General Discussion

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)

44. Okay, I think I understand your point.

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:32 PM

Feb 2013

Your argument appears to be that in circumstances resembling war, the burden of proof on the executive is considerably lowered.

What scares me is that this is a war that appears to have no end and no geographic limitations. The idea of using a state of war to justify expanded executive authority indefinitely goes against what I think of as our constitutional ideals. To me, this whole era should be treated as an era of (heightened) law enforcement. For the executive to arrogate dubious wartime powers with so few limits is frightening to me, personally. I worry that it will lead to a permanent expansion of executive power.

Would you support repealing the AUMF, with the understanding that this effectively ends the quasi-war started just after 9/11 and expanded powers like this?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why can't you let people on the kill list defend themselves or at least surrender? [View all] BlueCheese Feb 2013 OP

Amen Sen Wyden Taverner Feb 2013 #1

Should they have done that with bin laden? still_one Feb 2013 #2

Obviously not. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #3

Gee when you think about it, people who take up assault rifles aod go on a spree are equal or 2on2u Feb 2013 #9

These American citizens have joined forces with our enemy and are participating kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #19

Again, you're using the fact that someone is targeted as proof of his guilt. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #23

Not at all tama Feb 2013 #88

Your little PEACE thingy Hillary2016 Feb 2013 #34

war is peace Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #81

Which Americans are you talking about tama Feb 2013 #87

Why not? Gidney N Cloyd Feb 2013 #4

Well, gee, bin Laden was supposedly unarmed when found Art_from_Ark Feb 2013 #5

The assignment was to capture Bin Laden alive if possible. Kablooie Feb 2013 #57

wink wink Recursion Feb 2013 #66

Of course tama Feb 2013 #89

Why couldn't a drone just taze the alleged american gone awry.... they would surely mend 2on2u Feb 2013 #6

Because doing such things would make us look like civilized wusses instead of badasses. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #7

More "Catch-22" than Orwell. . . Journeyman Feb 2013 #8

Yes, I thought of using Catch 22 instead. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #12

You act like these "Americans" are just Bob and June from up the street on vacation. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #10

And we know this... how? MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #13

How did you know the guy in Alabama actually kidnapped the kid? Recursion Feb 2013 #17

The list is secret. The evidence is secret. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #27

War intel isn't "evidence". Being in Al Qaeda isn't a crime. Recursion Feb 2013 #35

Okay, I think I understand your point. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #44

I would *ABSOLUTELY* support repealing the AUMF Recursion Feb 2013 #47

I see. I think we actually agree a fair amount. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #51

I don't know that I had fully articulated my thoughts either beforehand Recursion Feb 2013 #55

We don't know and we're not going to know. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #25

I respectfully disagree. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #16

And I explained why they can't make the information public. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #30

What if you weren't but our spies have you confused with someone else? BlueCheese Feb 2013 #32

These are not instantaneous decisions. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #42

I think where you and I disagree is how much we can trust our spooks. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #48

But we weren't certain of WMD. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #60

Thanks for the discussion. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #61

You're welcome. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #63

How do YOO know? YOO don't. TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #18

Yeah it kind of is in these instances. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #37

Wow dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #53

Don't you think the people in charge know the players? MrSlayer Feb 2013 #68

Whatever, couldn't disagree more though - nt dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #72

Well enough. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #74

+1 SunSeeker Feb 2013 #56

How do you know? 840high Feb 2013 #69

I've answered this already. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #71

This is fucked. Utterly fucked. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #11

AQ is an organization known for strapping explosives to people Recursion Feb 2013 #14

But the white paper claims the right to kill Americans who pose far less immediate a threat. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #22

I never said the guy was involved in an active plot Recursion Feb 2013 #24

The white paper specifically says that citizens we kill... BlueCheese Feb 2013 #28

I never said he was planning anything in the immediate future Recursion Feb 2013 #36

In your example it's at least plausible that he's about to do something. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #39

Drones are only a small component of this Recursion Feb 2013 #41

This is war. This is not a police action. kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #15

This strikes me as an argument frequently heard during the Bush administration. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #21

Here's the clip ProSense Feb 2013 #20

American citizens in the Taliban have surrendered, too (nt) Recursion Feb 2013 #26

Then why won't Imperial Minister Brennan answer the very simple question? MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #29

He did: ProSense Feb 2013 #46

Not working on my iPad. MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #49

You're right MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #58

They can give themselves up at any time, anywhere in the world. baldguy Feb 2013 #31

How? The list is secret. BlueCheese Feb 2013 #33

True, you would think though that if they joined al-Qaeda or were involved in plotting cstanleytech Feb 2013 #50

What if you haven't joined al-Qaeda, but unbeknownst to you... BlueCheese Feb 2013 #52

Or what if you think you have joined an CIA fake al-Qaeda that is run by fake CIA agent who cstanleytech Feb 2013 #54

Yeah because no one ever ends up on the "no fly" list by mistake. bighart Feb 2013 #84

Do you seriously believe that anyone involved with al Qaeda doesn't know what they're involved in? baldguy Feb 2013 #62

Won't they be killed if identified? MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #40

Depends. Would the on-edge E-3 you surrender to at the consulate know you're even on the list? Recursion Feb 2013 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #45

K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2013 #38

Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" quote seems appropriate after reading this thread: neverforget Feb 2013 #59

They can. The Uniform Code of Military Justice always applies bhikkhu Feb 2013 #64

Wait! I'm just an 8 year old child.... obxhead Feb 2013 #65

Obama and his henchmen are no better than Bush and Cheney...... Swede Atlanta Feb 2013 #67

A picky point that I think is important. rhett o rick Feb 2013 #70

Collateral damage has ALWAYS been 'acceptable' in war. randome Feb 2013 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author Herlong Feb 2013 #73

Wouldn't Orwell be shocked by 2012? Coyotl Feb 2013 #75

Martin Luther King Mountain Top, Freedom speech, Herlong Feb 2013 #76

Riiiiight - just look at how well the no-fly lists work Smilo Feb 2013 #77

So is America like, over now, or what? limpyhobbler Feb 2013 #78

Thank goodness the Obama Administration will be in power for the rest of time MNBrewer Feb 2013 #79

It's amazing how these things progress Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #82

And as far as I know it's still illegal to assassinate foreign heads of state even if they do bighart Feb 2013 #85

Wow, excellent point! But then, heads of state are in the club Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #86

"Smile for the missile." CrispyQ Feb 2013 #83