In defense of Obama’s drone war
2. But al-Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?
Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms.
Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process. Nor did the Americans storming German bunkers at Normandy inquire before firing if there were any German-Americans among them — to be excused for gentler treatment while the other Germans were mowed down.
3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander-in-chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
In other words the president should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as the magic words “war” are spoken like an incantation. Got it!
theblackcommenter on February 15, 2013 at 9:08 AM
The best defense of 0bama’s drone war is that it can cause Democrats all kinds of fun in 2014 and 2016 with the honestly anti-war crowd.
Sekhmet on February 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Oh. Al-Awlaki was killed in a firefight? His 16 year old son was too?
Must have missed that.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 9:13 AM
What I’m concerned about is drones over American skies.
Wanna kill Al-Awlaki? Go ahead.
blatantblue on February 15, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Nobody on the Highway of Death was killed in a firefight either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 9:17 AM
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/drones-home
Pork-Chop on February 15, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Sorry, but declaring an American as an enemy combatant does not suspend that persons rights under the Constitution. An American citizen who takes up arms against the United States is committing an act of treason against the United States, but that person does not give up his or her right to due process:
That due process may not need to occur in a civilian court, but the wording of the Constitution requires that some sort of check on the government is in place.
HarryBackside on February 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM
I’m familiar with the Highway of Death. I’ve been there.
Everyone targeted there was armed, uniformed and un-American. I understand that you don’t think that matters – on that point we disagree.
What is concerning to me here, is the complete lack of oversight. According to the White House, a single individual (not the President, not identified) makes decisions like that, and they are not answerable to anyone. That’s not how it should be. There need to be checks. In this specific case, the Justice Department could have issued a legal decision. Due process would have been followed.
President Bush was smacked by the Supremes in the Hamdan case for simply holding a trial without any oversight. President Obama is now killing Americans (yes, plural) without oversight. In al-Awlaki’s case, the end result would be the same – a dead terrorist.
In future cases though, the facts may not be so clearly identified.
The US government can now target a US citizen if they believe a threat to be “imminent” even when no threat of attack is immediately present.
The target must have recently been involved in activities, with no real definition of “activities” or “recently.”
And rather than prove that the US citizen plans to continue these “activities,” it’s up to the citizen to prove to a single US official who no one knows that he’s renounced and/or abandoned such “activities” – activities that the government won’t define, to an official the government won’t name.
This is the same Administration that issued a report nearly 4 years ago claiming returning war veterans were potential terrorists. Now that same government claims it can assassinate American citizens because one un-named person deems them a threat.
You’re okay with that. I’m not.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 9:34 AM
I would be very surprised if they were all armed or uniformed. I bet there were more than a few civilians and administrators fleeing Kuwait as well.
I don’t disagree with this, and I think that if individuals are being targeted who are citizens then that fact should be made public. That does not mean that they cannot be attacked or that the decision needs to go through a court. You can’t bring law enforcement to the battlefield.
After they were in custody at which point both citizens and non-citizens have rights and protections.
Awlaki wasn’t in custody. That is a big difference.
If they are part of Al-Qaeda. This isn’t just a list of anyone who the president doesn’t like. There is a AUMF that names Al-Qaeda and you can’t just ignore that as if it doesn’t exist.
They would need a congressional authorization to do any such thing.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Um… That’s what I’ve been saying. Maybe one of us isn’t understanding the other.
The Obama Administration DID assassinate multiple American citizens because one un-named person deemed them a threat. What oversight is there for that? At this point, none. That’s my problem.
Did al-Awlaki deserve a Hellfire in the face? Yup. Absolutely. He chose sides, he got what was coming to him. In this one single case, the facts are clear, and they are absolute.
I’m not ignorant enough to expect the facts to be as clear-cut in every case though, which is why I’m not arguing we shouldn’t have killed al-Awlaki.
I’m arguing the manner in which it was done establishes a precedent of unilateral assassination which is stunning in its scope and terrifying in its implications.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Perhaps so.
AUMF is not just a funny thing I like to throw into a sentence.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
The Authorization for Use of Military Force is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.
And some private on a battlefield has the authority to kill those he deems to be a threat.
Agreed.
It’s not an assassination and if US airforce pilots carried out the strike they would not be assassins. If Tokyo Rose was targeted and killed in World War Two that would not be an assassination and the men who ordered it or carried it out would not be guilty of any war crimes, and the Awlaki strike is no different.
What manner bothers you about this?
It’s an airstrike that killed an Al-Qaeda member…so what?
Why is this problematic?
