Congress asking to see the Obama administration's evidence for targeted killings

[tru_m.a.c]

I know. I can't remember the details, and I don't have time to look it up, but I think they said something like by his pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda, which he did on camera, he became a military target as would anyone with Al Qaeda allegiance based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that was passed through Congress after 9/11.

so they slapped a gang injunction on him with a drone....classic

so now they suddenly care about this?

I personally think it has nothing to do with D vs R but more so the Legislative vs the Executive Branch.

They're always getting butt hurt when a President sidesteps em, runs up a tab, then leaves before the check comes

they don't really 'care' about the justice argument

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

so they slapped a gang injunction on him with a drone....classic

Pretty much. They hit Al Qaeda with a neverending combination RICO case/kill on sight death warrant after 9/11.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(a) IN GENERAL- That 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.

But they said it should be in concordance with the War Powers Act.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

But they're using drones in countries other than Afghanistan, and the argument is really they declared war on Al Qaeda wherever they are, not just Afghanistan. It's not a violation of the War Powers Act according to them because the war they declared was everywhere, I think. So that's a very dicey area.

So by that same token any attacks on US citizens or on US soil would then become part of the war and not be considered terrorism I'm assuming.

I'm not sure what you mean by not be considered terrorism. They don't really draw any distinction between what is counterterrorism and war in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, therein lies the dilemma in itself.

From what I understand, there would be nothing to legally prevent a drone strike in downtown Boston or Chicago if there were Al Qaeda members there. But of course they wouldn't do that because of the political consequences of the "collateral damage." Innocent people getting killed in Yemen or Pakistan as "collateral damage" from drone strikes doesn't really hurt anyone's re-election hopes.

The flimsy justification of "We are at war" floats both ways and the secrecy involved just makes me uneasy.
While I wouldn't trust Obama to watch my dog while I ran into 7-Eleven to get a Slurpee I know some off you guys consider him to be awesome but what about the next guy who you don't like? Puttin this much unchecked authority in the hands of one branch of governemnt is never a good thing regardless of who is currently sitting n the WHite House.

I agree.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

But they're using drones in countries other than Afghanistan, but the argument is really they declared war on Al Qaeda wherever they are, not just that Afghanistan. It's not a violation of the War Powers Act according to them because the war they declared was everywhere, I think. So that's a very dicey area.

hmmm

seems like anything done across the atlantic by the US just doesn't register on the "Who gives a fukk?" meter