Essay talk:Obama

Obama and the Death Penalty

I'm pretty sure the President has no power over state death sentences, which is the vast majority of them. That's a matter for governors. MDB (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't McVeigh like the only federal execution in the last however many decades? ^narchist 12:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely one of the very few. Basically, as I understand it, the only Federal death penalty is for murder on Federal land, or killing a US government official in the course of his duties. There just aren't that many Federal cases where the death penalty even applies. MDB (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right! I guess I knew this vaguely, but wasn't thinking straight. Thanks for the heads-up!--^talk 11:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A few errors

There are a few errors I've found on both the "Good" and the "Bad" sections. On the "Good" section, you mention that he has rejected Keystone, but he recently approved a small portion of it. I think that is something worth mentioning. On the "Bad" section, I think that the "targeted assassination of a US citizen" is misleading, as it implies that he assassinated an actual American who was innocent. In reality, the man was a Yemen terrorist who was not under protection of US law, so arresting him with due process would be impossible. We can argue whether this will lead to a slippery slope, I again think that this is important information that should be included. Finally, the claim that "Obama is waging a war on whistleblowers" is somewhat misleading. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In order:

1. I refer to the rejection of part of the Keystone XL proposed pipeline for this reason. But it may be worth a further word.
2. I speak of the "unilateral assassination of US citizens" because that is part of the expanded powers of the executive put forward by the administration. I do not particularly see why new avenues were needed for dealing with this Yemeni terrorist and associated individuals, and find the arguments in that regard extremely unpersuasive and the dangers inherent in the expansion to be appalling.
3. That essay to which you link is interesting. But it seems to address Manning almost exclusively. I have little sympathy for Manning, personally, and he is not to whom I refer. I was instead thinking of John Kiriakou, Peter van Buren, Thomas Drake, Daniel Davis, as well as a host of lower-level individuals (c.f. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=66996).

I appreciate your thoughtful input, however, and I will probably edit some based on your comments.--^talk 03:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though for #2, the constitution technically does not mention US citizens; it merely says "no person". I think that "Person under protection of the law" is a better definition in context of "person" than simply "US citizen". Anwar al-Awlaki's citizenship is more of a technicality as he was born in the US but quickly moved to Yemen. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to the government having the ability to kill anyone, actually, regardless of citizenship, without some form of due process. But in this case, I wanted to refer specifically to the expansion of power under question.--^talk 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

His citizenship is not a technicality. He was a natural-born US citizen and subject to all the rights, protections and obligations that entailed. The United States does not classify its citizens based on where they happen to reside, and it is an incredibly dangerous idea to assume it should. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But citizenship alone does not grant protection of the law. It would be one thing if he was capable of being deported to the United States, but the Yemen government was unable to do that (correct me if I'm wrong). He seems to consider himself a Yemeni, as he lied about his birthplace, as he attended college here as a foreign student claiming to be born in Yemen. Intelligence agencies showed that he was in fact a terrorist. The only thing that makes him different from Bin Laden is that he happened to be born in the United States, but again, he was not under protection of US law. The reason I'm bringing this up is that when people here "Obama is targeting US citizens", especially when coupled with "Obama is cracking down on whistleblowers", they get the idea that he is sending drones to bomb Republican villages or that he is secretly killing innocent people. We can disagree about whether al-Awlaki should have been assassinated, but I think that the statement should at least be clarified to mention that he was not under protection of US law. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Where exactly did it say in US law that the state can execute a citizen (or anyone else, for that matter) without the benefit of trial before the legal developments in question? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The constitution just says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...". It does not say "no citizen", it says "no person". If you are going to be absolutist about this, then that means that Bin Laden and others shouldn't have been assassinated either, and I don't think you agree with that. A much more reasonable reasoning is just "No person under protection of the law...".

Now, perhaps this isn't the best supplementary argument, but I can hardly see how the assassination of a single Yemeni terrorist is anything worse than the imprisonment of thousands of Japanese Americans on United States soil without due process. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The constitution does state that there is an exception in the case of "public danger". Perhaps this is subjective, but al-Awlaki was an active al-Qaida recruiter who was listed as a high danger public enemy by numerous intelligence agencies. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would have preferred to see Osama tried and imprisoned for life if found guilty rather than killed. As for the internment of American citizens during WWII, are you really making the not as bad as argument? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Accordingly, I will be voting for him, just as in 2008."

I thought you were a Kiwi. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I'm an American, born and bred. I'm spending two years in New Zealand, as I'd spent the two years previous in Korea, and next year I'll be living in Saudi Arabia, but after that it will be home to the States. In the meantime: absentee ballots.--^talk 23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea. " next year I'll be living in Saudi Arabia..." Will the lovely Mrs. D. be surrendering her driver's licence//getting a veil/finding a job in a lingerie shop? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

She won't be able to drive and will probably wear a veil, just like I'll have to forgo shorts and we'll both have to abstain from alcohol. But in actual fact we might not end up in Saudi - that's the plan right now, but I also have some good prospects in other countries in the Middle East like Qatar, some of which are more lenient. So we'll have to see.--^talk 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Patriot Act

