How should we treat American jihadists?
I’ve argued here that, after a dozen years, the AUMF’s definition of the enemy needs overhaul. So, similarly, does its explanation of what force Congress is authorizing. Again, lawmakers need not address all the hypothetical situations in which it might be proper to target American citizens. But nothing prevents Congress from amending the AUMF to provide explicit protections for Americans suspected of colluding with this unique enemy. Congress could, for example, instruct that in the absence of an attack or a truly imminent threat, the president is not authorized to use lethal force in the United States against Americans suspected of being enemy combatants. Congress could also define what it means by “imminent” so it is clear that lawmakers do not endorse the Obama administration’s preposterous interpretation of that term.
Is this really necessary? I doubt it. Even if he hypothetically could, it is highly unlikely that the commander-in-chief would use lethal force against anyone in the United States — citizen or otherwise — in this conflict. The Padilla precedent, as well as the arrest and military trial of Nazi saboteurs (including one American) after their capture here during World War II, demonstrate that, even in wartime, the executive respects our strong preference for due process in the homeland. But revising the AUMF in this way, while doing no harm to the war effort, might assuage Americans understandably perturbed by the Obama administration’s insouciance on the matter of targeted killings.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to extend such explicit protections to Americans situated outside the United States. American citizens do not carry the protections of the Constitution with them when they leave our country — especially if they leave at a time when Congress has authorized military force, and if they then voluntarily travel to enemy havens. American law and the writ of the American courts, on which we rely for our protection at home, do not apply outside the United States. And after all, what if our forces locate al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri along with some of his top aides in a compound in, say, Peshawar or Aden? Are we supposed to refrain from a lethal strike because there might be an American jihadist in the room with them?
Still, there are additional things Congress could do.











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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Lol…I could careless if you believe Obama is a closet Muslim. I don’t know what his religion is, nor do I care. I know what he claims but he’s just another liar to me. Can you show me where I want someone else to have more due process compared to someone else? My point, which you keep proving, is that you believe anything the govt says. If the govt says an American citizen has declared war on the USA you blindly believe and thus give the govt the go ahead to ignore the Bill of Rights – rights that are afforded to us via our creators not the government. Wake up to the real enemy.
MoreLiberty on February 23, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Are we trolling here?
Let us get this straight TROLL. I am perfectly happy to have all Jihadists to be executed.
But, like all American Citizens, they have the God given right to their life. The government must go through a process which ensures that only the guilty are deprived of their life, liberty or property. It is a burden that must be met in order to take the god given right to life away.
astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 10:45 PM
So when the govt declares those who refuse to give up their firearms as treasonous and attempting to over throw the govt you lemmings are ok with kicking due process to the curb? Hey if the govt says your the enemy – you know foreign and domestic – you’re ok with no trials, no juries, no 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment. Morons. Hey as long as the government says they are the enemy that’s good enough for you. We all know the govt never has any nefarious motives or is never wrong.
MoreLiberty on February 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM
Why are some people so angry? You must not be doing something right.
Mimzey on February 23, 2013 at 10:57 PM
When they came for Bob, I did not stand up, because I am not Bob…
Then when they came for John, I did not stand up, because I am not John…
Then when they came for Mimsey and Basilsbest I stood up, went over and grabbed the both of them and threw them to their rightful ends. Then I joined others like MoreLiberty and set the government straight.
I dunno, I just hope there is a rock solid conservative hacking the identities of people like Mimsey and Basilsbest so that when the government finally does do something like this, we can ensure they are not allowed to be a part of the society that comes after. We can rest assured that Obama and his allies are doing it to conservatives as we speak.
astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 11:01 PM
You are right, I should be logging your conversations and grading you accordingly so I know not to engage you as if you are actually reasonable and honest in debates.
astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2