The trial is what establishes specific parameters when it comes to American Citizens.
"American Citizens" is very much the wrong thing to claim makes a difference.
Take Green Card holders (or illegal immigrants) on American soil. It's unreasonable to think the gov can kill them when it could have them arrested/jailed/tried.
The important question should be whether or not the gov has alternatives inside the legal system. If it is possible to give someone a meaningful trial, then we should.
But "meaningful trial" can't end with "we can't jail him because he's outside the reach of the Justice system and we'd have to send in the army".
We should not pretend that the entire world is a battlefield, that the army has any business blowing people up inside of first world or second world nations where there are alternatives.
The issue should be what to do when facing a total failure of law, i.e. failed states and/or lawless lands. Lands controlled by law are clear, battlefields are somewhat clear, what's not clear is the whole "no law, not on a battlefield, but engaged in war crimes".
trizzlor: Anwar al-Awlaki provided material support to Al Qaeda. Legally speaking, this is not different from shooting at American soldiers.
Jaybird: You’d think that this is something that could be proven in a court of law before killing the guy.
Great, let's think about how that happens. He refuses to go to court, but his family (or Al Qaeda) hires a lawyer to "defend" him.
Chain of evidence problems gets everything thrown out. Answering any of the basic "in court" questions is also supplying information and intel to the enemy. Just explaining what you know about his activities and communications tells the other side a lot. Explaining how you know is worse. He has the right to confront any witnesses and that's another mess.
So to make all of this work, we pass laws saying he *doesn't* get to examine evidence, question witnesses, that chain of evidence doesn't matter, etc...
...and we just trust that the government, armed with this wonderful new tool for depriving citizens of their legal rights, only applies it to terrorists at war with the country.
I’m calling for “American Citizens who are not directly engaging in violence who are in countries where we have not declared war to be tried before we have them assassinated”.
The army doesn't need to wait for a soldier to pick up a gun and shoot back before we shoot him, and we *have* declared war on AQ/ISIS. Joining this group means you have taken up arms against the United States and it is legal for the army to kill you.
If you want access to the Justice system, then you have to be willing to subject yourself to it. Hiding in a (literally) lawless part of the world for the purpose of avoiding Justice means congrats, you're successful and the Justice system has no say.
The root cause of this problem isn't the President wants to be able to kill people outside the law binding him. The root cause is we're at war. The usual "war" rules apply, and some of them are pretty ugly... but they exist for good reason.
It's a bad idea to try to change the laws and rules of war because people want to pretend we're not at war.
Id just like to see any of hilldawgs “pay to play” proven. ... But good strawwoman....
So you're saying you expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians who engage in torture to continue to give Billions of dollars to her charity now that they're not dealing with the secretary of State and future President? No reduction in funding at all?
Personally I think their haircut will be so extreme they'll find some excuse to close the charity.
I still think we should have tried the guy, even if in absentia, before we did so.
The Military does not have to (and indeed, can not) try everyone before they kill them.
Trials involve rules of evidence and laws which assume police and the rest of the legal system are able to control the overall situation, including crime scene and witnesses. Trials allow defendants to question witnesses and examine evidence.
Trying to apply those to a military situation leads to insane results. The prosecutor for the first world trade center bombing reported that the "defendants" used the legal system to find out what we knew about Al Qaeda as a whole.
If they find out we're monitoring their communications, they change them. When Bin Laden realized we knew who he was, what he was doing, and where he was, he fled and retooled.
Using the legal system's rules results in smarter, better organized terrorists, just like they would if we applied them against any army. Just because Al Qaeda is a group of criminals doesn't mean they're not also an army.
However there are lots of other treaties and laws, presumably there'd be problems somewhere. Just for starters going to war with Canada is problematic (and that's what you're suggesting).
I assume with any 1st or 2nd world nation, you just ask the police to arrest someone and have the courts deal with it. We're not killing people with drones in spite of having better options, we're killing people with drones because we don't.
We could actually say that the people that don’t mind extrajudicial assassinations are really fearful,
It's "extrajudicial" because lawless areas of the world are involved and the problem has reached a scale where the army needed to step in.
One good thing Obama was forced to do was take ownership of the situation. He went into office with soaring left-wing rhetoric and quickly figured out the underlying mess is not Presidents running amok, it's that there is no pure "judicial" solution here. All the happy "there must be a law" rhetoric is unworkable when faced with the ugly reality.
We use the law where we can, we use the army where we must. They're both tools of society.
We use "extrajudicial assassinations" because that's the least ugly solution. We make them die over there because we don't want them to knock down buildings over here. If you have a less ugly solution, by all means put it on the table.