If you are going to look at both the good and bad Obama has done, you have to mention his extension of the Patriot Act. This is one of the only things I strongly disagree with the President on. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. That rolls into his overall extension of executive power, my own strongest criticism (although far from the only one). Thanks.--^talk 01:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I see the Patriot Act as Obama's worst move because his other infamous actions are far from unprecedented as executive authority is always increased during a time of war, especially in a war based on retaliation to an attack on US soil. This includes his assassination of Al-Awlaki (killings of US citizens without due process has happened before in WWII and the Civil War). In some ways, Obama has actually done a fairly good job of preserving core principles by opposing the odious provisions in the original NDAA and ending torture and unfair military trials at Gitmo. However, the Patriot Act I think is the worst of his actions because it takes advantage of many new means of communication, such as cell phones and the internet. I know today he made a statement condemning foreign countries for doing much of the same things, just to a greater degree. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, war has been used as an excuse for an increase in executive authority frequently, and the authority is seldom ever returned. Obama has not done a good job of preserving core principles because he signed the NDAA, even if he declared he wasn't going to implement part of it (how about the next President?).--^talk 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You forget that until Obama raised his veto threat, the NDAA explicitly changed existing law. After his veto threat, the bill was amended so that it specifically stated "this bill does not change existing law, and it will not affect US citizens" (paraphrasing but that's pretty much it). I'd also like to note that it is extremely difficult for a sitting wartime President to decrease wartime authority, lest he be deemed "soft on terror". Obama in particular has mainly performed executive actions off US soil (legal under Geneva law), unlike Bush who used executive authority on US citizens on US soil (illegal under the United States Constitution). Indeed, Obama's actions are quite tame in comparison to his predecessors. Lincoln in particular performed actions that would cause the ACLU to wet its pants. The reason he was able to do it, though, was because the United States was in arguably the greatest public danger it has been since the War of 1812.

Again, I strongly disagree with many of Obama's actions, but many people (not you, your essay is actually pretty fair) portray him to be some fascist who is sending drones around the world to kill US citizens. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much sympathy for the view that he had to increase executive authority or else he'd be criticized. Extrajudicial and unilateral bombings and wars are not a necessary sop to keep Obama popular under any stretch of the imagination. It's curious that you're willing to cede something so important for the sake of Obama's appearances.--^talk 03:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about his usage of drones or expansion of Afghanistan War. That's a whole different story, which depends on your general opinions about a war on terror. I was referring to things like Al-Awlaki, the NDAA, and Gitmo, which are often cited as evidence that "Obama is a fascist", even though there are fundamental misconceptions at large about these issues and events. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The prosecution of an entire war in Libya is of rather more concern to me, in its flagrant violation of the War Powers Act and the Constitution. Afghanistan was a foolish war, but it and its expansion are both constitutional and entirely with good precedent. Obama has tried to close Gitmo, but it is extremely difficult, so I don't hold that too much against him. Al-Awlaki is much more troubling: extrajudicial and unilateral executions of American citizens are unacceptable. Your perception that his location is the deciding factor is strange. I live in New Zealand - if sloppy intelligence indicated mistakenly that I had supplied Al'Qaeda with material support, could I too be legally executed by Obama without a trial? Am I safe only because I'm Caucasian and my death would be unpopular?--^talk 04:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are safe from a US drone strike because you reside in a country in cooperation with the United States, so you would be arrested with due process. Furthermore, you are not actively and publicly engaged in acts against the United States.

To put it this way, if an American citizen decided to join the Nazis, should they be read their rights on Pearl Harbor (there were indeed such American citizens who sided with the Axis and paid the price)? Al-Awlaki may not have been directly doing such a thing, but he was publically calling for jihad against the United States, and had evaded multiple warrants for his arrest in Yemen. In this sense, his US citizenship is irrelevant. As a result, his assassination is equivalent to Clinton's attempts to get Bin Laden.

Libya is interesting. The United States was not quite engaged there. We were only in there as a supporting force for a week until NATO took over, well within the War Powers Act which had previously been used in Panama. It is true that Congress has lost much of their war declaring powers, and that is a concern for the future, but I don't think Libya was handled badly at all. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My active and public acts are a question of fact and interpretation that merit consideration by a court of law, because American citizens are entitled to trials and not summary sentences from the executive. My location should not matter. If I decide to move to Yemen, that should not suddenly vaporize my constitutional right to a trial by my peers.

Your example is asinine: we were at war with the Nazis, so enemy combatants would be dealt with according to long-established rules of war. Congress did not declare war on Anwar Al-Awlaki - Obama simply decided to kill him. Nor are we are at war with Yemen. Nor is publicly calling for jihad or evading the Yemeni police somehow a ceding of his constitutional rights. If I started calling for jihad right now, that does not abrogate my right to a trial.

In Libya, our air force spent weeks bombing, destroying buildings and vehicles and killing people. I am not saying it was handled badly; the war was enacted competently and intelligently. Nonetheless it was in flagrant violation of statute and the Constitution.--^talk 04:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Congress did not declare war on Al-Awlaki or Yemen, but they did declare war on Al Qaida through the AUMF. Obama (long with John Kerry in 2004, and presumably Gore in 2000) has always interpreted the AUMF to apply to Al Qaida operatives not on US soil and in countries unable to deal with Al-Qaida through their own law enforcement.

You're also wrong in American citizens having a constitutional exemption - the constitution, as I've noted above, never mentions US citizens but only mentions "people". It does, however, allow exceptions to the 5th amendment in cases of war, which is the case with Al-Awlaki. Tell me, how is Al-Awlaki's killing any different than Clinton's assassinations of Al-Qaida operatives (including an attempt against Bin Laden) through missile strikes? Those guys didn't get due process.

It is debatable whether the AUMF should have been passed, and whether we should be in a war against terrorists. What is not debatable is the fact that Obama never pretended to not intend on using military force granted to him through the AUMF to take down terrorists.

As for Libya, once again, NATO took control of the operation less than a week after initial US and UK military action. The United States was no longer a leading force after that, so congressional approval was not needed. This is similar to how Clinton handled Kosovo. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So being a terrorism suspect, in your eyes, is sufficient to condemn an American citizen to death without a trial, as long as they are outside the country? If the Director at the CIA decides he hates me, and tells the President that I am a terrorist, then the President can execute me by fiat and without a trial? How does the AUMF, a statute of Congress, somehow overrule my constitutional right to a jury trial? Are you crazy?

