Reason: President Obama Briefly Worried That His Unaccountable, Murderous Power Might Fall Into Republican Hands

[The Evil Genius]

In modern times, should our direct military actions be synonymous with "war" declarations?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There is a declared war in Afghanistan?

I thought there was... no?

I am pretty sure we did declare war after 9/11. I don't know the terms of it, etc.

Just google searched and I think Operation Enduring Freedom was a declaration of war by Congress in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda... no?

[SnyderShrugged]

I thought there was... no?

I am pretty sure we did declare war after 9/11. I don't know the terms of it, etc.

Nope, havent had a formal declaration of war since I think WW2. Its all been congressional end arounds since then. That's probably why we see a war that has lasted more than a decade and we will see more than 10k troops in Afghanistan well after the so -called 2014 leave date we are promised.

---------- Post added November-26th-2012 at 03:36 PM ----------

In modern times, should our direct military actions be synonymous with "war" declarations?

No, war should be declared by congress as is suppossed to occur. All of the successful ones were done that way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Nope, havent had a formal declaration of war since I think WW2. Its all been congressional end arounds since then. That's probably why we see a war that has lasted more than a decade and we will see more than 10k troops in Afghanistan well after the so -called 2014 leave date we are promised.

Wikipedia, but:

President George W. Bush was authorized by the U.S. Congress on 14 September 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on 18 September 2001, by both President Bush and Congress. This legislation authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on 11 September 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 11 September attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[71] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[72] On 20 December 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[73] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on 11 August 2003.[74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

I admit I have to freshen up to see if both branches of congress have to declare war or just the House.

[SnyderShrugged]

Wikipedia, but:

President George W. Bush was authorized by the U.S. Congress on 14 September 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on 18 September 2001, by both President Bush and Congress. This legislation authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on 11 September 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 11 September attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[71] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[72] On 20 December 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[73] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on 11 August 2003.[74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

I admit I have to freshen up to see if both branches of congress have to declare war or just the House.

That isnt a war declaration, that is an "authorization to use military force" two completely different things.

Only congress can declare war, never a President alone.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That isnt a war declaration, that is an "authorization to use military force" two completely different things.

Only congress can declare war, never a President alone.

You seem to have all the answers.

[The Evil Genius]

SS,

Drone usage should only come after a war declaration? Or not at all? Or somewhere in between the two?

[SnyderShrugged]

You seem to have all the answers.

Once in awhile I can come up with something.

---------- Post added November-26th-2012 at 03:42 PM ----------

SS,

Drone usage should only come after a war declaration? Or not at all? Or somewhere in between the two?

I'd wrap it in with a war declaration, but it probably depend on the circumstances they are used in.

Drones are just a tool that is being misused by our President (and the last few too)

[Mad Mike]

Its the fact that a sitting President has the power to kill anyone that he wants at any time that upsets me and He clearly sees just how bad it is to the point that he was willing to you know make some rules about it IN CASE HE LOST.

Since he won however, all is well, continue the murdering.

The fact is that Obama has no interest in abusing the power and is taking steps to make sure no president can. THAT IS A GOOD THING.

**** Anwar al-Awlaki. I wish we could kill him again. Same goes for any so called "American Citizen" who would join or support AQ.

---------- Post added November-26th-2012 at 09:08 PM ----------

Was the "radical" cleric Anwar al-Awlaki whom we killed along with his 16 yo son a terrorist? He gave anti American speeches, but I don't believe he has ever been associated with planning or implementing an attack on US interests.

We are doing the same thing Israel does... We target folks we don't like and call them terrorists; we then label everyone who dies proximal to the target a terrorist also. Trusting in the obliviousness of the US people to cloak the offensiveness of the policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

U.S. officials say that al-Aulaqi spoke with and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[20] accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[21][22] and "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[23][24][25] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

Yeah, just another innocent...

[Thiebear]

I always come back to a fisa review board.

Though again if you try and clean it up for the next guy

You should clean it up for yourself.

