WP: Secrecy defines Obama’s drone war

[twa]

OK a identified person collaborating with the enemy(beyond our capability to capture) ...is he a legitimate target for killing?

[Madison Redskin]

Read your post again.

I suggest that "maybe we should check with a judge before ordering the execution of somebody who isn't in a war zone, isn't armed, and isn't in combat".

You respond with "may be unconstitutional".

The only way it can possibly be unconstitutional, is for you to assert that the Constitution grants the President the authority to "[order] the execution of somebody who isn't in a war zone, isn't armed, and isn't in combat".

That's simply not true. The Constitution grants the President the authority to order the execution of certain people who aren't in a war zone, aren't armed, and aren't in combat, but not others. I absolutely think the Constitution permits the Commander in Chief to order the killing of a foreign national who is suspected of being a terrorist and who is located on foreign soil, regardless of whether he is armed or in a theater of war. However, I also think the Constitution prohibits the Commander in Chief from ordering the killing of a US citizen, particularly one on US soil, without due process.

I suppose you feel differently and believe Obama violated the Constitution when he ordered the killing of Osama. After all, no court granted Obama permission to kill Osama, who was not in a war zone and was not armed when he was killed.

Me? I assert that he doesn't have that authority. And that the authority to make decisions like that, decisions determining whether some label or another applies to John Doe, is, and always has been, resident in the Judicial Branch.

Do you think US military forces violated the Constitution when they bombed the **** out of German civilians and Japanese civilians during World War II? I think such bombing campaigns were morally reprehensible and indefensible, but nothing in the Constitution prohibits them.

In any case, your claim that the Constitution prohibits the President from ordering the killing of an unarmed foreign national who is suspected of being a terrorist and is on foreign soil, unless the President obtains court approval, is pretty far out there.

[Larry]

Don't know. (That would require that there have actually been rules established. Publicly.)

FWIW, I think that that clause that got inserted into the defense appropriations bill had some rather specific language, though. For who the law says must be held in military custody. I'll see if I could look it up.

I think it has a few words in it that I could see might wind up getting stretched. But overall, it looked pretty specific, to me.

Here's S 1867, the Defense Appropriations Act, the version that passed the Senate. (The House version has a different bill number.)

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection () pending disposition under the law of war.

( Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

That part authorizes the military to detain. There's a section right after that, that mandates that said detention must be in military detention, that uses pertty much the same language for who it applies to.

That certainly seems to me, to be language that specifies a pretty small group of people.

For the example that's been discussed, I don't think any court in the US would have any trouble at all issuing a ruling that yep, Ossama is covered under that law.

[Madison Redskin]

Larry:

If, as you suggest, the Constitution prohibits the Commander in Chief from ordering the killing of an unarmed person who is not in a theater of combat operations absent court order, the AUMF is utterly irrelevant. Congress cannot make an unconstitutional act constitutional by passing legislation saying "yuppers, kill them ****ers."

And, as I noted in my previous post, no court sanctioned the killing of Osama bin Laden. Ergo, Obama violated the Constitution by ordering the killing of Osama, who was unarmed and not in a theater of combat operations. Right?

[Larry]

Larry:

If, as you suggest, the Constitution prohibits the Commander in Chief from ordering the killing of an unarmed person who is not in a theater of combat operations absent court order, the AUMF is utterly irrelevant. Congress cannot make an unconstitutional act constitutional by passing legislation saying "yuppers, kill them ****ers."

Well, it would be irrelevant if declaring war wasn't, you know, an explicit power of the Legislative branch, and all.

Must be one of those unconstitutional infringements on the authority of the Commander in Chief.

Or, for that matter, if it wasn't the Legislative branch's authority to, you know, Legislate.

The executive has the authority to lock up child molesters. They don't have the authority to lock up Cowboys fans. That's because Congress has passed laws prohibiting child molestation, but they haven't passed laws prohibiting Cowboy fans.

But yep, if the President were to declare that, as head of the federal prison system, he has the power to lock up Cowboy fans, without trial or laws, then yep, he'd be doing something unconstitutional. Because he doesn't have that authority.