We've done this before, i.e. had serious conflicts with non-state actors (see below). We're fighting a movement, not a state actor. The conflict will end when Islam no longer inspires people to go out and enslave/murder/etc on a big enough scale that we need the army to deal with it.
Part of dealing with this should involve state building. Part of it is just letting generation after generation of fanatics kill themselves uselessly. Part is giving Islam the time to reform.
The barbary wars.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
The Anarchists, who assassinated President McKinley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
maybe we wrote some of the terms a little too broadly – I mean, everyone *knew* what we meant – but then we didn’t really expect it to be the primary foreign policy vehicle in 2016, did we?
Is Al Qaeda still around?
-Yes (although they've been renamed).
Are they still killing people and destabilizing countries?
-Yes.
Are they big enough and dangerous enough that we need armies and not cops to deal with them?
-Yes.
If we leave them alone will they start knocking down buildings in the US again?
-They'd probably try if they're not busy executing Christians and enslaving women.
The problem isn't with the AUMF, the problem is with the reality. All the wishful thinking in the world can't return the situation to what we thought it was before 911.
Your chosen champion runs a Billion dollar pay-to-play scheme, and now that she's not going to be President I expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians known mostly for torture will reduce their level of "humanitarian" giving.
That was the actual choice.
IMHO being a total flaming ass isn't disqualifying for being Prez, nor is marrying models, divorcing your wife because of money, etc.
Which leaves racism (i.e. not being a Democrat), insanity (and he and his family seem amazingly functional for nuts), and anti-immigration / anti-free-trade.
That last one did it for me, but we'll find out how serious he was.
Don Zeko:
Sure, you’d also get a righteous dissent pointing out that the majority’s holding turns the entire world into a free fire zone, unbounded geographically and temporally, in which the president can dispense lethal force arbitrarily, but the dissenters would lose and the drone strikes would continue.
Hardly the entire world, just where law enforcement has no ability to do anything.
If it takes the army to arrest someone, then they don't get to claim "because they're not cops the rules weren't followed".
An impeachable offense would be if Obama killed someone in lieu of using the justice system, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened. If cops have control then he uses cops, not drones.
Judges can't wear their robes on battle fields. If you're hiding in a cave for the express purpose of preventing the justice system from having access to you, then the justice system doesn't have access to you.
Obama campaigned on health care reform, he was elected along with sizable majorities to enact healthcare reform and his reform bill passed Congress correctly. Nowhere, anywhere, is it written that if you lose a special election to replace a single Senator that you then are required to shelve your agenda.
All of this is true, none of it changes that he rammed through an unpopular bill in the face of determined popular opposition, nor that because he abused his super majority it was taken away from him.
it makes right wingers subsequent bleating about how Obama should have sold the plan more or reached out more or whatever just empty bleating
Sold it to the GOP? Sure. Sold it to the American people? Now that's more than empty bleating. Somehow you seem to think the GOP had the responsibility to back a bill sold on lies in the face of general opposition from the population.
GOP’s intended outcome was for the Dems to muddle around with healthcare, then fail to produce anything a la Clinton in the 90’s. Their shock, horror and outrage that the Dems learned from and declined to go along with that history never fails to warm my heart.
Haven't you lost enough elections yet? Telling the GOP to get lost is fine, doing the same to the American people is much less so. That's very high risk, whatever you're trying had better darn well work without extreme goal post moving.
premiums have continued to increase though at a slower rate and from a lower baseline than pre-aca.
Witness the goal post moving. Victory conditions were rates going down as promised, and people keeping their plans if they liked them.
that’s a circle Trump and the GOP are going to have to either try and square or leave be. They don’t have the option of just opposing anymore.
Yes. Being President is hard. Ideally we'd have someone in there with a proven track record of success and experience.
Except each time he just got more popular. The daily swings went up and down, but overall the more the GOP base saw of Trump, the more they liked him.
IMHO Trump wasn't voted in because of his personality, he was voted in despite it. It's up there with Bill Clinton's womanizing, and Reagan's forgetfulness.
Election day polls had 4%(ish) of the GOP voting against him, and that's supposed to be the wrath of god. Trump could have had a blowout election if he were "sane Trump".
60 million Americans saw all that, knew everything about Trump, and decided they preferred him, because something emails.
Something emails. Hundreds of millions of dollars of mysterious money. Billions of dollars in her own personal charity. Fixing the primary. Deplorables.
And being offered four to eight more years of the same.
The same economic growth (is it Obama's economy yet?). The same putting the green agenda in front of job creation. The same level of employment. The same watching health care costs go up. The same watching everyone connected to the government advance at your expense.
