RIH (Rot in Hell) Ayman al Zawahiri!!!!

[Riggo-toni]

Best news I've heard in months!  This is the guy who convinced Bin Laden to target the west instead of just local regimes. Only downside is he was divisive and many blame him for Al Quaeda's decline.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/08/01/us/al-qaeda-strike-us#al-qaeda-strike-afghanistan

Live Updates: U.S. Drone Strike Said to Have Killed Top Qaeda Leader

The strike killed Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over leadership of the group after the death of Osama bin Laden.

The fact that Zawahiri felt safe moving around Afghanistan, where al Qaeda leaders launched the Sept. 11 attacks 21 years ago, spoke volumes about how little the United States managed to change the country after two decades of war.

[TheGreatBuzz]

UI wonder under what authority he ordered this strike under?  Striking inside another nation that we aren't at war with?  I thought we were done with that.

[Riggo-toni]

We weren't at war with Pakistan when we hit Bin Laden, and the fact that he was hanging out in Afghanistan means the Taliban (ir more specifically, the Haqqani network) was violating the terms of the peace agreement not to harbor terrorists.

[abdcskins]

Reading the details it seems like a real "Zero Dark Thirty" situation. I suppose all ops like that require careful stealth planning. Way to go CIA and Seals and whatever agency was involved 👍

[TheGreatBuzz]

22 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

We weren't at war with Pakistan when we hit Bin Laden, and the fact that he was hanging out in Afghanistan means the Taliban (ir more specifically, the Haqqani network) was violating the terms of the peace agreement not to harbor terrorists.

 

But the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was in effect then with not many vocal detractors.  But then many on the Left called for the AUMF to be ended.  So assuming Biden used the terms of the AUMF to conduct this strike, how will the Left react?

[spjunkies]

Good riddance 

[Redskins Diehard]

56 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

But the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was in effect then with not many vocal detractors.  But then many on the Left called for the AUMF to be ended.  So assuming Biden used the terms of the AUMF to conduct this strike, how will the Left react?

It wasn't a use of military force

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

It wasn't a use of military force

 

A drone firing two Hellfire missiles isn't military force?  What would you call it?

[Redskins Diehard]

1 minute ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

A drone firing two Hellfire missiles isn't military force?  What would you call it?

It is not.  The answer to your second question is found in Title 50 and EO12333 

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

It is not.  The answer to your second question is found in Title 50 and EO12333 

 

Got anything more specific?  I'm working through Title 50 section 1543.  Came across this: "(B)

the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and". 

 

So what specifically did Biden tell to Congress and what specific portion did he refer to?  Seems like that would directly answer my question. 

[Redskins Diehard]

2 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Got anything more specific?  I'm working through Title 50 section 1543.  Came across this: "(B)

the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and". 

 

So what specifically did Biden tell to Congress and what specific portion did he refer to?  Seems like that would directly answer my question. 

It's all in there.  The AUMF has nothing to do with this authorization. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Redskins Diehard said:

It's all in there.  The AUMF has nothing to do with this authorization. 

 

So despite Dem positions during election season ,we are fine with POTUS unilaterally drone-striking anyone he deems fit with no check and balance? 

 

Consider who may be taking office in 2024 when answering. 

[Redskins Diehard]

Just now, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

So despite Dem positions during election season ,we are fine with POTUS unilaterally drone-striking anyone he deems fit with no check and balance? 

 

Consider who may be taking office in 2024 when answering. 

You haven't read enough to understand. Your premise is false. I mean you may not like it even if you did understand and that would be fair. But your understanding of how it works is not correct. There's a whole world outside of Title 10. Understand the differences and you'll understand this

[Fergasun]

Congress could feel free to defund missiles and drone programs if they wanted to. They haven't.  So those who oppose them cry, and act all indignent. 

 

If and when a President kills US citizens on foreign soil, or even as collateral damage it becomes a poltical question and potentially impeachable offense.  GOP (and Dems if roles were switched) can have fun impeaching the President for drone striking a 9/11 mastermind or enabler. 

 

al-Qeada is ideologically driven towards the violent overthrow or destruction of America and Americans. Thus, they are fair game for the President to lawfully protect and defend Americans. 

[tshile]

48 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

If and when a President kills US citizens on foreign soil, or even as collateral damage it becomes a poltical question and potentially impeachable offense

We already did. 
 

I realize he went on camera and “denounced his citizenship” but that’s not the actual process for ending one’s citizenship (yes there’s a process and lol the government requires you to pay them to do so) and he was a citizen when the kill was ordered and carried out. 
 

people complained for a day or too but that was it. 