And, as I noted in my previous post, no court sanctioned the killing of Osama bin Laden. Ergo, Obama violated the Constitution by ordering the killing of Osama, who was unarmed and not in a theater of combat operations. Right?

In my opinion? Yes.

I can see some arguments.

One is the fact that, I think, the US has, in effect, declared war on al Qaeda. And while I think this was a mistake, (war is something that exists between countries), I could see the argument that, when we were at war with the Germans, the President had the authority to kill German soldiers, even if they happened to be unarmed, or even asleep, at the time. (Did he have the authority to kill German soldiers, if they were unarmed, and traveling well outside the war zone? I don't know if it was ever tried. But I could see the answer being "yes".)

(It's one of the difficulties of trying to argue that "well, they're enemy soldiers when we're here, but they aren't when we're talking about this other things.")

And there's the "enemy combatant" decision. Although those people were actual soldiers, in uniform when they entered the country, and I think we were at warat the time. (And I will observe that there was due process in those cases, both from the judicial branch and the "military judicial branch".)

But that's a lot of assumptions.

[twa]

on a tangent...what's a war zone under the current AUMF?

[Madison Redskin]

Well, it would be irrelevant if declaring war wasn't, you know, an explicit power of the Legislative branch, and all.

Must be one of those unconstitutional infringements on the authority of the Commander in Chief.

Article I originally reserved the power to "make war" to the Congress. The Founders changed "make war" to "declare war." Guess why they did so.

Or, for that matter, if it wasn't the Legislative branch's authority to, you know, Legislate.

The executive has the authority to lock up child molesters. They don't have the authority to lock up Cowboys fans. That's because Congress has passed laws prohibiting child molestation, but they haven't passed laws prohibiting Cowboy fans.

For the last several pages, you've claimed that the Constitution prohibits the POTUS from ordering the killing of certain people without court order. So, please stop talking about the legislative branch and legislation.

[Larry]

Well, when McCain and co slipped their goodie into the pentagon budget, the alarmist stories about it tried to claim that it tried to define the entire world as a battlefield. But I've never seen any part of that bill that actually said that.

I certainly haven't read the things, but, since we had to do one for Afghanistan, and another one for Iraq, I assume that it's Afghanistan, and Iraq.

[Larry]

Article I originally reserved the power to "make war" to the Congress. The Founders changed "make war" to "declare war." Guess why they did so.

So they could make clear the President's authority to EXECUTE the wars which Congress declared?

Just a theory.

For the last several pages, you've claimed that the Constitution prohibits the POTUS from ordering the killing of certain people without court order. So, please stop talking about the legislative branch and legislation.

I'll be happy to. Just as soon as you quit asking me questions about the legislative. And just as soon as analogies become impermissible.

[Madison Redskin]

on a tangent...what's a war zone under the current AUMF?

The AUMF does not define "war zone." What is noteworthy is it states:

• [T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States
  

• [T]he 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.
  

Now, I don't know what Congressional blank checks look like since I have never seen one, but I have to imagine they look somewhat like this ^.

[Larry]

The AUMF does not define "war zone." What is noteworthy is it states:

• [T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States
  

• [T]he 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.
  

Now, I don't know what Congressional blank checks look like since I have never seen one, but I have to imagine they look somewhat like this ^.

Wouldn't surprise me. I certainly won't dispute this.

[Madison Redskin]

So they could make clear the President's authority to EXECUTE the wars which Congress declared? Just a theory.

They did so to permit the President, when acting as Commander in Chief, to orchestrate responses to sudden attacks and led military forces in skirmishes that would not necessitate a declaration of war.

EDIT: I meant "lead", not "led". :drool:

[twa]

They did so to permit the President, when acting as Commander in Chief, to orchestrate responses to sudden attacks and led military forces in skirmishes that would not necessitate a declaration of war.

A power further acknowledged in the war powers acts and subsequent court decisions

[Thiebear]

A power further acknowledged in the war powers acts and subsequent court decisions

Not many people trying to dispute this. Its the follow-up activities being discussed due to recent historical evidence of abuse.