It cannot reasonably be presumed that the Constitution, being a document meant as the supreme governing law of the United States of America, is intended to govern the whole world. Hell, that's actually almost insulting: other countries get to have their own laws. If we pass an amendment to the Constitution, it does not affect other countries' citizens except when they are on our soil and subject to our laws. We can't prohibit unreasonable searches in China. Again: are you crazy?

I do not see any part of the Constitution or the War Powers Act that directs that the President only needs approval if a war lasts longer than a week, or if the United States is at war only as a part of a coalition. Seriously: are you crazy?--^talk 04:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, you invited me to comment here, originally calling my input "thoughtful". If this resorts to personal attacks, I see no point continuing this.

In any case, you disregarded my point about being at war with Al-Qaida. All intelligence agency reports confirm Al-Awlaki as an Al-Qaida member, and the AUMF puts the United States at war with members of Al-Qaida that cannot be feasibly taken down through law enforcement means. In this case, I return to the Nazi/confederate analogy. Should an American who decided to join the Nazis be treated any differently in times of war? I didn't think so. As the AUMF declares Al-Qaida members as hostilities, as you said, Geneva Law applies, not the constitution, as implied by the Fifth Amendment. You neglected to make any mention of the assassination attempts of Bin Laden under Clinton.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph means. I was making a point claiming that it is erroneous to distinguish Al-Awlaki's killing with Clinton's attempts to get Bin Laden; the constitution makes no difference between US citizens and non. Either you claim that both are at war with the United States (like the government has) or that neither are, and neither should have been killed (like P-Foster claimed). Your post also doesn't make sense, since the Fifth Amendment refers to actions taken by the United States government, not world governments. A reasonable take is that by "people", it refers to people under protection of US law, which Al-Awlaki was not.

The War Powers Act only states that after staying in a conflict for 60 days, the President must request authority from Congress. The United States was in Libya for only a week, before NATO took over. You neglect how (being blunt) pretty much no President has actually paid attention to the resolution since its forced passing in 1973. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, I think you're laying some groundwork so you can storm off in a huff, given how you're doing. But okay, I'll lay off the "personal attacks." I was just incredulous. Still am.

I got your point about being at war with Al'Qaeda. But if I was accused of being a Nazi collaborator, I'd get a trial. I wouldn't be accused and then shot in the head by the cop. Do you think that collaborators were shot after being accused, or do you think they got trials?

Bin Laden is not an American citizen, which was my point about why that is irrelevant. It is irrational to claim that the Constitution is a list of rights for all mankind, because it explicitly states at the beginning that it is constituted for the USA. But yes, "people" are people under the protection of U.S. law, which refers to American citizens like Al'Awlaki. Leaving the country does not nullify your rights as a citizen.

I think you need to re-read the War Powers Act. It requires notification of Congress within 48 hours (with a causus belli presumably), regardless of how long someone stays there. Further, America was engaged in military action and bombing for more than 60 days, clearly requiring the authorization of Congress, even if America was no longer in the lead in the war. Yes, presidents have generally ignored it, but presidents have always tended to try to increase their power and that doesn't make it right or less worthy of condemnation. The Constitution explicitly and unlimitedly reserves the right to Congress to declare war.--^talk 04:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to end this with a parting shot. I said what I said in my previous post because you and I normally get along pretty friendly, and I did not want to turn this discussion into a flame war.

Nazi collaborators within the United States got trials, but Americans who actually sided with the Nazis did not. Neither did American citizens in the Civil War who rebelled against the United States. The United States is at war with Al-Qaida. As you admitted, as long as we are at war with Al-Qaida, and as long as Al-Qaida members are deemed "hostilities" by the AUMF, the United States is authorized to use whatever military force needed to take out Al-Qaida. This includes drone strikes against top Al-Qaida members, such as Al-Awlaki. Now, and this is key, the Fifth Amendment clearly states that in times of war, due process is not necessary against hostile forces.

Al-Awlaki was not under protection of US law, as he was not within United States soil and had evaded authorities in Yemen who tried to arrest him. Furthermore, you misread the constitution. Otherwise we would have just sent in the FBI and arrested him. I would also have to say that your American citizenship distinction is troubling in itself. The constitution is a document that describes what the government can and cannot do. As a result, non-citizens are also guaranteed freedom of speech and due process when they are within US soil. The constitution only specifically mentions citizenship once, and that is in the Fourteenth Amendment, which mainly applies to what states can do.

Congress was notified 48 hours after initial attacks on Libya. However, after only 5 days or so, NATO took over. Although the United States participated as part of NATO, that operated under an international treaty which already authorizes military force in such circumstances. Congress does not need to give further authority. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you admit that in your example, of Nazi collaborators, that those who engaged in combat were not afforded due process. And I absolutely agree: it would be ridiculous to expect soldiers to conduct trials in the middle of a firefight. But Al-Awlaki was not in combat - he was executed. Do you really want to set a precedent where it's perfectly acceptable for the government to decide to kill American citizens on the basis of their claim that the person was a "hostile force?"

And you're also claiming that leaving U.S. soil means you lose your privileges as an American citizen, anyway? I have repeatedly asked you this: I am an American in New Zealand, so can the government decide to just kill me since I'm no longer on American soil, on the strength of a unilateral and unexamined claim that I am a bad guy? Where does it say in the Constitution that your right to due process applies only when you're in the country?

The Constitution explicitly states that it is constituted for American citizens right in the start: "We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Compare with, instead, the Declaration of Human Rights, which is for the whole world.

Non-citizens are granted some of the protections of the Constitution while they are on American soil because on American soil even non-citizens are governed by American law. But if they are in Spain, they are governed by Spanish law. I am in NZ, so I am governed by NZ law. But if America wanted to prosecute me under their law for a crime, my presence in NZ does not mean I have lost my rights as an American. NZ can prosecute me for NZ law with whatever certainties of freedom they proffer, but America must protect my freedoms as an American if they wish to prosecute me under American law, as an American citizen.

So are you really saying these things?

• Americans lose their constitutional rights when they leave the country?
• The Constitution governs the entire world, not just American soil and American citizens?
• International treaties overrule the Constitution's requirements and American statutes?--^talk 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So you admit, then, that American citizens at war with the United States are not guaranteed due process? While Al-Awlaki was not directly engaged in a firefight, he was legally deemed as a hostility under the AUMF. Al-Awlaki was a member of Al-Qaida, as determined by intelligence agencies.

You cannot be killed in New Zealand because you are a civilian. If you were deemed by intelligence agencies to be a member of Al-Qaida, and evaded numerous arrest attempts by your own New Zealand government, and your government allowed a drone strike, then yes, you could be assassinated. But seeing as you aren't a member of Al-Qaida (I hope), that shouldn't be a problem. If the American government assassinated you and it turned out you weren't a member of Al-Qaida, and the Central Intelligence Agency was known to have fabricated the information, then yes, that would be a war crime under Geneva Law and would not be permissible by the constitution.

The preamble only justifies the constitution through it being established through the people's representation. However, the constitution applies to the actions of the United States government.

So, in response to your questions:

• No, but they do lose some of their rights when they are engaged in war against the United States.
• Initially a poorly worded statement on my behalf, but as I have clarified, irrelevant to my argument. Either way, my argument holds.
• I brought up an international treaty because the NATO treaty was already ratified by the United States Congress, and the treaty authorizes force in some circumstances. So Congress does not need to give authorization twice.

Mr. Anon (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Americans engaged in actual battle do not need due process. Of course, I was happy to cede that. But you seem to just be trying to conflate the idea of membership in an opposing army with simply being accused of being a member of an enemy group deemed hostile. Americans who obeyed Hitler's call to return to the motherland, joined the Nazi army, and fought, were of course not accorded the right to a trial. But Americans who were accused of being Nazi collaborators were. In the same way, if Al-Alwaki was shooting at U.S. troops or similar sort of thing, where no reasonable person could question the fact that he was a member of or lending material aid to an enemy, then I would not be upset. But instead, he made some YouTube videos and speeches, and was otherwise alleged to be a member of this faction and to have provided material support, and the President took it upon himself to decide this question of fact beyond a reasonable doubt, condemn him to death without due process, and carry out the execution. You keep trying to conflate the two situations, but they are clearly different, both in facts and in principles. His alleged crimes, as obvious as it may seem to you from your armchair, nonetheless deserve some form of due process - even if it is the sadly abbreviated and strange due process of a tribunal.

My status as a "civilian" is a question of fact, and you've already stated you'd be willing to let the U.S. government decide those with their allegations, right? The fact that "if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about" is cold comfort when you are declaring that I have no right to a jury trial if the President decides he doesn't want to give me one. But I shouldn't have to rely on the good will and good judgment of the President for the assurance of my rights. That's the whole point of a constitutional guarantee!

So how about it? What if the President were malicious or wrong with respect to me, and wanted me killed? Are you not arguing that he has the legal power to do so, that I have no recourse or rights, and that essentially by leaving the country I have ceded my right to a jury trial?

You say that "they lose some of their rights when they are engaged in war against the United States" - emphasis added. But don't you see that this is the fact that must be determined by a jury trial, not by a man with a gun? If the mere accusation means that you lose your rights, then you had none to begin with.

I may not be familiar with the NATO provisions of which you speak, so this may just be a misunderstanding. I never even heard anyone make such an assertion before. Could you point me to exactly the part that authorizes the President to enter into wars (or whatever they're called in this context) without Congressional approval?--^talk 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry for being unable to respond, I had to study for mid-terms)

Americans who were merely sympathetic to Nazis were given due process, yes. But they are distinct from Al-Awlaki, as they could be handled by law enforcement, and were not directly at war with the United States. Al-Awlaki was directly at war with the United States, according to intelligence agencies. Whether or not he was directly attacking US soldiers is irrelevant; all the Fifth Amendment states is that it doesn't apply when in times of war. And when in times of War, it is the rules of War, such as Geneva Law, that covers what the President can and cannot do. In this case, under the AUMF, the President was authorized force to take out Al-Qaida members.

The way you word things, you act like this power the President has is unchecked. It isn't. If the President intentionally kills a civilian, then it is a war crime under Geneva Law. This may sound like a kind of "shoot first, ask questions later", but the same kind of reasoning was used to take out Bin Laden. Again, under the international rules of war, citizenship does not matter. If Obama intentionally killed a foreign civilian, it would be a war crime all the same.

Regarding NATO (which is based on a ratified treaty), if member countries agree, it can use military force. I don't know that much about NATO either, but I do know that it operates under a foreign treaty, which makes its actions already ratified by Congress. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

edit break

I'm sorry, I miss the distinction you're making. The Nazi comparison is one you made yourself, but now you're saying that they're not the same thing because Nazi collaborators were not directly at war with America?

Well, I'm happy to abandon that comparison, if you wish. But it seems to me that when I cry foul about Al-A, you have said "Well would you have given a trial to Nazi collaborators?", only to now say that the two aren't the same at all. Seems strange.

