Very encouraging trial concerning the NDAA- although it is only the first of what will likely be many rounds of appeals related to NDAA provisions, it certainly is positive to see courts functioning in their capacity as a check on the executive branch. Greenwald has an extensive commentary on it here Salient point worth noting: These two elaborations on the implications of the AUMF are extremely important, particularly given the frequent citation of it as a justification for a wide variety of military activities. Many posters in this forum have cited AUMF as a justification for drone attacks anywhere in the world, even though the AUMF was passed within a very specific context for a very specific group of people.
It is beyond me why you choose to ruin any prospect of dialogue with cheap, partisan, and useless images like this one. It appears you take issue with Obama's foreign policies- a criticism that I too share. I just dont understand what you expect to accomplish or who you hope to persuade with your current bbs tactics.
I find it fascinating that none of the Con posters on here responded similarly when a Repub was in charge of the Executive Branch.
It's much more fascinating to watch the anti-war (really just anti-Bush) movement completely disappear as it is controlled by Obama and the Democratic party. Anyways, there is a racist sign in a yard in some town with a population of 50 to worry about now.
It's a good ruling but I will have take time to go over it to understand it's implications. Just to respond to a point in the OP. I have to apologize but I haven't checked in on the other thread we were discussing this in over a week so I forgot to respond to there but since you brought it up here. Looking at the NDAA of 2012 which this ruling is addressing the section in question is 1021 which deals with indefinite detention of US citizens and permanent residents but not drone attacks. The legal justification for those is based on the original AUMF and the principle of self-defense according to Leon Panetti. On the surface I am not sure if this has any afect on the drone attacks. Also just FYI the case I had in mind regarding the limits of US Judicial jurisdiction was Rasul V Bush, not Hamdi, but more specifically the case that applies is Johnson V. Eisentrager which originally established that US courts have no jurisdiction beyond US territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager Anyway all of those cases still deal specifically with the treatment of prisoners and not missile strikes. Off the top of my head that would seem more like an issue for the War Powers Act which the 2001 AUMF covers. Just to emphasize not saying I am fine or supportive of drone strikes in general but that they are most likely legal, I am not aware of law or case that bans them, and that we need to be careful conflating them with other issues. They are an issue though that does need to be looked at carefully.
Uh, no Meowgi. There was a broad consensus among many that the Iraq war was unneccessary, and that it hindered the Afghanistan war, which was by contrast one of necessity. Some hardcore doves opposed both wars from the beginning. But the Iraq war was a major point of objection for most (includign the President). This didnt' happen that long ago, you know. Why don't you find one poster here who was anti-Afghan war in the early 2000's but now thinks it's a fantastic idea? You won't be able to, because they don't exist. Also, because you're an idiot.
My citation of it was to merely highlight the specificity of the AUMF. We've gone back and forth on this topic, and rather than continue in that vein it may be more purposeful to simply reference you to resources that speak to this issue. One of the best treatments of this topic was done by Columbia's Law School, entitled Targeting Operations with Drone Technology: Humanitarian Law Implications. It's only 38 pages but a very worthwhile read on the topic of legality. The New America Foundation has a dedicated research page on the topic, which provides alarming statistics on the use of drones and the rate at which non-militants get hit. Suffice to say its far from possessing the "surgical precision" claimed by Brennan. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has a running list of victims killed by drone strikes. It is not an exhaustive list, but is purposeful in illustrating the human cost. Shuja Nawaz has a very good article on the topic of drone strikes in Pakistan and the legal implications therein in Georgetown's Journal of International Affairs. There are many criticisms that extend well beyond the legal realm as well- how drone strikes affect prospects for peace, the lack of accountability for 'mistakes', compensation for victims, the lack of transparency concerning the program, impact of drone strikes on international relations, and other related issues.
i'm thinking with this post, i'm doing the exact same thing. having said that, i was immediately reminded of this t-shirt when i saw his post. back on topic, i'm glad to see that the courts played a role here and that the NDAA wasn't left unchecked.
I will read the Columbia law link later but addressing the other points I agree that drone strikes are not absolutely precise or that they don't kill civilians. As I said before there is no such thing as a clean war. You have to weigh those in consideration with what the alternatives are. Special Forces missions to kill or capture people like Al-Quso and Al-Zaqari are very risky and may very well lead to more civilians killed. Consider the OBL operation where one of the helicopters crashed and the back up force was called in. Consider if in such a situation where the Pakistani military had also responded with force to stop the mission how many more civilians might've died in the ensuing fire fight between US SEALS and the Pakistani army. In fact you can look at the Blackhawk down situation, which started out as a capture mission. 18 American soldiers died with one captured and over a 1,000 Somalis were killed. Simply put in such a mission where US troops are involved more can potentially go wrong which will most likely lead to more civilians being killed than in a drone strike. Not saying any of that is good but in cases like Al Quso drone strikes seem to be the best out of a host of bad options.
vaids_13; I have read through the whole Columbia Law document regarding drone strikes http://www.law.columbia.edu/ipimages/Human_Rights_Institute/BackgroundNoteASILColumbia.pdf And it is illuminating but I don't see anything in there that specifically rules out drone strikes in general. Specifically regarding some of the issues we have discussed doesn't seem to rule out targeting Al Quso (whether he is getting out of his car or not) as he would likely fall under the ICRC definition of "continuous combatant". His targeting in Yemen could also fall under the definition of a "non-international armed conflict" as the situation of Yemen does seem to meet the standards of protracted violence between the state and non-state actors. Al Awlaki's case though seems more questionable in regard to how directly he participated in planning or supporting attacks. The evidence does seem very sketchy in his situation. I fully agree though with the conclusions of the report that more transparency is needed regarding the drone strikes program. Specifically that the CIA's role needs to be clearly defined about whether they are military or civilians and that they are held accountable by the laws of war.
Saw these yesterday in case you're a more video-oriented follower of news. Plus, Chris Hedges has had an incredible career/life so his role in this debacle and his insight I think are valuable: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WoqLT5yqE1k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/osG8pjFiGt4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The articles were not intended to clearly spell out the legal status of drone strikes as much as they were to illustrate the many questions that remain unresolved in regards to them. The reality is that such questions have yet to be addressed, and that the questions are not ancillary to the discussion at hand, but rather central to making an adequate appraisal of drone strikes legality or lack thereof. Awlaki's family has attempted to take the government to court to challenge the legality of drone strikes, but the Obama administration refused by invoking the state secrets privilege. As has been well reported, Pakistan has frequently requested the US stop drone strikes in its territories, and there are a number of cases in Pakistani courts where families of victims are taking their own government to task on this issue.
Yes I noticed that and was responding based upon it since the legality of it is what we have been discussing. After reading that piece I hope Awlaki's family is able to have their suit heard. I have come around in my thinking about the Al-Awlaki case as I think it is much murkier how much of a combatant or one providing direct support to Al Qaeda is. Propagandists have been considered legitimate targets before and there is no doubt Al-Awlaki was a propagandist for Al Qaeda. That said though given the legal definitions presented by the ICRC there is a question about how that applies to an organization like Al Qaeda.
