Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

[raider.adam]

Your issue is due process and the Constitution, but I don't see how your hypothetical court session settles that issue at all, as trials in absentia have obvious due process issues and are generally only allowed when the defendant is present at the start of the trial and then skips out (or is repeatedly disruptive such that they must be removed).

And it sounds like you're OK with the FISA court, then?

And an example of why I am not being an ideolgue about it. I understand the concerns over the issue when the citizen is overseas and in a scenario where extraction is overly difficult. I am saying I would be a heck of a lot more comfortable that in such a scenario, if the government can make a valid national security claim to a judge with the appropriate paper trail.

But the overriding point is, the government should have to make the case. It is an atrocious concept that we should just trust the executive that it is an extraordinary circumstance to kill a citizen. I'm just stumped that seand thinks it morally repugnant to say they need to get a judge at some point to agree to waiving a citizen's rights because of a national security issue.

[seand]

I don't think its repugnant to get some sort of approval or sign-off in certain circumstances, I think it would be advisable though not required, generally. However I would think the body that would be appropriate to consult is Congress. Congress has the power to declare war. The actions we are discussing are defensive acts against people acting as active aggressors currently threatening US citizens in situations where live capture is impossible and the rules of military engagement apply because the citizen/terrorist/enemy combatant is sheltering in a combat zone.

While it would be advisable for the President to consult with Congress for these defensive actions whenever possible, I am distressed by the concept that it would be required because it HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSTITUIONAL REQUIREMENT IN US HISTORY.

Whatever you choose to call it, the concept of the "kill list" is a very short list of individuals who pose a current grave and pressing threat to American civilians, who are impossible to stop or capture alive by other means, in defacto combat zones and engaging in war-like attacks on US citizens. Its no different from President Thomas Jefferson having the authority to send the US Navy to defensively intercept Barbary pirate ships attacking US ships but needing Congressional approval to go ashore in Tripoli and clean up house. The President has always had the authority to act defensively (including to kill) active combatants in active combat situations who pose a direct military threat to US citizens and my issue is with setting up a novel new extra-Constitutional contrivance to limit that important Executive power. Not all of the Barbary pirates were Muslim profiteers, some were European pirates who engaged in the activity simply for profit. A few of their pirate crews might certainly have been born in the US, they were still agressors attacking US citizens and the President still had the authority to act defensively (but proactively) to stop continuing attacks.

You see to me, you Adam, are the one that is rewriting the Constitution here and changing the rules.

[raider.adam]

I don't think its repugnant to get some sort of approval or sign-off in certain circumstances, though I would think the body that would be appropriate to consult is Congress. Congress has the power to declare war. These actions are defensive acts against people acting as active aggressors currently threatening US citizens in situations where live capture is impossible and the rules of military engagement apply because the citizen/terrorist/enemy combatant is sheltering in a combat zone.

While it would be advisable for the President to consult with Congress for these defensive actions whenever possible, I am distressed by the concept that it would be required because it HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSTITUIONAL REQUIREMENT IN US HISTORY.

Whatever you choose to call it, the concept of the "kill list" is individuals who are a current and pressing threat to American civilians, who are impossible to stop or capture by other means, in defacto combat zones and engaging in war-like attacks on US citizens. Its no different from President Thomas Jefferson having the authority to send the US Navy to defensively intercept Barbary pirate ships attacking US ships but needing Congressional approval to go ashore in Tripoli and clean up house. The President has always had the authority to act defensively (including to kill) active combatants in active combat situations who pose a direct military threat to US citizens and my issue is with setting up a novel new extra-Constitutional contrivance to limit that important Executive power.

The problem is that you think Jefferson attacking Tripoli is the same thing.

[seand]

The problem is that you think Jefferson attacking Tripoli is the same thing.

Firing a missle at a "lead pirate" holed up in a lawless area, outside the control and jurisdiction of the local nation-state where capture is impossible more or less puts that territory every bit as much an active combat zone and a legal "no-man's land" as if it were on the high seas. The fact that Yemen's government had no actual control of the area, had a standing order to kill al-Alkawi themselves and approved the missile strike makes all the legal difference in the world.