Nor do I see your other point about a check on Obama's power. As I have repeatedly pointed out, your reasoning means that the President or one of his high-placed advisors, or even just a conspiracy of low-placed advisors, could unilaterally, extrajudicially, and without appeal, execute me because I am out of the country. You say that this would be a "war crime," but that is a meaningless label - what force would it have?

Are you claiming that suit could be brought in the USA against the President for violating the Geneva Convention to which we are a signor? But if this were the case, suit could already be brought, because the third article of the first part of the fourth convention states that those "taking no active part in hostilities" shall not be subject to violence against their lives (a) and further that another prohibited activity is "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." (d) If Al-A, who had just eaten breakfast and was in his car in Yemen, a country with no active military conflicts, was not a person who was not actively engaged in combat, then what soldier could possibly qualify at any time? To appeal to the Geneva Conventions is to ignore the fact that this killing already has flouted them, and that there is no power capable of prosecution.

So if there is no effective international law that is applicable, and you believe that the President has ultimate and unilateral authority to kill citizens abroad without process or appeal, then what conceivable check exists on the President's power against me? Is it only that it would be unpopular? Let us say that I met the President ten years ago, and we got into an argument. If the President held a grudge, then could he not - completely legally - deem me a terrorist, and have me executed without due process or right of appeal or right of habeas corpus?

Yes, I know that NATO can use military force. But you have claimed that "operate[s] under an international treaty which already authorizes military force in such circumstances", and that "Congress does not need to give further authority." I strongly doubt this claim, and I want to know the source because I don't think it's true. It seems unbelievable that entry into NATO constitutes de jure Congressional permission for any conceivable NATO military action. If you don't mind me saying so, it actually sounds like something you just made up.--^talk 04:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, do you concede that under the AUMF, Al-Qaida members are at war with the United States and not guaranteed due process under the War and Public danger clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Given the fact that individuals at war with the United States have been targetted in a similar fashion, such as Bin Laden under Clinton, do you concede that the manner of Al-Awlaki's death is not unprecedented? You raise the Geneva statement of "taking no active part in hostilities". However, Al-Qaida is "at hostilities" (or at war with the United States) and therefore any active member of Al-Qaida can be targeted without due process.

And finally, do you concede that under the laws of war, citizenship does not matter when deciding a war crime?

If the above three points are conceded, all that needs to be argued, at least on the legal basis, is Al-Awlaki's association with Al-Qaida. Intelligence reports say he was an Al-Qaida leader. Now, if those reports were revealed to be intentionally false, then that would be a war crime. Otherwise, it is not.

Again, since NATO operates under the North Atlantic Treaty, and NATO rules say authorized force may be used if leaders on the security council agree, then US involvement in Libya is justified as long as it is part of NATO. Congress gave NATO the authority to use military force back in 1949. They don't need to grant that authorization twice. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I concede that under the AUMF, the United States is at war with Al'Qaeda members, and there is a limited suspension of due process under the specified constitutional clause - specifically, "when in actual service of War".

I do not concede that Al-A's death had precedent. Al-Awlaki is (to my knowledge) the first case wherein an American citizen had his guilt decided by the executive, a punishment assigned, and his execution carried out - all without right of appeal or other due process. Bin Laden was not an American citizen or on American soil.

I don't understand your point about Geneva. Is anyone accused of being associated with Al'Qaeda thereby instantly and constantly engaged in taking an "active part" in war? Then what possible meaning can that provision requiring humane treatment have, since it only applies to those not actively engaged in war? In other words, doesn't this mean that we can execute all prisoners of war, such as those in Guantanamo, without any sort of due process?

I agree with your conclusion, though: under your interpretation, all that is required to legally condemn any American citizen to death without due process is an accusation by an intelligence agency. Yet you type that without apparent alarm at the prospect that due process just became subject to the whim of the executive. Doesn't that scare you?

I am afraid you are not clarifying the NATO matter, either. Again, I find it unbelievable that Congress would have signed a treaty delegating its authority to declare war to an international treaty organization. But if you can prove it, fine. Please show me.--^talk 04:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, you concede that Al-Qaida members are not necessarily given due process.

By Al-Awlaki's death having precedent, I meant in the manner of his death (via drone strike when he was not in actual combat, without a trial). This has been done before, with the obvious examples of bombing enemy bases and sending missiles after Bin Laden and his fellow Al-Qaida members. These people all had their guilt "decided by the executive". The reason is because that is what war is, destruction of the enemy without due process of judicial permission. For this reason, again, we can bomb the military bases of enemy countries because they are at war with us.

You stress that Al-Awlaki was merely "accused". However, he was just as accused as Bin Laden, or any of the other terrorists we have killed through drone strikes and bombings. But one thing you ignore is that under the laws of war, US citizenship does not mean anything. Al-Awlaki's death is equivilant to Clinton's attempts to get Bin Laden.

To summarize this, Obama has made it clear that his interpretation of the AUMF is that executive force may be used against Al-Qaida members, given that they are outside of US soil and unable to be handled by their own countries law enforcement. The US soil thing makes a very big difference, despite your claims; US law enforcement can only operate under US soil. Anwar Al-Awlaki was at war with the United States by being an Al-Qaida member, and as a result his death is precedented under the laws of war.

As a result, you are wrong that an American citizen can be "legally condemned to death" simply by being accused. If you are in US soil, US law enforcement officials can deal with you through due process means. If you are in a country with the means and intent to cooperate with US law enforcement, it is within that country's hands to deal with you if you are suspected of being a member of Al-Qaida. Al-Awlaki fit neither situation; he was outside of US law enforcement jurisdiction, and he had evaded Yemeni authorities for some time before he was taken out by a drone strike.