[Madison Redskin]

Not many people trying to dispute this. Its the follow-up activities being discussed due to recent historical evidence of abuse.

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with Congress looking into drone strikes and trying to reign in the President if he is being reckless. In fact, I think they have a duty to do so. But, that is not what Larry and I have been discussing.

[Thiebear]

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with Congress looking into drone strikes and trying to reign in the President if he is being reckless. In fact, I think they have a duty to do so. But, that is not what Larry and I have been discussing.

TWA is the one causing trouble.

[twa]

:stir:

Moi?...I ain't complained about a single one,nor questioned the authority

Heck I didn't even mention the one the other day where they...

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/2011/12/13/gIQANPdILP_story.html?hpid=z1

An article that goes into some of the differences between Title 10 and Title 50 and what some of the distinctions are. For those that think the AUMF is the end all be all for anything and everything it might shed some light on what it's limitations are.

[Madison Redskin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/2011/12/13/gIQANPdILP_story.html?hpid=z1

An article that goes into some of the differences between Title 10 and Title 50 and what some of the distinctions are. For those that think the AUMF is the end all be all for anything and everything it might shed some light on what it's limitations are.

Thanks for the link RD. That was a very informative article and it confirms that not all drone strikes are carried out by the CIA. Rather they are carried out by JSOC, the CIA, and, in certain circumstances, both.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the AUMF authorizes the President to use the military, the CIA, and any other agency to target and kill certain terrorists. I don't believe the article says anything to the contrary. It says the President is required to report the CIA's activities; not that the President is prohibited from using the CIA to do X.

Finally, I should note I am concerned about the use of force against US citizens living abroad who are (to borrow a concept from Larry) unarmed, not engaged in combat, and not in a theater of combat operations. I don't believe I have ever said the POTUS' powers, when acting as CiC, include his right to kill US citizens as long as they are living abroad and are suspected of being engaged in terrorism.

[Redskins Diehard]

Thanks for the link RD. That was a very informative article and it confirms that not all drone strikes are carried out by the CIA. Rather they are carried out by JSOC, the CIA, and, in certain circumstances, both.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the AUMF authorizes the President to use the military, the CIA, and any other agency to target and kill certain terrorists. I don't believe the article says anything to the contrary. It says the President is required to report the CIA's activities; not that the President is prohibited from using the CIA to do X.

Finally, I should note I am concerned about the use of force against US citizens living abroad who are (to borrow a concept from Larry) unarmed, not engaged in combat, and not in a theater of combat operations. I don't believe I have ever said the POTUS' powers, when acting as CiC, include his right to kill US citizens as long as they are living abroad and are suspected of being engaged in terrorism.

To be a little clearer the "JSOC" and "Joint" strikes that you are talking about are recent developments and I think the legality of such could be questioned. Similar to the reason why a JSOC force was operationally detached from the DoD to conduct the mission to kill Bin Laden. It is because the DoD is not ALLOWED to conduct those types of operations. And the CIA doesn't have the force structure to conduct a mission like that. It is like we said "since SEALs are not authorized to conduct such a mission but have the skill sets necessary we should just make them not SEALs for the duration of the mission". Kind of like making a "DoD Reaper" a "CIA Reaper" for a particular mission.

The AUMF does not apply to the CIA. It applies to the use of military force. Or organizations that operate under Title 10 authority. Not Title 50 Authority. (By no means am I a constitutional law expert.) Those distinctions matter. "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." But I guess if it is possible to make SEALs not SEALs when convenient you could make CIA officers not CIA officers also? However I have seen nothing that indicated this to be the case. Well with the exception of the Reaper

From the article:

Three senior U.S. officials said the lists vary because of the divergent legal authorities. JSOC’s list is longer, the officials said, because the post-Sept. 11, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force, as well as a separate executive order, gave JSOC latitude to hunt broadly defined groups of al-Qaeda fighters, even outside conventional war zones. The CIA’s lethal-action authorities, based in a presidential “finding” that has been modified since Sept. 11, were described as more narrow.