There was no guarantee the strike was going to be successful, it was a chance taken to protect civilian lives in what I'd call an active "combat situation" where the rules of military engagement apply.

[raider.adam]

Firing a missle at a "lead pirate" holed up in a lawless area, outside the control and jurisdiction of the local nation-state where capture is impossible more or less puts that territory every bit as much an active combat zone and a legal "no-man's land" as if it were on the high seas. The fact that Yemen's government had no actual control of the area, had a standing order to kill al-Alkawi themselves and approved the missile strike makes all the legal difference in the world.

Like you said, the conversation is going no where. Your position is that the President can unilaterally determine that a citizen has no Constitutional protections based on qualifications he creates. I soundly do not agree with that.

[seand]

No I said in an active combat situation, where any other means of pursuing capture or legal extradition is impossible, if someone is actively attacking the US, the President has the authority to act defensively in a manner consistant with the rules of military engagement to stop continued attacks. Nothing about that is even remotely arbitrary. All al-Alkawi had to do get Constitutional protections was to return to the US and face the legal system here - which is what the Federal judge said correctly in response to al-Alkawi's father's bogus law suit. Or he could have put down his arms and left the combat zone he and his armed cohorts had in effect "seized" from Yemen in ongoing armed resistance and faced Yemeni legal jurisdiction.

Its because he put himself in legal "no-man's land" established by continuing armed aggression against both the US and Yemen that his status as active "enemy combatant" subject to the rules of military engagement trumped the rights of due process he would enjoy as a non-combatant.

IF you and your armed group violently carve out a remote part of the world outside the reach local authority to wage active war against the US, its the conditions you have gone to great lengths to set up that put your civilian rights to due process in peril. The President did not turn that part of Yemen into a war zone, al-Alkawi did. The President did not magically turn al-Alkawi into an "enemy combatant", al-Alkawi and Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula did that that by waging war, in a continuing fashion, against both the US and Yemen.

There are very limited, specific circumstance where the Executive branch has the power to act defensively against someone who has already attacked and is continuing to attack US civilians. It took a whole lot of work for al-Alkawi to put himself in those exact circumstances where the rules of military engagement are the rules that apply.

There is a long list of check marks that all have to line-up for the President to be able to exercise this legitimate expression of Executive power. In every instance, the President did not arbitrarily set those conditions, al-Alkawi did.

[raider.adam]

And none of the check marks are verified outside of the control of the guy making the determination.

[BarryG]

This debate is too intelligent for phillyspeaks. Seriously, good points all around, this thread is actually making me think.

[seand]

And none of the check marks are verified outside of the control of the guy making the determination.

Noone in Yemen has verified that there were dozens of arrest warrants and eventually a conviction in abstentia against al-Alkawi that Yemen would have enforced against al-Alwaki if they could? Thats flatly not true.

The President of the US has no direct say on the decisions of Yemeni judges or whether a violent group seizes land out of the control of the local government at the end of a gun. Those are physical conditions on the ground that al-Alkawi set up that the President had no input on whatsoever. The President did not make the Ft. Hood shooter or the Times Square bomber volunteer that their inspiration was al-Alkawi. They bragged about that of their own free will.

Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula took direct credit for the underwear bomber and the attempted toner cartridge bombing and every credible intelligence analysis says "yes, they not only said they did it, they actually did it."

The President did not make al-Alkawi issue numerous video sermons on the web urging Muslim Americans to attack their non-Muslim neighbors, al Alkawi did.

The idea that there was anything arbitrary invented by the President or the rest of the National Security Council in labeling al-Alkawi an "enemy combatant" is absurd.

[raider.adam]

Noone in Yemen has verified that there were dozens of arrest warrants and eventually a conviction in abstentia against al-Alkawi that Yemen would have enforced against al-Alwaki if they could? Thats flatly not true.