I don't have time to sift through the entirety of the North Atlantic Treaty. But if you don't believe me, you can see for yourself. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concede that under certain circumstances - i.e. in actual combat - no due process is due enemy forces in declared war.

Yes, Al-A's death was not unprecedented in the strictly limited sense of "other people have been drone-bombed before," but that hardly seems relevant to a discussion of the rights of U.S. citizens.

You seem determined to conflate irrelevancies or blur distinctions: for example, you refer to "military bases" being bombed, but this was not a military base. If Al-A had been within an active enemy stronghold that was bombed, then of course it would be different. If he had been in an active enemy unit that was bombed, then it would be different. If he had not been a U.S. citizen, then it would be different. But he was an American citizen who'd just had breakfast and was in his car. You are very wrong to say that his citizenship is irrelevant, because it is what certifies that he has the right to due process under American law. Accordingly, if he is accused of a crime... well, we've been there before.

I honestly don't understand the distinctions you're making about the potentials here. Again, use me as an example: I am an American citizen in New Zealand. Are you not arguing that it is completely within the law for the President or a senior intelligence officer to decide that I am a bad guy and have me killed without due process?

I am not asking any of these questions:

1. Is it likely they'd have an affluent Caucasian assassinated?
2. Would this be a popular decision?
3. Would they ask NZ to arrest me or try to arrest me themselves?
4. Didn't Al-A admit he was a terrorist?

I am asking, very simply and directly: are you not saying that it is entirely within the law for the President to decide that I am a terrorist unilaterally, and then have me murdered without right of appeal or due process?

Because I don't see the distinction here between Al-A and myself, under the law. The justice of our deaths would be dependent on the solidity of the evidence linking us to Al'Q, which would of course be a hell of a lot better in his case, but considering that there is no right of discovery, appeal, habeas corpus, or anything else, that'd be cold comfort to my corpse.

You seem comfortable with this notion, arguing that Presidents have always made such decisions during wartime. But my point is that this eliminates any line between combatant and prisoner of war, eliminates the previous surety of an American citizen that an accusation did not constitute evidence, and contravenes the due process necessary under the Geneva Conventions for all soldiers and under the Constitution for Americans.

I notice you've actually dropped the point about the Geneva Conventions, perhaps because you've realized that they already probably prohibit targeted assassinations.

I will assume that since you cannot prove your claim about Congressional authorization and NATO, then you were just fabricating that point because you think it's probably true. We can leave off that line of inquiry if you wish, but as it stands, I can prove my assertions with reference to the Constitution and statutes and their demands for a vote of Congress for war, whereas your reply is an assertion over NATO that you are unable or unwilling to prove. Take it how you will.--^talk 08:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I raised the point of bombing military bases because we only know that certain buildings are military bases because of intelligence information, the same kind that let us find out about Bin Laden. People in strange buildings "suspected" of being military bases are also only "suspected" of being enemy combatants. I'm not sure what your threshold of evidence is. Do you suggest that court orders should be issued for every non-self defensive action in war? Because that would be contradictory to the definition of war - attacks on another sovereign nation or group through extrajudicial means.

Now, I understand your question. And I will answer that as you are in a nation within cooperation with the United States and capable of enforcing its laws, you cannot be assassinated. Were you to live in Yemen, that might be a different story. Troubling? Consider the fact that Yemen, being a major area for Al-Qaida members and a country unable to enforce its own laws, is a battlefield. Even then, as I have stated numerous times, should the US government do that, the case would be a war crime under the laws of war and be prosecuted at international courts. The answer may be unsatisfying, of course, and I'm sure it sounds like a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of answer. But rarely is any action in war simple to answer, and rarely can clear lines be drawn.

I did not "drop the point about Geneva Conventions", and I did not "realize" anything. I answered your question. If my answer was unclear, I accept that I should have answered it more directly. As I stated, Al-Awlaki was involved in hostilities because he was a member of Al-Qaida, and a leading one at that. He was as much involved in hostilities as Bin Laden was when he had missiles sent after him, or anyone in an enemy country during WWII was.

The North Atlantic Treaty, as I've noted, sets up the NATO organization, which includes the ability to use military intervention. I don't know the exact passage, but if you really really want I can search through the treaty. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I in turn shall ask you the following question: does being a US citizen make you more able to get away with attacking the United States? Because you seem to suggest that even though Al-Awlaki and Bin Laden are equally guilty, and were killed in equivilant ways, Al-Awlaki's killing was wrong and Bin Laden's was right only because Al-Awlaki had a US passport somewhere. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, the threshold of evidence for an American citizen is either (a) live combat action or (b) due process and trial and conviction. The government does not get to bomb me unless it meets one of those conditions, because I am an American citizen who has the right to due process. Bin Laden did not.

So what body decides a country has become incapable of enforcing its laws and has become a rights-free zone? Is it the President and his intelligence officials, again? I assume the answer is yes.

How could an international court bring suit against American officials, who don't recognize the International Court of Criminal Justice's authority over themselves? Has that ever happened? Does that seem likely to happen? Did it happen over the international outcry over allegations of torture? And when domestic courts cannot even get the intelligence reports that would prove or disprove my guilt, how could an international court?

Clearly, there is no mechanism of "appeal," even in the version you set out (in which my corpse would appeal).

As you would have it, the President decides when an American citizen is guilty, decides when he is in a country where his due process rights no longer apply, decides what his sentence will be, and executes him without notification, process, or appeal. Such a citizen's only hope would be that an international court intervene, because in your view not a single American institution has any power to prevent or punish the execution of American citizens.

That is chilling. It is even more chilling that you are defending this practice as not just legal, not just necessary, but actually good.

The NATO treaty is perhaps a page in length. So yes, I would be eager to read the provisions that you believe provide NATO the ability to go to war in Libya, and hear how it constitutes Congressional authority.