Now to the issue of "kill lists". Larry has his way of describing it(which is accurate) and I think I am probably thinking along the same lines as he is. This is not a case of "active engagement" ROE. My issue isn't as much what we do after someone is on the list...it is how they get on the list to begin with. What I find interesting is the relative lack of "opposition" to this program. Especially considering the reason why it has grown so extensive. There was too much opposition to detaining people so we will go with a better alternative...killing them.

[Madison Redskin]

To be a little clearer the "JSOC" and "Joint" strikes that you are talking about are recent developments and I think the legality of such could be questioned. Similar to the reason why a JSOC force was operationally detached from the DoD to conduct the mission to kill Bin Laden. It is because the DoD is not ALLOWED to conduct those types of operations. And the CIA doesn't have the force structure to conduct a mission like that. It is like we said "since SEALs are not authorized to conduct such a mission but have the skill sets necessary we should just make them not SEALs for the duration of the mission". Kind of like making a "DoD Reaper" a "CIA Reaper" for a particular mission.

Why wasn't the DoD permitted to conduct the Abbottabad raid?

The AUMF does not apply to the CIA. It applies to the use of military force. Or organizations that operate under Title 10 authority. Not Title 50 Authority. (By no means am I a constitutional law expert.) Those distinctions matter. "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." But I guess if it is possible to make SEALs not SEALs when convenient you could make CIA officers not CIA officers also? However I have seen nothing that indicated this to be the case. Well with the exception of the Reaper

The portion of the AUMF you cited above is a non-binding recital clause. The binding portion of the AUMF states, in relevant part, "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."

Nothing in that provision limits the President's authority to use CIA agents, equipment, weapons, etc. to hunt down and kill terrorists. Moreover, I think he has the authority to use the CIA to kill foreigners on foreign soil, with or without the AUMF.

From the article:

Three senior U.S. officials said the lists vary because of the divergent legal authorities. JSOC’s list is longer, the officials said, because the post-Sept. 11, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force, as well as a separate executive order, gave JSOC latitude to hunt broadly defined groups of al-Qaeda fighters, even outside conventional war zones. The CIA’s lethal-action authorities, based in a presidential “finding” that has been modified since Sept. 11, were described as more narrow.

If the President chooses to limit the CIA's authorities, that's up to him to do so. However, the AUMF does not limit the President's authority to use the CIA, in lieu of JSOC, to kill X terrorist.

Now to the issue of "kill lists". Larry has his way of describing it(which is accurate) and I think I am probably thinking along the same lines as he is. This is not a case of "active engagement" ROE. My issue isn't as much what we do after someone is on the list...it is how they get on the list to begin with. What I find interesting is the relative lack of "opposition" to this program. Especially considering the reason why it has grown so extensive.

I have concerns about the program, but, as I previously discussed at length, I have reservations about requiring the President to obtain leave of court prior to causing the death of a suspected terrorist, who isn't a US citizen, and who is living abroad.

There was too much opposition to detaining people so we will go with a better alternative...killing them.

Isn't that kind of like telling our soldiers, "you can shoot at them and kill them, but if you capture them, you have to treat them humanely." I see nothing inconsistent about those two positions.

[Redskins Diehard]

Why wasn't the DoD permitted to conduct the Abbottabad raid?

The easy answer is because the AUMF doesn't authorize it. But the fact that that is even a question illustrates the difference between Title 10 and Title 50(or DoD and CIA).

The portion of the AUMF you cited above is a non-binding recital clause. The binding portion of the AUMF states, in relevant part, "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."

Nothing in that provision limits the President's authority to use CIA agents, equipment, weapons, etc. to hunt down and kill terrorists. Moreover, I think he has the authority to use the CIA to kill foreigners on foreign soil, with or without the AUMF.

Nothing in it authorizes it either. The AUMF authorizes military force. The CIA is not a "military force". That really is a basic fact hat must be understood to engage in the debate.

If the President chooses to limit the CIA's authorities, that's up to him to do so. However, the AUMF does not limit the President's authority to use the CIA, in lieu of JSOC, to kill X terrorist.