The President of the US has no direct say on the decisions of Yemeni judges or whether a violent group seizes land out of the control of the local government at the end of a gun. Those are physical conditions on the ground that al-Alkawi set up that the President had no input on whatsoever. The President did not make the Ft. Hood shooter or the Times Square bomber volunteer that their inspiration was al-Alkawi. They bragged about that of their own free will.

Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula took direct credit for the underwear bomber and the attempted toner cartridge bombing and every credible intelligence analysis says "yes, they not only said they did it, they actually did it."

The President did not make al-Alkawi issue numerous video sermons on the web urging Muslim Americans to attack their non-Muslim neighbors, al Alkawi did.

The idea that there was anything arbitrary invented by the President or the rest of the National Security Council in labeling al-Alkawi an "enemy combatant" is absurd.

If the Yemeni government killed him then I would care about the Yemeni court cases.

I also don't think video sermons telling people to kill Americans is grounds for the death penalty by itself.

[seand]

Look you are saying the President is asserting he can kill whoever he wants provided they . .

1. violently takeover some remote part of a foreign country and succesfully wage open war with the government of that country indefinitely to establish a safe haven outside of any normal means of apprehension

2. attempt to kill large number Americans and pose a credible threat to continue to make such attempts in such a way that the President, The VP, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the head of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General all agree they are are continuing pressing threat that can't be stopped or captured some other way

3. take public credit for previous attacks while publically promising more, again and again by means of a magazine and numerous video sermons they put on the internet

4. and actually manage to be unlucky enough to get hit by a missle in the remote part of some foreign country they have violently seized from the local government.

You are right, Adam, thats exactly like the President saying he can kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants. No hyperbole there.

[raider.adam]

Sean all the stuff you listed is fine, I just want them to have to prove it when in relation to an american citizen. That group of officials you just rattled off are the same offices that supplied false and inaccurate reasons to invade Iraq. Now all of a sudden you think the info they supply is impeccable and above reproach?

As for #4, you are changing the details. He wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was targeted.

I do believe there is a significant level of difference in how we deal with citizens and with foreign nationals. I do not put them in the same category. I don't agree with you that they are treated the same.

[seand]

The point of #4 is that its misleading to say it was a simple "assasination". It was accurately described as a military attack in a combat situation where success of the missle strike was far from guaranteed.

I would agree how we treat foreign nationals and citizens is different if they are not enemy combatants being engaged militarily in a "no man's land" of their own invention while they actively work directly to attack US citizens. If it was a situation where we had any option to take them alive, if it was not a defensive action where a missle strike is our only viable option to stop future attacks, then of course citizens and foreign nationals are treated differently. But in a combat situation bullets and missles are by necessity forced to treat all combatants the same.

The negative consequences of killing an individual who has actually played a significant role in directly attacking US citizens in a combat situation is neglible compared to the potential negative consequences of an ill considered lengthy war of occupation in a foreign country. An executive may make errors in a defensive action but at least its a limited defensive action. Its not an open-ended invasion of a foreign country.

[raider.adam]

The point of #4 is that its misleading to say it was a simple "assasination". It was accurately described as a military attack in a combat situation where success of the missle strike was far from guaranteed.

I would agree how we treat foreign nationals and citizens is different if they are not enemy combatants being engaged militarily in a "no man's land" of their own invention while they actively work directly to attack US citizens. If it was a situation where we had any option to take them alive, if it was not a defensive action where a missle strike is our only viable option to stop future attacks, then of course citizens and foreign nationals are treated differently. But in a combat situation bullets and missles are by necessity forced to treat all combatants the same.

The negative consequences of killing an individual who has actually played a significant role in directly attacking US citizens in a combat situation is neglible compared to the potential negative consequences of an ill considered lengthy war of occupation in a foreign country. An executive may make errors in a defensive action but at least its a limited defensive action. Its not an open-ended invasion of a foreign country.

And I want the government to prove it.

Youtube doesn't count.