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM
Well, if you’d like to nitpick, I’d say that the AUMF does not cover al-Awlaki. “those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001″ does not apply to him. The FBI tracked his communication in 2000 and stated that he did “not meet the criterion for [further] investigation.”
That’s being very lawyer-y and not at all the point though. He still deserved it. Nothing about this one single case bothers me. We killed a terrorist.
What bothers me is the principle and the precedent.
I do not accept the idea of a nameless bureaucrat sitting in an office deciding that I pose a threat to the government and thus deserve to die.
I’m not making a big leap here. This Administration warned that war vets may be a terrorist threat. I am a war vet. I oppose the Obama Administration, and would like nothing more than to see him out of office. In al-Awlaki’s case, we have his own statements on tape confirming the government’s position.
Do you think that will always be the case? “Trust us, we had to kill this guy” just doesn’t cut it for me. At all.
That’s my problem.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM
That has always been the case. Some bureaucrat decided that the ball-bearing factories of Schweinfurt had to be destroyed and the orders were issued. Hundreds of civilians died as a result and many thousands as a result of similar missions and orders. The bombs that went wide killed women and children who had done nothing. That is why is war is such a terrible thing.
Confirming what exactly? Not sure I understand your point here.
People die in war. Someone cuts those orders and decides who gets it and who doesn’t. I can certainly see why a man such as Obama and his crew are not the sort of people who should be anywhere near the White House entrusted with that responsibility.
That doesn’t mean that the responsibility doesn’t exist or that it shouldn’t exist. We have to be able to make war rather than simply conduct police operations.
It was approved by Congress, it is restricted to Al-Qaeda, and Awlaki was a self-declared member of a group that is at war with the United States and is responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans on 911.
It doesn’t look to me like this is all that unrestricted.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Confirming that he was an AQ member, and all about killing him some Americans.
Make two small steps in the logic used to justify this.
Step one – substitute ‘terrorists’ for ‘AQ’. Not a big leap, right? These guys have all kinds of names. We shouldn’t be limited because of a name. A terrorist threat is a terrorist threat. No one argues.
Step two – define ‘terrorist’ to mean anyone actively opposing the government.
Now we’ve got a real problem.
We’ve laid the groundwork to allow this to happen, and I’m not at all pleased to see it.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Craphammer just can’t get by the fact it’s not about al-Awlaki at all. Most of us (me included) are glad that that bast@rd is dead.
The problem is … the same logic and rationalization was used to target him … can be used to target …
US.
For instance … let’s say that Ogabe gets pi$$ed off at Allahpundit. Sooo … he says … “Send a drone to take that guy out – he’s a terrorist!” And – since Obama NEVER had to produce an actual shred of evidence to take out al-Awlaki … he doesn’t need a shred of evidence to take out Allahpundit.
And … who’s going to question Ogabe when he does this? The MSM? Hell, they attend the press briefings … Jay Carney tells them … “Hey Allahpundit was a terrorist … and a very dangerous one.” What does the MSM do? Why they get right out there and EVANGELIZE the White House “story” condemning Allahpundit. I can hear the Lame Stream Media now … “And, he was an anonymous blogger that went by the name “Allahpundit” … hmmmmm!”
I’m picking on Allah here … but in fact, this could happen to any of us at all if Dear Leader decides he doesn’t like us.
HondaV65 on February 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM
OK, gotcha.
Neither am I at all pleased. I also agree this is a danger.
I think what it comes down to is that this is a legitimate power of government, but this isn’t a legitimate group of people in power.
They are anti-American, some of them are friendly to terrorists themselves and despise the US. They have more in common with Awlaki than they do the average American citizen.
I think it’s entirely possible what you are saying may come to pass but no government can function with the restriction that have been suggested. It may come to an internal war at which point the legal niceties won’t matter in any case.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Hammer. Nail.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM
So what you’re saying is that it would be fine for Bush to wield this kind of power … but not Ogabe?
That doesn’t compute … no matter what you think of Ogabe and the Dims … they ARE the legitimate “power” in the U.S. There is nothing in the constitution that says a guy has to be smart … or even like the U.S. to be President.
HondaV65 on February 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM
It doesn’t work like that. Either the government can do something or it can’t. We don’t get to expand and limit powers because we like/dislike the people in the big-boy seat.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM
I know that.
Every president in history has had this power and now Obama does.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM
So it’s a function of luck that the WoT is going on during his watch and he is the only US President to specifically target individual non-combatant American citizens for death?
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Awlaki wasn’t a non-combatant. He was a member of Al-Qaeda which is at war with the United States.