The President doesn't choose to limit CIA authorities. He grants the CIA authorities. It is not a scenario where the CIA starts off with the permission to do whatever it wants until the President limits it. The CIA starts off with no authority until the President grants it. Again, the AUMF does not relate to the CIA any more than it relates to the Department of Education.

I have concerns about the program, but, as I previously discussed at length, I have reservations about requiring the President to obtain leave of court prior to causing the death of a suspected terrorist, who isn't a US citizen, and who is living abroad.[\quote]"Suspected" terrorist should not be enough to execute someone in my opinion. Standard rules of engagement cover the situation where someone is an active threat. Just like the rules that govern police officers here at home. Call it apples to oranges if you want but it is not a case of that at all. We should use the same guiding principles to govern our actions overseas.

Isn't that kind of like telling our soldiers, "you can shoot at them and kill them, but if you capture them, you have to treat them humanely." I see nothing inconsistent about those two positions.

No it is not. If anything it would be like telling our soldiers "treating them humanely is too much of a pain in the ass, so instead of capturing them...kill them" I have spent 2 years of my life living under the rules of engagement and AUMF and I can tell you that if anyone gave that guidance they would likely end facing a courts martial. But not only is there inconsistency in the examples but there is inconsistency in the opposition. How can you be vehemently opposed to "indefinite detention" and be okay with "execution by means of list"?

[Madison Redskin]

The easy answer is because the AUMF doesn't authorize it.

Just so we are clear, are you claiming that the President of the United States acted unlawfully when he ordered the DoD/CIA to conduct a raid on the Abbottabad compound to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden … solely because the AUMF did not expressly authorize it?

Nothing in it authorizes it either. The AUMF authorizes military force. The CIA is not a "military force". That really is a basic fact hat must be understood to engage in the debate.

The President did not need express Congressional approval to order the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Constitution confers certain implied authorities upon the Commander in Chief, including, in my view, the authority to direct the military to kill a man who is not a US citizen, who resides on foreign soil, and who has claimed repsonsibility for the murder of over 3,000 Americans.

But, let's assume I am wrong and the President must obtain Congressional consent prior to ordering our military to kill a single person who is not a US citizen, who has never stepped foot on US soil, and who has American blood on his hands. Congress provided such consent. The AUMF says the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for 9/11. In my view, that includes the authorization to kill Osama, whether with SEALs, CIA operatives, or TSA agents and any suggestion to the contrary is unreasonable.

Finally, as I previously noted, not a single binding provision of the AUMF limits the President’s authority to the use of military personnel in targeting and killing the persons responsible for the attacks. Suffice it to say, I find it extraordinarily difficult to swallow the notion that Congress did not intend to grant the President the authority to use the CIA to find and kill Osama and other members of bin Laden. How many Congressmen do you think believe the killing of Osama in the Abbottabad compound was not authorized by the AUMF?

The President doesn't choose to limit CIA authorities. He grants the CIA authorities. It is not a scenario where the CIA starts off with the permission to do whatever it wants until the President limits it. The CIA starts off with no authority until the President grants it.

I agree.

"Suspected" terrorist should not be enough to execute someone in my opinion. Standard rules of engagement cover the situation where someone is an active threat. Just like the rules that govern police officers here at home. Call it apples to oranges if you want but it is not a case of that at all. We should use the same guiding principles to govern our actions overseas.

Maybe we should, but that’s a different discussion. What you want and what “is” are often two different things.

No it is not. If anything it would be like telling our soldiers "treating them humanely is too much of a pain in the ass, so instead of capturing them...kill them" I have spent 2 years of my life living under the rules of engagement and AUMF and I can tell you that if anyone gave that guidance they would likely end facing a courts martial. But not only is there inconsistency in the examples but there is inconsistency in the opposition. How can you be vehemently opposed to "indefinite detention" and be okay with "execution by means of list"?

I have no problem with the President ordering the CIA or special forces to put a missile fired by a drone up the tailpipe of a car being driven by a member of Al Qaeda. I would have a problem with the President ordering the CIA or special forces to torture guys who are already detained and do not pose a threat. Those views simply do not conflict.