[MarketStEl]

Like BarryG, I'm glad I've followed this discussion. I couldn't imagine two better people to make their respective cases.

And even though everything seand has said about al-Alkawi and the circumstances surrounding his killing is accurate, I find myself having the same worry raider.adam does. We've already gone far enough down the path towards unrestrained executive power in pursuing this particular war, and while I acknowledge that some of this is the result of it being a war not against a state and its citizens but against a stateless movement that infects nations like a virus, I don't want more excuses for it embedded into our national policy. It's bad enough that we have these secret courts that can provide the legal cover our Constitution requires with no one else knowing what they say and why, and I understand that even these courts - which are designed to move faster than our legal system usually moves - build some delay into the system, and delay can be deadly during wartime. But not only is our enemy unconventional, so are their military actions, which also take longer to execute than those usually associated with warfare. We find ourselves in the rare situation of fighting an enemy who moves in time such that we can observe the legal protections our Constitution requires before taking action, and as Adam has demonstrated, we had the time to observe them. So while I agree with seand in general about al-Qaeda and the threat it represents, I think the nature of this war is such that the clause of the Constitution Lincoln invoked is unusually not operative, and raider.adam is right to be concerned.

I'm not yet swayed in Reinsdorf's direction by the argument, though. But I am taking it into account as we proceed to Nov. 6.

Why is being worldly enough to be socially liberal but rich enough to be fiscally conservative so rare?

One, it's not rare. The suburbs of most large Northeastern cities are filled with such people. Two, it's not necessary to be rich to be fiscally conservative - one can believe that the government should spend as much as it can on those most in need, and even that some redistribution is justified in order to do this, but that the government must nonetheless live within its means.

But have you noticed how those same suburbs have slowly become more Democratic-leaning over time? I think that has more than a little to do with the Republicans' having given their social policy over to the Unreconstructed to manage. The reason President Obama may defy the history jdhill invoked upthread is because the GOP's strategy is at its base yet another attempt to win the election solely on (culturally conservative) white votes, hoping that enough non-culturally-conservative whites will let their economic and fiscal fears trump their cultural ones. That strategy didn't work in 2008, and this time, in contrast to last, they're also doing everything they can to push Hispanic voters away too.

An apocryphal story holds that as he signed the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, "I've just lost the South for the Democratic Party." Most likely he didn't say that, but history has proven that statement true. Unfortunately, the Republicans traded part of their soul for the support of those Southerners (and their cultural sympathizers) I call the Unreconstructed - and the situation we find ourselves in now, where a President who by all standard metrics should be gasping for air has at least an even chance of winning re-election, is in no small part the falllout of that tragedy.

[Hospitalitygirl]

Like BarryG, I'm glad I've followed this discussion. I couldn't imagine two better people to make their respective cases.

And even though everything seand has said about al-Alkawi and the circumstances surrounding his killing is accurate, I find myself having the same worry raider.adam does. We've already gone far enough down the path towards unrestrained executive power in pursuing this particular war, and while I acknowledge that some of this is the result of it being a war not against a state and its citizens but against a stateless movement that infects nations like a virus, I don't want more excuses for it embedded into our national policy. It's bad enough that we have these secret courts that can provide the legal cover our Constitution requires with no one else knowing what they say and why, and I understand that even these courts - which are designed to move faster than our legal system usually moves - build some delay into the system, and delay can be deadly during wartime. But not only is our enemy unconventional, so are their military actions, which also take longer to execute than those usually associated with warfare. We find ourselves in the rare situation of fighting an enemy who moves in time such that we can observe the legal protections our Constitution requires before taking action, and as Adam has demonstrated, we had the time to observe them. So while I agree with seand in general about al-Qaeda and the threat it represents, I think the nature of this war is such that the clause of the Constitution Lincoln invoked is unusually not operative, and raider.adam is right to be concerned.

I'm not yet swayed in Reinsdorf's direction by the argument, though. But I am taking it into account as we proceed to Nov. 6.