In answer to your question: yes, being an American citizen makes it much, much easier to fight against the United States. You can much more easily gain access to the country for extended periods, you can go many places and receive training and materials a foreign national cannot get, and you have rights of due process. Wait, sorry. Not that last one. Americans lost their right to due process recently, if they're brown and abroad.--^talk 06:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Anon, am I wrong in characterizing your argument as 'You have nothing to worry about as long as you haven't done something wrong'? Some of your statements regarding war powers, terrorism, and other states remind me of that exact surveillance state logic. For what it's worth, Yemen is officially a War on Terrorism ally, and the US also separately targeted and killed al-Awlaki's 16 year old son (also a US citizen). For some reason, the second killing regularly goes unmentioned, despite the fact it's clearly worse in many ways.

Overall, I tend to find fault with the idea of prosecuting a 'war on terror' (really, war on anyone who will attack America or its interests abroad) like a conventional war in the first place. It's simply trying to fight ideas with bombs - bombs which reinforce those very same ideas. In doing so, the US is creating an endless war (whether mistakenly or Orwellian in nature - up to you), masking it as a dire response to a decade-old attack. But, despite the fact I would argue against killing al-Awlaki and his son even if they weren't US citizens, the point of citizenship is very important simply because it is an expansion of executive power. It's very similar to the issues caused by the detention of Jose Padilla during the Bush presidency. The clear message is that being a US citizen does not exempt you from being unlawfully detained and tortured, nor from being extra-judicially blown the fuck up. To take it even further, both cases show you don't actually have to ever do anything militant to be treated as an enemy combatant or terrorist. These are significant developments, and, considering this is a 'war' that may never end, the acquisition of more wartime powers cannot be diffused by making claims back to Lincoln, or even Sulla. Q0 (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You ignore my point about military bases bombed during war. You seem to suggest that if the US was bombing a German base during WWII and an American citizen happened to be in there, allied with them, they could not bomb that base.

You forget why being on American soil is not arbibrary: law enforcement officials can can capture you and put you on trial. If Al-Awlaki was captured by US forces or Yemeni forces, then he would have been guaranteed a fair trial. However, he was not captured, he was killed in war. In war, you don't just kill hostile forces when they are directly in combat; you can kill them when they are not in combat. That is why I raised the point of military bases.

You ignore how the Fifth Amendment does not apply to actions during war (unless, as I noted, enemies are captured).

You forget that countries unable to use their own law-enforcement means are not selected arbitrarily; Yemen and Pakistan actually asked for US drone strikes as their own forces were not sufficient to fight Al-Qaida. I ask you, how are we supposed to fight a war against these people? We can't send FBI agents, because that is out of their jurisdiction. We can't send ground troops, because that would cost unnecessary lives and be extremely unpopular. And now we can't bomb with unmanned drones, because apparently that's unconstitutional.

Q0, I have actually set a very clear line that protects the rights of US citizens. US citizens within US soil, or outside of a battlefield like Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, cannot legally be indefinitely detained or killed without due process. Al-Awlaki's son was killed accidentally; the air strike was aimed at another terrorist leader and Al-Awlaki's son happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. See Eric Holder's justification for more info.

I'll get back to both of you on Libya after I read the North Atlantic Treaty. Right now I have to go soon. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I didn't think it was necessary to say this, but the USA could and did bomb German bases regardless of whether or not there was an American citizen in there. But this does not seem relevant. An enemy combat base clearly falls into the category of "active part" of war, meaning that soldiers and civilians there are fair game for bombing. You could even make a case for bombing an unmilitarized city like Dresden, if you are fighting a war against a nation and need to disable them (I do not support that, but it's moot here). However, bombing a person's car after their breakfast is not in any sense an attack on someone taking an active part.

But let us say you are right. Please tell me, then, at what times and in what situations Al-A was not taking an active part in combat? Presumably if his car is a live combat zone, then his home is? What about his bathroom? Would there be any place or time that he was not an active combatant, in your view? And if there is no such place or time, then haven't you essentially single-handedly negated the Geneva protocol regarding executions of those not in combat?

I did not forget that the Fifth Amendment contains an exception for "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War". Have you been under the impression that a declaration of war means that American citizens lose their rights? It refers to military tribunals that do not get a jury! Al-A was not a member of our land, naval, or militia forces.

So you are saying that a country becomes a no-rights zone when its leadership requests military aid? I'm glad we're working out the process, then, and that we've exonerated the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople. We should really work out a Dictatorship Map of which countries have officially become places where American civil liberties are extinguished and where you live or die according to the chief executive.

Please don't take refuge in "how else can we fight?" There are very few American citizens in Al'Qaeda, and this does not seem a terrible problem. But even if it is, tough shit. Civil rights are often inconvenient for the government. It would simplify their lives if they could search you without a warrant and execute you without a trial - which is probably why they've managed to convince some people that they can execute you without a trial if they so desire.

But hey, let's say it's desirable that being dark-skinned and in a poor country (i.e. being unpopular and in a country needing military aid) means your American civil rights are nullified. I think it's horrifying to know that if I went to teach in Pakistan, that the President could execute me without due process. But maybe that doesn't bother you. I am still curious as to how you think it's legal. Where in the Constitution does it specify that American rights only exist abroad on the President's grace?--^talk 22:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break 2

Al-Awlaki was an Al-Qaida leader, not an Al-Qaida soldier. As a result, he did not directly take part in any actual combat. But that does not mean he can be killed for being at war with the United States. He was involved in hostilities by merely being an Al-Qaida leader. This kind of view is not at all unprecedented. He was taking an active part in the war against Al-Qaida, being a high-ranking recruiter and planner. If you read Eric Holder's statement, then you would see that the US took this view during WWII, where it shot down a Japanese transportation plane that contained an enemy general.