Have you missed the spectacle of the Never Trumpers crawling back one by one to kiss the ring?
Never Crazy Trump or Racist Trump or Anti-Growth Trump. However even when I voted against him I wasn't sure this wasn't an act.
If he runs things as CEO Trump (and we may be looking at Money! Trump), then I'm fine with him being an ass and wanting to entertain the masses. It's probably worth a point or two of growth to have competent management of the government in a way that doesn't kill business.
If he walks back the Crazy/Racist/AGrowth then the only problem is the intrinsic lack of dignity he brings to the office.
...you so far haven’t laid out what the GOP proposed in 2009 and offered votes to support...
Assume it was actually "nothing", as you're claiming. Why is this a bad thing? Would the country have blown up without Obamacare? The bulk of the country was happy with their insurance, and only unhappy with the cost, and they wanted what Obama promised which was to lower costs.
Obamacare was designed to expand coverage, i.e. pulling people into the system... and getting the rest of us to pay for it. That's a worthy goal, but not what was advertised and "worthy" is not the same as "popular".
Opposing this, while proposing (by implication) that we don't change the existing system, is perfectly legit.
Obama took ownership of the health care system, this was a high-risk, high-reward move. If he'd actually done a good job and fulfilled his promises, then Dems would be getting elected bragging about the great job they did.
Instead prices have continued to go up (not down), and we got a website that showed a stunning lack of competence, and the coverage isn't that great.
Bush got punished for mishandling the war(s).
Obama has gotten punished for mishandling healthcare.
Yes, the GOP made it harder for him. But he's an adult and the Dems chosen leader. He's supposed to be up to the job of being President, and a big part of that is handling the opposition.
Prove things out at a state level, figure out what works and what doesn't, then after that argue the Feds should be copying it. Sounds really good, and it's how the system is supposed to work.
A 25 year old is automatically disqualified, someone with business interests is only disqualified if he doesn't get Congressional permission. IMHO getting Congressional permission won't be that hard. Whether or not it's a good idea is a different matter.
...I don’t think that trusting the best available data and allocating resources based on it was really an avoidable mistake...
I strongly question whether she's using "the best available data" when we see results like this. It seems more likely she paid for yes-men who told her what she wanted to hear, and she fired anyone who didn't. The stories we're hearing are of that and too much central planning.
She (twice!) had three amazing resources, time, money, and the backing of the establishment... and she still blew it twice. I have to think we're looking at serious management issues.
Are you saying she would have done more of the same thing that got her the popular vote, thus screwing up? This is where things get unclear. “Didn’t work” sort of implies that the burden would be on her to fix something that wasn’t working, but it seems like in terms of getting more people to vote for her, it did work just fine.
She won what wasn't important by focusing on what wasn't important. She spent time, money, and other resources ineffectually. She had no clue she was in trouble because her bubble was so thick even her husband's advice was ignored.
Further, this is the 2nd time in 8 years she's lost to an underfunded opponent because she had organizational, informational, and mismanagement problems.
I don't see why any of these issues go away if the rules are different, especially because when the rules were different she still managed to turn lots of money into defeat. Change the rules a third time and I fully expect we'd see her manage the same trick again.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
"American Citizens" is very much the wrong thing to claim makes a difference.
Take Green Card holders (or illegal immigrants) on American soil. It's unreasonable to think the gov can kill them when it could have them arrested/jailed/tried.
The important question should be whether or not the gov has alternatives inside the legal system. If it is possible to give someone a meaningful trial, then we should.
But "meaningful trial" can't end with "we can't jail him because he's outside the reach of the Justice system and we'd have to send in the army".
We should not pretend that the entire world is a battlefield, that the army has any business blowing people up inside of first world or second world nations where there are alternatives.
The issue should be what to do when facing a total failure of law, i.e. failed states and/or lawless lands. Lands controlled by law are clear, battlefields are somewhat clear, what's not clear is the whole "no law, not on a battlefield, but engaged in war crimes".
"
Can you link to it?
"
As far as I can tell, all of the alternatives are seriously ugly. Maybe that's the least ugly and Bush made a mistake leaving these people alive?
"
Great, let's think about how that happens. He refuses to go to court, but his family (or Al Qaeda) hires a lawyer to "defend" him.
Chain of evidence problems gets everything thrown out. Answering any of the basic "in court" questions is also supplying information and intel to the enemy. Just explaining what you know about his activities and communications tells the other side a lot. Explaining how you know is worse. He has the right to confront any witnesses and that's another mess.
So to make all of this work, we pass laws saying he *doesn't* get to examine evidence, question witnesses, that chain of evidence doesn't matter, etc...