One, it's not rare. The suburbs of most large Northeastern cities are filled with such people. Two, it's not necessary to be rich to be fiscally conservative - one can believe that the government should spend as much as it can on those most in need, and even that some redistribution is justified in order to do this, but that the government must nonetheless live within its means.

But have you noticed how those same suburbs have slowly become more Democratic-leaning over time? I think that has more than a little to do with the Republicans' having given their social policy over to the Unreconstructed to manage. The reason President Obama may defy the history jdhill invoked upthread is because the GOP's strategy is at its base yet another attempt to win the election solely on (culturally conservative) white votes, hoping that enough non-culturally-conservative whites will let their economic and fiscal fears trump their cultural ones. That strategy didn't work in 2008, and this time, in contrast to last, they're also doing everything they can to push Hispanic voters away too.

An apocryphal story holds that as he signed the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, "I've just lost the South for the Democratic Party." Most likely he didn't say that, but history has proven that statement true. Unfortunately, the Republicans traded part of their soul for the support of those Southerners (and their cultural sympathizers) I call the Unreconstructed - and the situation we find ourselves in now, where a President who by all standard metrics should be gasping for air has at least an even chance of winning re-election, is in no small part the falllout of that tragedy.

1. It's a great debate.

2. There are lots of people that are not rich, but are socially rather liberal and fiscally quite conservative and tired of seeing various levels of government unable to live within their means.

3. The reason for the purple-fying of the suburbs has as much or more to do with the movement out of cities and into surrounding suburbs as it does with the national Republicans shift in ideologies. Probably more, according to one of the political pollster's study of this a couple of years ago.

[seand]

A couple of things

I still think the talk of courts is viewing the situation incorrectly. The question is the equivalent to whether in a combat situation a commander can issue the order "if you see the general of the force attacking us out for a drive you have a standing order to try to take a shot." It's a military order that only applies in a combat situation where apprehension and legal proceedings are an impossibility. I think the president does and must have that authority. Where it gets sticky, where Adam has his best point, is when this state on conflict stretches on indefinitely. At some point you have to start calling this camp in the mountains "the Islamic republic of al queda controlled mountains". It develops into a state of permanance where congresses power to declare war has to come into play. In other words the "kill list" as a list of leadership targets of the group attacking us in a combat zone that the military is authorized to take a shot at us fine but my issue is that there needs to be a time limit before the president has to check in with congress. That the president has to check in with a judge before saying "try to kill the head of the attackers" is just a bad idea generally. But I will admit that I think there needs to be a built in time limit on that kill list before congrrese approval is required. And the year before they actually got al-alkawi is pushing my standard before a check in is required.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

[raider.adam]

A couple of things

I still think the talk of courts is viewing the situation incorrectly. The question is the equivalent to whether in a combat situation a commander can issue the order "if you see the general of the force attacking us out for a drive you have a standing order to try to take a shot." It's a military order that only applies in a combat situation where apprehension and legal proceedings are an impossibility. I think the president does and must have that authority. Where it gets sticky, where Adam has his best point, is when this state on conflict stretches on indefinitely. At some point you have to start calling this camp in the mountains "the Islamic republic of al queda controlled mountains". It develops into a state of permanance where congresses power to declare war has to come into play. In other words the "kill list" as a list of leadership targets of the group attacking us in a combat zone that the military is authorized to take a shot at us fine but my issue is that there needs to be a time limit before the president has to check in with congress. That the president has to check in with a judge before saying "try to kill the head of the attackers" is just a bad idea generally. But I will admit that I think there needs to be a built in time limit on that kill list before congrrese approval is required. And the year before they actually got al-alkawi is pushing my standard before a check in is required.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

And what you discuss is why I think it gets gray and a citizen should have some protections. It isn't like it is a pitched battle where the american citizen is wearing the uniform of the enemy and surrounded by the soldiers of the enemy. We are safe in assuming under reasonable doubt that he is an enemy combatant and the military is authorized to proceed as necessary under the direction of the President.

