.
You care to chime in on this issue Mike? I am curious as to what your take on it is.
He does that a lot you know. He is too lazy to do any research, and he hates it when he is wrong so he just pretends this is not so and tries to move on.
I don't wish to offer an opinion on this story here at this time. Some interesting points have been raised, so I am still in the middle of taking a new look at the story and the issues around it in terms of international law.
Comments (87 - 179) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe Resolution does not limit the use of force to that which can only be undertaken by the military. If you believe that it does please cite the appropriate section of the resolution which so limits the use of force to that initiated by the military.
#48. To: war (#37)
As for you citation of the War Powers Act, what makes you believe that Obama is not consulting with the Congress?
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
#49. To: war, A K A Stone (#41)
He's all over the map. It's the old "discovery" trick...spam information while not addressing the issue...
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
I have provided complete texts of various laws and resolutions.
#51. To: nolu chan (#49)
I am addressing the specific issue.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#52. To: nolu chan (#45)
Nor was U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi subject to trial by Military Commission, something quite distinct from a trial by Military Court Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#53. To: nolu chan (#47)
Have you looked at the title recently? Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#54. To: nolu chan (#49)
Does the President have the authority to order the execution of an American citizen with no due process, non-military, not engaged in battle, not accused with taking up arms, neither charged nor convicted of any crime?
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#55. To: nolu chan (#46)
Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah's story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence ofAulaqi's prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver's license scheme.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#56. To: war (#51)
You have NOT made the case that killing al-alwaki was an act of the executive that is inherently civilian in nature. In point of fact, you have conceded that no such judidical opinion exists.
#32. To: war (#29)
(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.
#57. To: war (#52)
Nor was U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi subject to trial by Military Commission, something quite distinct from a trial by Military Court Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
2010 US Code
Title 10 Armed Forces
Subtitle A —General Military Law (§§ 101—2925)
PART II —PERSONNEL (§§ 501—1801_to_1805)
CHAPTER 47A —MILITARY COMMISSIONS (§§ 948a—950t)
SUBCHAPTER I —GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 948a—948d)
#58. To: war (#53)
Since when does the title of the resolution have the force of law?
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
#59. To: war (#54)
Does the President have the authority to order the execution of an American citizen with no due process, non-military, not engaged in battle, not accused with taking up arms, neither charged nor convicted of any crime?
#60. To: war (#55)
Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah's story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence of Aulaqi's prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver's license scheme.
We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hazmi and Mihdhar to reach a conclusion.
#61. To: nolu chan (#58)
. All you had to do is scroll it. I will remove the burden of scrolling.
#62. To: nolu chan (#56)
What I, in fact, stated:
#63. To: nolu chan (#60)
(Edited)
We have been unable to learn enough about Aulaqi's relationship with Hazmi and Mihdhar to reach a conclusion.
#64. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, war aka yukon (#61)
Ever notice war always takes the government position. Never relents on it even when busted. Maybe that is his job. You know to spout off the government line.
#65. To: nolu chan (#59)
#66. To: Liberator (#64)
War and yukon clearly represent the opposite sides of the same statist coin.
#67. To: nolu chan (#59)
I would respond to your specific point but you did not make one.
#68. To: war (#66)
As opposed to representing the same sides [sic] of the sexual identity coin that YOU share with Yukon.
#69. To: war, A K A Stone, Liberator (#53)
What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"? Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
A. The President may not engage our armed forces in ‘‘war with Iraq,’’ except in such measure as Congress, by joint or concurrent resolutions duly passed in both Houses of Congress, declares shall be undertaken by the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As Commander in Chief, i.e., in fulfilling that role, the President is solely responsible for the conduct of whatever measures of war Congress shall authorize. It is not for the President, however, to presume to ‘‘authorize himself’’ to embark on war.
It seems quite clear that S.J. Res. 23 (Pub. L. No. 107–40), the joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, would not furnish the requisite congressional assent to any such strike against Iraq, or even to the introduction of U.S. armed forces into imminent or actual military hostilities in Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Unless convincing evidence of Iraq’s involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 were to emerge, that joint resolution could not be said to offer even a fig leaf of cover for such a military campaign. To its credit, the Bush Administration does not appear to have suggested the contrary.
In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect against possible attacks by the Barbary pirates.
Fellow citizens, we will meet violence with patient justice assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.
I supported the resolution granting the President the authority to use military force against the perpetrators of this terrible attack, and I applauded his address to Congress and to the Nation. I note that the President wisely drew lines of discrimination, specifying that the punishment must be directed against those who are guilty of this crime, so that we cannot be accused of broadening our response to those who were not involved in the September 11 attack. Our resolve and our ferocity of response must carefully discriminate against the guilty, and surely if we do so, all men of reason, all nations of conscience, will support and applaud us.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored, committed, or aided in the planning or commission of the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and to deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.