...and we just trust that the government, armed with this wonderful new tool for depriving citizens of their legal rights, only applies it to terrorists at war with the country.
"
The army doesn't need to wait for a soldier to pick up a gun and shoot back before we shoot him, and we *have* declared war on AQ/ISIS. Joining this group means you have taken up arms against the United States and it is legal for the army to kill you.
If you want access to the Justice system, then you have to be willing to subject yourself to it. Hiding in a (literally) lawless part of the world for the purpose of avoiding Justice means congrats, you're successful and the Justice system has no say.
The root cause of this problem isn't the President wants to be able to kill people outside the law binding him. The root cause is we're at war. The usual "war" rules apply, and some of them are pretty ugly... but they exist for good reason.
It's a bad idea to try to change the laws and rules of war because people want to pretend we're not at war.
On “The Electoral College Option”
So you're saying you expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians who engage in torture to continue to give Billions of dollars to her charity now that they're not dealing with the secretary of State and future President? No reduction in funding at all?
Personally I think their haircut will be so extreme they'll find some excuse to close the charity.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
The Military does not have to (and indeed, can not) try everyone before they kill them.
Trials involve rules of evidence and laws which assume police and the rest of the legal system are able to control the overall situation, including crime scene and witnesses. Trials allow defendants to question witnesses and examine evidence.
Trying to apply those to a military situation leads to insane results. The prosecutor for the first world trade center bombing reported that the "defendants" used the legal system to find out what we knew about Al Qaeda as a whole.
If they find out we're monitoring their communications, they change them. When Bin Laden realized we knew who he was, what he was doing, and where he was, he fled and retooled.
Using the legal system's rules results in smarter, better organized terrorists, just like they would if we applied them against any army. Just because Al Qaeda is a group of criminals doesn't mean they're not also an army.
"
According to the AUMF? Yes.
However there are lots of other treaties and laws, presumably there'd be problems somewhere. Just for starters going to war with Canada is problematic (and that's what you're suggesting).
I assume with any 1st or 2nd world nation, you just ask the police to arrest someone and have the courts deal with it. We're not killing people with drones in spite of having better options, we're killing people with drones because we don't.
"
It's "extrajudicial" because lawless areas of the world are involved and the problem has reached a scale where the army needed to step in.
One good thing Obama was forced to do was take ownership of the situation. He went into office with soaring left-wing rhetoric and quickly figured out the underlying mess is not Presidents running amok, it's that there is no pure "judicial" solution here. All the happy "there must be a law" rhetoric is unworkable when faced with the ugly reality.
We use the law where we can, we use the army where we must. They're both tools of society.
We use "extrajudicial assassinations" because that's the least ugly solution. We make them die over there because we don't want them to knock down buildings over here. If you have a less ugly solution, by all means put it on the table.
"
We've done this before, i.e. had serious conflicts with non-state actors (see below). We're fighting a movement, not a state actor. The conflict will end when Islam no longer inspires people to go out and enslave/murder/etc on a big enough scale that we need the army to deal with it.
Part of dealing with this should involve state building. Part of it is just letting generation after generation of fanatics kill themselves uselessly. Part is giving Islam the time to reform.
The barbary wars.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars
The Anarchists, who assassinated President McKinley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_the_United_States
"
As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet.
The Authorization to Use Military Force was basically a blank check with a "fill in the country" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
"
Is Al Qaeda still around?
-Yes (although they've been renamed).
Are they still killing people and destabilizing countries?
-Yes.
Are they big enough and dangerous enough that we need armies and not cops to deal with them?
-Yes.
If we leave them alone will they start knocking down buildings in the US again?
-They'd probably try if they're not busy executing Christians and enslaving women.
The problem isn't with the AUMF, the problem is with the reality. All the wishful thinking in the world can't return the situation to what we thought it was before 911.
On “The Electoral College Option”
Pot. Meet Kettle.
Your chosen champion runs a Billion dollar pay-to-play scheme, and now that she's not going to be President I expect Blackwater, the Saudis, and Russian Politicians known mostly for torture will reduce their level of "humanitarian" giving.
That was the actual choice.
IMHO being a total flaming ass isn't disqualifying for being Prez, nor is marrying models, divorcing your wife because of money, etc.
Which leaves racism (i.e. not being a Democrat), insanity (and he and his family seem amazingly functional for nuts), and anti-immigration / anti-free-trade.
That last one did it for me, but we'll find out how serious he was.
On “Impeach Barack Obama”
Hardly the entire world, just where law enforcement has no ability to do anything.