Many other President have ordered military action against American citizens resulting in their deaths. That includes George Washington and James Madison.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM
I would be happy with less of conservatives applauding and back slapping Comrade O about this and with a lot more criticism of the fact he isn’t capturing high value high info targets and interrogating them instead of just blowing them all away by remote control.
farsighted on February 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM
We’ve gone over this at least once before.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Our disagreement comes down to this:
You believe the government saying ‘he needed to die’ is enough.
I do not.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM
You still don’t get that he is a member of Al-Qaeda and we don’t have to play silly games about whether or not he wants to play war today or not. He doesn’t get that choice and the enemy NEVER HAS, EVER. You don’t get to drop your rifle and dance and sing saying ‘can’t shoot me now, can’t shoot me now‘. Doesn’t work that way.
We can kill him in barracks, on the road or what have you. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and at land, at sea, or in the air they are legitimate targets for military action.
He can be sunning himself on a beach with a pina colada in his hand and then…BOOM. One less terrorist.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 11:30 AM
No it doesn’t.
You want to play ‘cops and robbers’ during a war.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM
I asked you this in the last thread.
Have you been to war? If not, I suggest you avoid telling me how I conducted myself while I was at war.
Al Qaeda isn’t the only threat here, and no one’s arguing they’re NOT a threat. Stop with that. Did 9/11 give Bush the right to overturn/ignore the Constitution? The Supreme Court said no.
We’re arguing the principle.
What about the KKK? They’ve killed thousands of Americans. Can we drop a Hellfire on their members?
Why not? They pose a ‘clear and present danger,’ right? There’s a Supreme Court case already authorizing their deaths.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM
That’s actually EXACTLY how it’s working over there.
Fire on US troops, drop your weapon, walk away. We can’t shoot them.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM
That isn’t what is found in the laws of war, that is what an incompetent military and a politicized leadership is forcing on the soldier.
Without a congressional authorization of military force?
No.
It would be a police matter.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Krauthammer worked for Carter and Mondale and now he works at the RINO News Network were he poses as a “conservative”.
FloatingRock on February 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM
HondaV65 on February 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Indeed – when you’re good, you’re damn good!
Schadenfreude on February 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM
It’s really shameful that Krauthammer sunk to this unprincipled ‘logic’.
Schadenfreude on February 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM
We’re a nation of laws, not of men. That’s why the founding fathers gave us checks and balances like the courts and laws governing the prosecution of American citizens accused of treason. You are arguing that we should be a nation of “legitimate” men, not laws. The Democrats think Obama is “legitimate”, the Brits thought King George was legit, but conservatives traditionally believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that all men, even supposedly “legitimate” ones, need to have their power kept in check and remain subject to the law.
FloatingRock on February 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM
George Washington send troops to kill American citizens in the Whiskey rebellion.
Alexander Hamilton served with Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion.
John Adams was Washington’s Vice President at this time.
James Madison opened fire on American citizens held on British ships.
None of these men had a problem with troops killing American citizens without those citizens first being convicted of treason.
I said exactly the opposite of this.
You are the one arguing for unconstitutional interpretations that historically never existed based on current political flavors.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM
No, no and no again.
Washington put down an armed rebellion – apples to oranges.
Hamilton and Adams are thus removed from your list.
Madison opened fire on British warships which held American citizens. That’s quite different from what you said.
We have killed civilians, even our own, conducting military operations.
Terrorists target civilians, even their own, conducting operations.
If you can’t see the difference, I’m not sure there’s any middle ground between us.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Al-Qaeda is armed I assure you.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/September_11_Photo_Montage.jpg
You see the United States as a terrorist force?
No there isn’t. You see Awlaki as an innocent victim and I see him as the terrorist he in fact is.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Put away your straw man.
How many times, in this thread and others, have I expressed support for the death of al-Awlaki? Why then, do you have to lie and claim I think he is innocent?
You’re being intentionally obtuse. We aren’t – for the eleventh time – talking about al-Awlaki. We’re talking about the governmental process which resulted in his condemnation.
But you don’t like to have that discussion because it’s quite a bit murkier than the clear-cut fact that al-Awlaki deserved to die.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Because you keep insinuating that he was assassinated and that he was a non-combatant?
Unless you are saying that you agree with assassinating non-combatants then how can you say that it was legitimate?
You see the United States as a terrorist force?
Awlaki said he was Al-Qaeda so why the hand wringing?
What’s murky about it?
Al-Qaeda attacked on 911.
War began.
It had congressional approval.
Awlaki was Al-Qaeda.
Awlaki was killed.
sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 3:31 PM