Section 1. Short Title.
First, on the second action we took, giving the President authority to respond to the attacks of September 11, the Senator did us a great service by laying out the version of that resolution with which we started and the version with which we ended. I made the same effort that day we voted on it, but I do not believe I actually put the drafts in the RECORD. I made reference to them, but I think that perhaps this is the first time the actual draft we began with is in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I think that is a very important service.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before Senator BYRD leaves the Chamber, I also want to thank him for his service to the Senate and the country. I am annoyed with myself for not having thought that we should have as a part of the RECORD the difference between the language that came from the White House and the resolution that we passed. It is so important that that be part of the RECORD.
The text of House Joint Resolution is as follows:
Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SCHOOL OF LAW,
Durham, NC., August 7, 2002.
Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
LAW SCHOOL,
Cambridge, MA, July 31, 2002.
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
#70. To: nolu chan (#69)
(Edited)
#71. To: nolu chan (#24)
I believe el-Shifa would not be an opinion of the court in case law, at least not in the sense of deciding anything about the issue other than that the court could not decide it or render any opinion on it, at least not in the sense you appear to convey.
#72. To: war (#70)
I didn't need the history lesson.
Post 53 asked you several questions, not one of which you answered in your history lesson.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a) (1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. It was not the intent of Congress to give the President unbridled authority—I hope it wasn’t—to wage war against terrorism writ large without the advice and consent of Congress. That intent was made clear when Senators modified the text of the resolution proposed by the White House to limit the grant of authority to the September 11 attack.
The resolution we adopted, as the Senator from West Virginia said, is much narrower in terms of its authority. The draft we began with, that the White House submitted to us, had unprecedented broad authority, far too broad for most of us. It was unlimited by time and by other limits, as to what the President could do in response to these attacks.
I say to my colleague that up until about 1 o’clock in the morning, I did not think I could support it. I thought it was too broad, too open ended. I think Senator LEVIN did say this, but while you were busy on that appropriations bill, Senator LEVIN was one of the key Senators—along with staff—who really did yeomen’s work to try to have that resolution focus on the September 11 attacks. It was entirely different wording.
Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. How convenient of you to cite the title but not the preamable:
What is that Constituional authority that permits the POTUS to act "offshore"?
Why did the general provision of the resolution not so constrain the POTUS to military means only?
#29. To: nolu chan (#24)
#73. To: nolu chan (#72)
Your untenable position, which my history lesson just viscerated, is that the AUMF of 2001 authorized the action in Yemen of CIA and military in killing American citizen al-Aulaqi.
#74. To: nolu chan (#72)
Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack.
#75. To: nolu chan (#72)
No Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorizes the non-military CIA to do anything.
#76. To: war (#73)
I can cite "speeches" from the floor of the Senate made in the late 19th century in which the OPINION of a particular Senator, voting in the affirmative, stated that the 14th amendment did not convey birthright citizenship. You and I both **know** that it does in fact so convey.
#77. To: war (#73)
So, as I stated, I don't need the history lesson. What I do need is for you to offer a concise argument that your very narrow interpretation of the AUMF against Al Qaeda is the correct one.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
#78. To: war (#74)
Two aspects of the resolution are key: First, the use of force authority granted to the President extends only to the perpetrators of the September 11 attack.
Perpetrator. Generally, this term denotes the person who actually commits a crime or delict, or by whose immediate agency it occurs.
#79. To: war (#75)
Can you cite any law which forbids the CIA from acting in a military capacity?
Moreover, the fact that CIA operatives are most likely to coordinate targeted killings using the drone is also problematic. Since these operatives themselves do not conform to the laws of war, by failing to wear distinctive insignia and by not carrying arms openly, they may be subject to prosecution for war crimes.
#80. To: war (#74)
Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..."figments of my imagination" is what I believe you called them...
#81. To: A K A Stone (#42)
U.S. Const., Amdt 5: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…." If the AUMF is interpreted to bypass any provision of the Constitution, then it must be unconstitutional.
#82. To: nolu chan, cz82, war (#81)
#83. To: nolu chan (#80)
Oh...I forgot...you don't believe that there were planes...and that my own eyes and ears deceived me..
#84. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
#85. To: nolu chan (#80)
"I guess it will pass as your best attempt to create a diversion from your other debunked claims that you find yourself unable to defend with any substance."
#86. To: A K A Stone (#84)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]