Under this scenario, the American citizen is determined to be an enemy combatant because the CIA, i.e. the President, says so and the military is allowed to do a targeted strike against that person. I am uncomfortable with that situation because that means the CIA i.e. the President, theoretically, has the ability to target any American citizen by simply faking information (or in a less cynical situation, being wrong).

Like I said in my example, they were all wrong about Iraq and even to the point where seand and others believe if it was done intentionally and nefariously. I don't believe they should be given carte blanche in this scenario. I do not trust the CIA without oversight and we shouldn't have to.

[seand]

And what you discuss is why I think it gets gray and a citizen should have some protections. It isn't like it is a pitched battle where the american citizen is wearing the uniform of the enemy and surrounded by the soldiers of the enemy. We are safe in assuming under reasonable doubt that he is an enemy combatant and the military is authorized to proceed as necessary under the direction of the President.

Under this scenario, the American citizen is determined to be an enemy combatant because the CIA, i.e. the President, says so and the military is allowed to do a targeted strike against that person. I am uncomfortable with that situation because that means the CIA i.e. the President, theoretically, has the ability to target any American citizen by simply faking information (or in a less cynical situation, being wrong).

Wrong.
Not just the CIA but anybody with half a brain is safe in assuming the spiritual leader of an organization that calls itself "Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula" that is only allowed to organize and train and plan attacks from where it does because its in a more or less constant state of war with the government of the country they chose to set up shop in, is a fair target as an "enemy combatant". its not like the CIA had to make a case for al-Alawki being self-styled spokesperson for Al Queda. He was outspoken about it.

In terms of being not just a spokesperson for Al Queda but operationally significant to Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula's attacks on the US, the only reason AQ in the AP was able to set up shop to the degree that they did there was because the remote area they are in is al-Alawki's tribal homeland and his family enjoys tribal authority there. That alone would be enough to make him a valid military target. The fact that the CIA also had credible information linking him to operational (not just ideological) aspects of specific attacks originating out of Yemen is just icing on the cake. Even if that last info was wrong or even (cynically) invented, in this instance, al-Alawki was a valid military target. He's the chief spokeperson for an al Queda affiliate whose personal tribal largesse has allowed a group called "al Queda" anything set up shop in Yemen and launch very specific, public attacks on US civilians.

Al-Alakwi was definietley a legitimate military target at the time of his death. Its just messy in this day and age figuring out when a President faced with a prolonged threat from a stateless terrorist group has crossed the line from a no-Congressional approval needed short-term defensive action slips into a long-term "war", requiring some act of Congressional approval.

Like I said in my example, they were all wrong about Iraq and even to the point where seand and others believe if it was done intentionally and nefariously. I don't believe they should be given carte blanche in this scenario. I do not trust the CIA without oversight and we shouldn't have to.

As long as an organization called "Al Queda" anything is launching direct attacks like the underwear bomber or the toner cartridge bombings its naive to believe the US will not have to react proactively with targeted strikes against those organizations based on the best intelligence we have. Again if al-Alawki, best case scenario, was only a merely self-appointed mouthpiece for Al Queda who also gave them safe harbor in his family's tribal homeland which thereby allowed them to launch attacks of mass murder against American civilians that would be enough. Even if the CIA was wrong and he was not also operationally involved besides giving them safe harbor, still that enough to make him a legit military target.

[raider.adam]

Wrong.
Not just the CIA but anybody with half a brain is safe in assuming the spiritual leader of an organization that calls itself "Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula" that is only allowed to organize and train and plan attacks from where it does because its in a more or less constant state of war with the government of the country they chose to set up shop in, is a fair target as an "enemy combatant". its not like the CIA had to make a case for al-Alawki being self-styled spokesperson for Al Queda. He was outspoken about it.

So your defining qualification is that he put videos on the Internet? If the CIA said he, an american citizen, planned and trained attacks and he didn't publish videos on the Internet you wouldn't be ok with what the President did?