[twa]

The AUMF (with it's rather broad limits) increases the executives (already large) discretionary use of the CIA ect...lowering the assumed supervisory role of Congress(which already is limited) since consent is evident.

operating under executive order and the temporary transfer of military personnel and assets to their control has been rather common....it is nothing but legalese.

I know at least a dozen that have been loaned out.

the Executives powers ebb and grow dependent on several factors...most importantly the Congress's implied consent.

[Redskins Diehard]

The AUMF (with it's rather broad limits) increases the executives (already large) discretionary use of the CIA ect...lowering the assumed supervisory role of Congress(which already is limited) since consent is evident.

operating under executive order and the temporary transfer of military personnel and assets to their control has been rather common....it is nothing but legalese.

I know at least a dozen that have been loaned out.

the Executives powers ebb and grow dependent on several factors...most importantly the Congress's implied consent.

No it doesn't. You don't understand the AUMF like you think you do. But I am sure that doesn't matter. The AUMF does not in any way, shape, or form guide the actions of a Title 50 organization like the CIA.

---------- Post added December-29th-2011 at 08:54 AM ----------

Just so we are clear, are you claiming that the President of the United States acted unlawfully when he ordered the DoD/CIA to conduct a raid on the Abbottabad compound to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden … solely because the AUMF did not expressly authorize it?

You are using CIA/DoD like they are the same. The President of the United States decided to take a DoD element(SEAL Team 6) and REMOVE it from the operational control of the Department of Defense(the organization that actually does derive its authorities from the AUMF). The organization that it has belonged to since its inception. There are numerous reasons why he chose to do that. The reason why there is no question of whether it is legal or not is for that very reason. But you can not accurately keep discussing this issue or these programs if in your mind DoD/CIA can be used as if they are equal, or similar, in their authorities.

The President did not need express Congressional approval to order the killing of Osama bin Laden. The Constitution confers certain implied authorities upon the Commander in Chief, including, in my view, the authority to direct the military to kill a man who is not a US citizen, who resides on foreign soil, and who has claimed repsonsibility for the murder of over 3,000 Americans.

Are you saying the President has the authority to order and assassination based on powers conferred by the constitution? If so, you are wrong. Which addresses your assumption below

But, let's assume I am wrong and the President must obtain Congressional consent prior to ordering our military to kill a single person who is not a US citizen, who has never stepped foot on US soil, and who has American blood on his hands. Congress provided such consent. The AUMF says the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for 9/11. In my view, that includes the authorization to kill Osama, whether with SEALs, CIA operatives, or TSA agents and any suggestion to the contrary is unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is thinking every organization in the United States Executive Branch is granted authority based on the Authorization of MILITARY FORCE.

Finally, as I previously noted, not a single binding provision of the AUMF limits the President’s authority to the use of military personnel in targeting and killing the persons responsible for the attacks. Suffice it to say, I find it extraordinarily difficult to swallow the notion that Congress did not intend to grant the President the authority to use the CIA to find and kill Osama and other members of bin Laden. How many Congressmen do you think believe the killing of Osama in the Abbottabad compound was not authorized by the AUMF?

The AUMF has nothing to do with the CIA. If you want to keep believing that then it is best we end this discussion. Or that I do at least. The AUMF actually probably DOES authorize the DoD to conduct that mission. However other considerations must have been taken into account for the operational control to be taken from DoD and given to CIA. You clearly don't understand the significance of taking on of the DoD Tier 1 organizations and placing it under the operational control(OPCON) of a non-JSOC, non-SOCOM, non-DoD organization.

I have no problem with the President ordering the CIA or special forces to put a missile fired by a drone up the tailpipe of a car being driven by a member of Al Qaeda. I would have a problem with the President ordering the CIA or special forces to torture guys who are already detained and do not pose a threat. Those views simply do not conflict.

Of course they don't conflict in your head. It is called rationalization. What about the President just detaining them? No torture. Just capturing them and holding them....humanely. Of course we could also go the route of saying "how do we know they are "members of Al Qaeda"? You know I have heard arguments that we have held innocent people in Gitmo. But I guess it is impossible that that hellfire missile ends up in the tailpipe of the wrong car.