56 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You haven't read enough to understand. Your premise is false. I mean you may not like it even if you did understand and that would be fair. But your understanding of how it works is not correct. There's a whole world outside of Title 10. Understand the differences and you'll understand this

Given he’s actually looked it up and simply asked questions, you’re being quite a dick for seemingly no reason. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

So despite Dem positions during election season ,we are fine with POTUS unilaterally drone-striking anyone he deems fit with no check and balance? 

 

Consider who may be taking office in 2024 when answering. 

I guess we’ll have to worry about this whataboutism when we get to it…

[DCSaints_fan]

4 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

UI wonder under what authority he ordered this strike under?  Striking inside another nation that we aren't at war with?  I thought we were done with that.

 

Under the authority of a briefcase full of cash handed to someone, or a few someones.

 

Edit: I see you're talking about authority more from the US perspective.  I guess they're called elections and the fact that Congress is going to do jack squat.

 

You really think anyone except for some on the far-left are really going to raise a ruckus about this one?

 

Also, we don't recognize the de facto government of Afghanistan (Taliban).  True, we're not at war but not exactly at peace either.  That gives the President significantly more latitude.  And as others have mentioned, look what happened with bin Laden / Pakistan, whom we did (still do) recognize and had at least lukewarm relations with at the time  - we didn't even give them ahead of time notice when we blatantly violated their airspace and attacked a compound inside their territory.

Edited August 2, 2022 by DCSaints_fan

[TradeTheBeal!]

Hey-oooo!

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Redskins Diehard]

7 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Given he’s actually looked it up and simply asked questions, you’re being quite a dick for seemingly no reason. 

It takes a little longer than 5 minutes of effort to understand. He seems quite sure this is related to the AUMF(and even had a witty retort when I said it wasn't military force) and that there are no checks and balances. Those are both fundamentally wrong whether he "looked it up" or not. 

[Renegade7]

8 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

So despite Dem positions during election season ,we are fine with POTUS unilaterally drone-striking anyone he deems fit with no check and balance? 

 

Consider who may be taking office in 2024 when answering. 

 

Going out in a limb here, but I believe we should stop drone strikes to kill terrorists. DoD has had issue after issue concerning collateral damage, the kind that creates multiple terrorists in an attempt to kill one.

 

Having said that, our country would have to come to grips with that meaning more special forces operations that could go south, getting one or all of them killed. 

 

War is not a video game, people tend to actually die on both sides, so my hope is when going this route it doesn't become a political football about why we didn't jus do a drone strike (hint, this is probably why we arent doing my suggestion : (

 

To your point, I'm not convinced there's no checks and balances concerning drone strikes like this, but I am convinced there's not enough and never will be, another reason to stop.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

It takes a little longer than 5 minutes of effort to understand. He seems quite sure this is related to the AUMF(and even had a witty retort when I said it wasn't military force) and that there are no checks and balances. Those are both fundamentally wrong whether he "looked it up" or not. 

 

And you seem to think that you have some kind of knowledge that you don't want to share.  Either share with the class or quit telling people they don't know what they are talking about without providing explanation. 

[bearrock]

@The Almighty Buzz I'm pretty sure the killing was rooted in 2001 AUMF, which has been criticized as ill-defined, overly broad, and abused to justify expansion of scope, but I don't think there has been a lot of call for outright termination like there has been for 2002 AUMF.  And even the most vocal critics of 2001 AUMF would have to concede that Zawahiri falls squarely within its scope.

 

On a tangent, CIA did carry out the strike, but it doesn't seem to comport with title 50 covert actions (hence the open acknowledgement of its involvement), so I'm not sure what relevance title 50 or EO 12333 has on this.  Seems like traditional support of military activities to me.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

@The Almighty Buzz I'm pretty sure the killing was rooted in 2001 AUMF, which has been criticized as ill-defined, overly broad, and abused to justify expansion of scope, but I don't think there has been a lot of call for outright termination like there has been for 2002 AUMF.  And even the most vocal critics of 2001 AUMF would have to concede that Zawahiri falls squarely within its scope.

 

On a tangent, CIA did carry out the strike, but it doesn't seem to comport with title 50 covert actions (hence the open acknowledgement of its involvement), so I'm not sure what relevance title 50 or EO 12333 has on this.  Seems like traditional support of military activities to me.

 

Thanks.  It is hard to find details of the CIA's drone program due to its secret nature.  Below is an article (meant for the group) regarding the "questionable" authority for using things like drone strikes.  It speaks about Iraq and Suria but it seems like much of it should apply here also.

 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-airstrikes-syria-and-iraq-legal-authorities-and-presidential-war-powers

 

For the record, I'm cool with what he did.  But I would like more details and to see Dem reactions to it considering comments that have been made regarding AUMF and drone strikes in general.  Do they stay consistent in their statements?  That becomes an integrity issue to me that is important.