If the Chinese comes up with a Grim laser in space

And start killing people in 9 countries saying

They are terrorists based on their statements

Do we agree?

Or do we hold a moral high ground on

Not allowing speech against us?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

pretty good

[Popeman38]

Ok, I understand this (same to you Thiebear).

I guess I don't understand why this always comes up through the lens of the use of drones. The president could order such a kill with or without drones, right?

I don't have the answer to when its ok with the "war on terror" either. I do think this is why we have elections. I think as commander in chief, the president can order such a kill with or without drones, anywhere in the world. But, I can't say I'm up on my commander in chief power law.

The problem with traditional war, or the check, is that it required you to place your own in harms way. Now, we can literally fight an air war in multiple countries from 8 different covert locations in the US. Using drones that for the most part are difficult for the country being bombed to do anything about.

[Koala]

Tulane Skins Fan -- The issue with drones is that drones lower the political stakes (domestic and international) than do the use of traditional means of war. Invading Pakistani/Yemeni airspace with a squadron of B2 stealth bombers or Apache Helicopters removes the option of plausible deniability for the U.S., and also is such a clear act of war that it could not possibly be committed regularly to a country that we are ostensibly allied with (Pakistan, etc). Therefore no president would do this unless he was ready to admit that we are now at a functional state of war with a given country. That given country is also now required to mount some sort of conventional military response to the conventional military attack (i.e. declare war). Conventional military tactics require an invasion, wither by air or ground. They also are much riskier than drone attacks because if a plane gets shot down and a pilot is either captured or killed, you immediately have a major international scandal on your hands.

Drones, on the other hand, have a smaller fingerprint and are low-key enough that there is the option of plausible deniability both for the offending country and for the offended country. The use of a single drone, for whatever reason, is not considered a true invasion of a country. It allows the offended country to save some face by saying they have no evidence of a U.S invasion.

And THAT is the issue -- by lowering the stakes, drone attacks allow presidents to go after people that they normally would not consider enough of a threat to go after. This lends itself to abuse, and also lends itself to a potentially catastrophic decision such as the Anwar Awlaki decision (see below)

I would consider drone attacks to be on the same level or same type of attack as CIA assassination squads. We use them precisely when we want to kill people without really having an international discussion about it. It allows U.S. operations to operate out of the spotlight, and let me tell you, wherever there is darkness, ****roaches are sure to follow.

---------- Post added November-26th-2012 at 06:19 PM ----------

Tulane Skins Fan -- The issue with drones is that drones lower the political stakes (domestic and international) than do the use of traditional means of war. Invading Pakistani/Yemeni airspace with a squadron of B2 stealth bombers or Apache Helicopters removes the option of plausible deniability for the U.S., and also is such a clear act of war that it could not possibly be committed regularly to a country that we are ostensibly allied with (Pakistan, etc). Therefore no president would do this unless he was ready to admit that we are now at a functional state of war with a given country. That given country is also now required to mount some sort of conventional military response to the conventional military attack (i.e. declare war). Conventional military tactics require an invasion, wither by air or ground. They also are much riskier than drone attacks because if a plane gets shot down and a pilot is either captured or killed, you immediately have a major international scandal on your hands.

Drones, on the other hand, have a smaller fingerprint and are low-key enough that there is the option of plausible deniability both for the offending country and for the offended country. The use of a single drone, for whatever reason, is not considered a true invasion of a country. It allows the offended country to save some face by saying they have no evidence of a U.S invasion.

And THAT is the issue -- by lowering the stakes, drone attacks allow presidents to go after people that they normally would not consider enough of a threat to go after. This lends itself to abuse, and also lends itself to a potentially catastrophic decision such as the Anwar Awlaki decision (see below)

I would consider drone attacks to be on the same level or same type of attack as CIA assassination squads. We use them precisely when we want to kill people without really having an international discussion about it. It allows U.S. operations to operate out of the spotlight, and let me tell you, wherever there is darkness, ****roaches are sure to follow.

[twa]

Why not just consider them a more accurate Tomahawk?

The rush to get rules before the election is mildly amusing.