I did not say all American citizens lose rights during war. I said American citizens at war with the United States are not guaranteed due process unless they are captured. But as I have pointed out many times, that was not possible in this scenario.

You seem to imply that we should have just let Al-Awlaki stay in Yemen and continue to be a high-ranking Al-Qaida member, merely because he had an American passport stashed somewhere to wave around. I'll ask this: if one of Bin Laden's bodyguards was known to be a US citizen, should Obama have turned down the opportunity to take him out?

Your statement about the possibility of being killed in Pakistan instantly pops out as ridiculous. If you were living in Japan during WWII, where cities were being firebombed, would you claim that the US government was trying to "execute" you if you were nearly killed by an air strike? Mr. Anon (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So your answer is that no, there is no point in his daily life that Al-A would not have been taking an active part? While he sleeps, he might be dreaming about hurting America, so it's okay to execute him. I just want to get this straight. By being accused of being in Al'Q and by being present in Yemen, he was automatically and at all times engaged in active combat with America, so he can be executed at the President's leisure. Got it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that "American citizens [accused of being] at war with the United States are not guaranteed due process"? Because you were talking about the Fifth Amendment, and I don't see it there. Is there another part of the Constitution that states that the President gets to decide what parts of the Bill of Rights apply to you, and when?

I am still curious about when a country becomes a no-rights zone. Again: is it just when they request military aid? For how long does the country remain a no-rights zone? Is there some sort of method to appeal that designation, or is it yet again just the President's decision?

If a bodyguard is carrying a gun and actively protecting a foreign national in a group with which America is at war, I think he can be said to be taking an active part in the war, and due process would constitute an undue burden. But if that bodyguard were, say, leaving breakfast and getting into his car to go back home to where Bin Laden was, then he could not reasonably be said to be taking an active part. Merely breathing does not constitute combat. You seem to regard these questions as difficult, but they're no struggle. Simple rules exist because we have laws (or did, anyway): if an American citizen is taking active part, engaged in combat implicitly or explicitly, then it would be an undue burden to require the executive to afford him a trial. Otherwise, he cannot be summarily executed.

Your Japan question is equally ridiculous. As I just said, it can be argued that it might be necessary to destroy a nation's capability to make war, and so the bombing of an unmilitarized city like Dresden (or Hiroshima) would be just and legal, and there might be collateral damage. I don't agree with this position, but it's certainly reasonable. But we are not at war with Yemen. Yemen is an ally. The bombing of Al-A was in order to execute him, not to destroy a base or Al'Q's materiel. Surely you understand these very elementary distinctions?--^talk 23:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You consistently repeat the point of him "merely being accused". I have stated this numerous times, but Bin Laden was equally "accused". You make a distinction of Al-Awlaki being a US citizen. Do you realize that you have already conceded that, under your reasoning, any non-US citizen in the world can be "executed at the President's leisure"? So yeah, Al-Awlaki's action of evading US and Yemeni forces makes him "an active part in hostilities". Don't try to twist the language of the laws of war. The language is not "combat", it is "hostilities", and there's a huge difference there. Again, Al-Awlaki was not a soldier, he was a leader. Does he need to be on his computer the time, directing his fellow terrorists, to be taken out by a drone? Because by your logic, high ranking generals in war are never fair game as they are never actually fighting. As I've shown, that is inconsistent with US practice.

A country can be deemed incapable of handling Al-Qaida through law enforcement means when you can clearly observe that it cannot enforce its laws. You act as though the line is subjective and arbitrary, but it is not. Al-Awlaki evaded numerous court order, and the Yemeni government even tried their own drone strikes to take him down. You also seem to imply that the Yemeni government did not request US assistance in the form of drones - that is not the case.

According to your logic though, the bodyguard and Bin Laden are "merely accused" of being at war with the United States. That is something you conveniently leave out, as I've pointed out.

I concede that the firebombing of Japan is a poor example.

I will end with this point. Under your reasoning, I could effectively conduct war against the United States just by being in a foreign country and by directing foreign terrorists. The US can't deal with me, because as you said, killing any US citizen who isn't directly involved in combat is unconstitutional, and I am not directly involved in combat. I can't be given a fair trial, because I am out of the range of US law enforcement officials. How is this not equally "horrifying" and "chilling" - I can kill citizens within US soil, and I can evade any attempts to stop me because your very skewed interpretation of the constitution prevents the United States from doing pretty much any practical attempt to do so. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I think we're clearly talking past each other, here. I am unhappy with your placid acceptance of the situation, but I do understand your point. Thank you for your intelligent debate and many fine responses.--^talk 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum, I think it's worth noting that Al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQ was only something brought up by US officials, who we're supposed to believe at face value. Granted, his words are nearly indistinguishable from AQ, but killing someone just for their speech is clearly a criminal act. In order to take someone like him down, you have to claim that he was a mastermind who was planning all sorts of attacks and had a leadership position in your evil organization of choice. It's possible, maybe even probable, so it'll fly! Of course, you need a lot more than that to try someone in an actual court... Q0 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the intelligence sources have some pretty hard evidence, but it is currently unavailable to the public (I suppose you could raise some concerns there, but I'm sure there are reasons). Anyways, I'd like to return the thanks, AD, and I do understand your concerns. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Loved this essay

Absolutely loved it. I haven't heard from an honest-to-god liberal who wasn't being sarcastic in ages. It's a pleasant sound. And I agree with pretty much everything you said. Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You might be interested in Essay:AD's Beliefs too, in that case (to toot my own horn).--^talk 09:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)