If it takes the army to arrest someone, then they don't get to claim "because they're not cops the rules weren't followed".
"
An impeachable offense would be if Obama killed someone in lieu of using the justice system, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened. If cops have control then he uses cops, not drones.
Judges can't wear their robes on battle fields. If you're hiding in a cave for the express purpose of preventing the justice system from having access to you, then the justice system doesn't have access to you.
On “The Electoral College Option”
All of this is true, none of it changes that he rammed through an unpopular bill in the face of determined popular opposition, nor that because he abused his super majority it was taken away from him.
Sold it to the GOP? Sure. Sold it to the American people? Now that's more than empty bleating. Somehow you seem to think the GOP had the responsibility to back a bill sold on lies in the face of general opposition from the population.
Haven't you lost enough elections yet? Telling the GOP to get lost is fine, doing the same to the American people is much less so. That's very high risk, whatever you're trying had better darn well work without extreme goal post moving.
Witness the goal post moving. Victory conditions were rates going down as promised, and people keeping their plans if they liked them.
Yes. Being President is hard. Ideally we'd have someone in there with a proven track record of success and experience.
"
IMHO Trump wasn't voted in because of his personality, he was voted in despite it. It's up there with Bill Clinton's womanizing, and Reagan's forgetfulness.
Election day polls had 4%(ish) of the GOP voting against him, and that's supposed to be the wrath of god. Trump could have had a blowout election if he were "sane Trump".
Something emails. Hundreds of millions of dollars of mysterious money. Billions of dollars in her own personal charity. Fixing the primary. Deplorables.
And being offered four to eight more years of the same.
The same economic growth (is it Obama's economy yet?). The same putting the green agenda in front of job creation. The same level of employment. The same watching health care costs go up. The same watching everyone connected to the government advance at your expense.
"
Never Crazy Trump or Racist Trump or Anti-Growth Trump. However even when I voted against him I wasn't sure this wasn't an act.
If he runs things as CEO Trump (and we may be looking at Money! Trump), then I'm fine with him being an ass and wanting to entertain the masses. It's probably worth a point or two of growth to have competent management of the government in a way that doesn't kill business.
If he walks back the Crazy/Racist/AGrowth then the only problem is the intrinsic lack of dignity he brings to the office.
"
Assume it was actually "nothing", as you're claiming. Why is this a bad thing? Would the country have blown up without Obamacare? The bulk of the country was happy with their insurance, and only unhappy with the cost, and they wanted what Obama promised which was to lower costs.
Obamacare was designed to expand coverage, i.e. pulling people into the system... and getting the rest of us to pay for it. That's a worthy goal, but not what was advertised and "worthy" is not the same as "popular".
Opposing this, while proposing (by implication) that we don't change the existing system, is perfectly legit.
Obama took ownership of the health care system, this was a high-risk, high-reward move. If he'd actually done a good job and fulfilled his promises, then Dems would be getting elected bragging about the great job they did.
Instead prices have continued to go up (not down), and we got a website that showed a stunning lack of competence, and the coverage isn't that great.
Bush got punished for mishandling the war(s).
Obama has gotten punished for mishandling healthcare.
Yes, the GOP made it harder for him. But he's an adult and the Dems chosen leader. He's supposed to be up to the job of being President, and a big part of that is handling the opposition.
"
Prove things out at a state level, figure out what works and what doesn't, then after that argue the Feds should be copying it. Sounds really good, and it's how the system is supposed to work.
"
A 25 year old is automatically disqualified, someone with business interests is only disqualified if he doesn't get Congressional permission. IMHO getting Congressional permission won't be that hard. Whether or not it's a good idea is a different matter.
"
Eh? Other than being a Conservative and his personality, what's he done that is so awful?
"
I strongly question whether she's using "the best available data" when we see results like this. It seems more likely she paid for yes-men who told her what she wanted to hear, and she fired anyone who didn't. The stories we're hearing are of that and too much central planning.
She (twice!) had three amazing resources, time, money, and the backing of the establishment... and she still blew it twice. I have to think we're looking at serious management issues.
"
She won what wasn't important by focusing on what wasn't important. She spent time, money, and other resources ineffectually. She had no clue she was in trouble because her bubble was so thick even her husband's advice was ignored.
Further, this is the 2nd time in 8 years she's lost to an underfunded opponent because she had organizational, informational, and mismanagement problems.
I don't see why any of these issues go away if the rules are different, especially because when the rules were different she still managed to turn lots of money into defeat. Change the rules a third time and I fully expect we'd see her manage the same trick again.
"
I think she would have doubled down on the things which didn't work for her, including ignoring her husband's advice.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.