Greenwald: How extremism is normalized: Obama's Radical Interpretation of The Bill of Rights

[stupidicus]

207. I'd suggest you study the problem at greater length

if that's what you "think" you "know"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces(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.

This is precisely why the drone strike justifications in some cases http://www.cfr.org/somalia/al-shabaab/p18650 are debatable based on that AUMF.

Afghanistan was considered "a nation" that "harbored" the "terrorists", therefore justifying the invasion/war.

The problem with this narrative is that the claim that the Taliban had stubbornly refused to turn over bin Laden is not true.

CNN reported on September 21, 2001,

The Taliban … refused to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States. … The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan … said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an “insult to Islam.” (emphasis added)

CNN also provided an explanation for the Taliban’s “refusal,” reporting: “Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”

So the Taliban were not really refusing to turn him over but rather were demanding certain conditions be satisfied before they did so. That is not unusual. Governments routinely have evidentiary standards that must be met before they grant an extradition request. Bush, however, was not in a diplomatic mood, and he told the Taliban “the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion.”

(which is why I wrote, a criminal matter involving an extradition request was turned into a military adventure, and the "WOT" has been little more than a continuation of exploitation of that AUMF.)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Further questions were raised regarding the U.S. government’s charges against Osama bin Laden by the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists webpage. While the page mentioned bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as terrorist acts for which bin Laden was wanted, it made no mention of the 9/11 attacks. When the FBI was asked about this conspicuous omission, Rex Tomb, the Bureau’s chief of investigative publicity replied: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

So, the U.S. government’s case against Osama bin Laden was not good enough to take to court, but it was good enough to take the country to war, a war that has killed or maimed countless people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The anger arising from the invasion and occupation of the country has created a perpetual supply of terrorist recruits, enabling U.S. officials to use the never-ending “war on terror” to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. And we now have a president who asserts the authority to kill off any person he deems a “threat.” I submit that this claim of unaccountable power represents a far greater threat to the peace and security of the country than any terrorist or group of terrorists could ever pose.

Surveying the evidence, it is clear the Bush administration did not even come close to exhausting its diplomatic options in the fall of 2001 and that some other route could have been chosen to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, the invasion of Afghanistan did not even succeed in its principal goal: the capturing or killing of Osama bin Laden. According to the U.S. government, that mission was accomplished almost ten years later by a team of Navy Seals in an operation lasting only a few hours … in neighboring Pakistan.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110l.asp

Agree or disagree with the assessment I made more than a decade ago this material supports regarding the Afghan War, and maintain your pov regarding the death of the American "terrorist" that prompted this "debate" if you wish, but let's not pretend that those that feel otherwise have no foundation for their fears and objections to the slippery slope it puts us farther down and closer to the kinda tyranny this country was formed over to deny wouldbe kings.

Once it becomes normalized and accepted, much like the militarization of our police forces, etc, or say, the abuses seen outta the "WOT's" precursor, the "war on drugs" that no doubt has a role in that militarization, (and as seen in the language of the recent NDAA http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-strikes-down-ndaa-rules-obama-must-obey-constitution/ on indefinite detention issue) we'll all get what we deserve.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin