Codifying the Arbitrary Executive
Since I certainly don’t believe in any policy of avoiding criticism of the Obama administration during the campaign*, I have some thoughts about Greg Miller’s reporting on the disposition matrix. I particularly want to emphasize that even if we stipulate that the AUMF provides legal cover for the program, systematic arbitrary killings on this scale and with this lack of transparency remains terrible (and almost certainly counterproductive) public policy. And as the fact that there’s no chance that the AUMF will be ended anytime soon indicates, the problem is much deeper than any individual administration. There’s no usurpation of congressional power per se; this, alas, is how Congress, regardless of the partisan configuration, wants it.
*I, of course, endorse our policy of opposing bad critiques from the nominal left. But whether it’s “let us seriously consider the thoughts of a conservative making a silly argument that we should be indifferent about the outcome of the election” or — even worse — “Obama has betrayed me on the most important issue of our time, the excessive use of scripted zingers,” these arguments would be equally bad the day after the campaign ended.
I would agree with this, even though I am much less happy with Obama than you are. Stupid critiques are stupid whenever they are brought forward and any suggestion that not voting (or voting third party) will send any kind of message, other than you can safely be ignored, flies in the face of all evidence. The idea that electing any Republican would produce better outcomes is certifiably insane.
I would also point out that these kinds of policies are not new and dominated much of post-WWII US foreign policy (under both Republicans and Democrats), though it was more covert then and often conducted through proxies. It was and is bad and counter productive policy and contributed to the widespread anti-Americanism of the 1950s and 1960s.
Completely agree. What’s new is that rapidity with which the public learns of and reacts to them.
People speak of the American media of decades ago in warm terms, but in actual matter of fact the public is much, much better informed these days. (Not that the media is the institution which deserves credit; I assume it’s wholesale changes in communication and culture.)
I’d say that the public is much more well informed and much more well disinformed at the same time.
Yes and No. Certainly these abuses have their roots in the early Cold War (NSC-68) — as Chris Floyd says, this is the 16th Truman administration — but now they’re becoming codified; Congress — via various laws, the 2001 AUMF, the Patriot Act, the 2006 MCA, last year’s NDAA — is giving the president monstrous powers, to spy on, indefinitely detain, and kill without due process suspects. The formally illegal is not “legal.”
And it’s amusing/horrifying to me that many people here (not saying you’re of them, Dr. Dick) point to past abuses to defend or downplay the current abuses. Do the Bush-Obama terror war abuses have Cold War antecedents? Yes, and that’s precisely the problem.
But it is not just the Cold War. Do you think Native Americans think kill lists are something new? Does nobody remember Pancho Villa?
Well, of course — but so what?
I like to think, Mal, that if you’d been alive during the 19th century debate over slavery — or during the Philipine-American war — you would’ve shrugged at the horrors merely because the United States has slaughtered and ethnically cleansed Indians. And I’m quite sure you didn’t shrug at Reagan’s abuses in Central American merely because of what Nixon had done.
Shrugging it off is impossible for anyone with a conscience. The point of bringing up past atrocities isn’t to shrug off the present ones, but to counter the argument that Obama is uniquely terrible.
Not shrugs. More like perfunctory shakes of the head (often before moving on to the obligatory hippie punch).
I don’t remember much of this thoughtful contextualizing when Bush was in office, at least not in liberal precincts. Obama is venturing into interesting territory, all the same.
No, I’m not trying to shrug off the horrors. But the horrors are not new since Obama, nor new since 1945, and pretending that this is new is no way to stop the horrors. We are not a peace-loving people, as mythology has it, but a bloodthirsty one.
And yes, this was, in fact, one of the first things that made me realize the history I was being taught in high school was a lie.
My point exactly. As I said in my post, these are bad policies and ultimately destructive of our national interests (leaving aside their complete immorality). Conversely, castigating Obama in particular and treating this as somehow new and novel is just plain wrong. If you want to change the policies, you have understand their nature and precedents.
f you want to change the policies, you have understand their nature and precedents.
This is the key point. Understanding the problem doesn’t mean absolving Obama — who does have significant discretion on these matters — from responsibility. But it does point to the fact that magical thinking (a third party candidate we will inexplicably assume to be left-libertarian will cause people to rise up against civil liberties abuses!) is not a solution to anything.
Again, this sort of thinking could be portrayed as “It is what it is” nihilism.
There is somewhere between unreasonableness of holding Obama responsible and the nihilism of saying “Its always been this way”.
You are getting so close to the latter that I wouldn’t be able to accept it, even if you made a convincing argument.
Perhaps mizner and I are guilty of “magical thinking” or idealistic naivete. But at least in my case, there are moral standards that I demand of people even if the demands are too idealistic to be realistic.
“If you want to change the policies, you have understand their nature and precedents.”
If you want to change policies, you need to generate widespread righteous outrage and activism — both of which are undercut by “sophisticated” it’s-always-been-this-way (don’t-call-them-defenses.)
You are getting very close to being open to the opposite: pointing out that this is in no way new does not absolve the current perpetrators.
I want my M’Fin change.
Funny, during the Bush years, when he was torturing and doing all sorts of horrific shit, no liberals tried to normalize it by pointing out that the United States had killed Indians.
But they would TOTALLY do that for President Romney! Or not.
None of us liberals who support these strikes are using that argument.
Every one of the liberals who is making those references is against the strikes.
You’ve just decided that they are off-message, and that’s the same thing, in your mind, as being on the other side.
I get Mal’s point just fine – if we want to solve this problem (his position, that this is a problem that should be solved), we need to address its actual causes.
As one of the (large majority of) liberals who supports using force against al Qaeda, I find the hippie-on-hippie fight between you and Mal to be quite enjoyable. You, david, are so impressed with your own moral superiority and political acumen that you can’t tell that Mal is on your side.
Not uniquely terrible, no —
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/26/981048/-Barack-Obama-American-President
– but in some ways unique, due to changes in technology, the threat, etc. Here’s Balkin’s take:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/bradley-manning-barack-obama-and.html
Elsewhere, Balkin says
So yeah, the United States was born and grew on violence and the blood of people of color– now can we talk about what’s happening today?
now can we talk about what’s happening today?
Yes. Who’s saying otherwise?
I’ve never seen, Mal, criticize Obama’s abuses. All I’ve seen him/her do in response to criticism of those abuses is to point out the United States has always done bad shit (as if someone were arguing otherwise.) It amounts to a defense of those abuses, an attempt to normalize and downplay them, and it’s quite common.
It amounts to a defense of those abuses, an attempt to normalize and downplay them, and it’s quite common.
This is simply wrong.
I’ve never seen, Mal, criticize Obama’s abuses.
Really? You must not read his comments.
I disagree with the comparison between shooting at al Qaeda commanders in this war and the Cold War assassinations you’re referring to.
The people we assassinated during the Cold War were largely popular leaders of large movements, to whom the public in those countries felt loyalty and camaraderie. Al Qaeda commanders are despised, fringe figures in their own societies, people who often slaughter members of their own societies left and right.
This distinction has significant moral and strategic implications. Killing democratic politicians who pursue political change through peaceful protest and electoral politics is, in and of itself, a moral transgression. Killing a terrorist who is trying to kill you and a lot of other people is not. Killing a popular political leader is likely to result in significant blowback from his supporters. Killing someone who is a major public enemy in his country, not so much.
Oops! I made this point below before I read this.
It is a pretty important distinction. But I think it’s also important that it’s possible to rationalize a lot of things. That’s a real danger, I think, even if not of Obama right now.
Al Qaeda commanders are despised, fringe figures in their own societies, people who often slaughter members of their own societies left and right.
And their teenaged offspring.
Yes, DocSimplistic, accidents happen in wars.
And?
Huh. So all our actions in Pakistan are supported by almost all Pakistanis, and are serving to stabilize Pakistan?
LOL.
Amazing what you can do when you take an argument and distort it by adding terms like “all,” “none,” “always,” and the like.
Thank you ever so much for a meaningful, substantive contribution.
Don’t know about this AUMF, but IIRC the Iraq AUMF wasn’t legal cover, because per the Constitution only Congress can declare war.
While I don’t care whether the AUMF is called a “declaration of war,” AFAICT the (Iraq) AUMF wasn’t that, but rather was basically granting an option to go to war, which isn’t the same thing.
Biggest problem of course is the modern issue of war against nonstate actors, which (IANAL) our legal heritage doesn’t seem designed to deal with.
Why not?
In e.g., the Hague convention, it allows for conditional declarations of war (e.g., an ultimatum). Why isn’t this a similar thing?
Cf also Doe vs. Bush.
It’s rather hard to argue that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force did not, in effect, authorize the President to use military force per the constitutional authority of Congress. The problem is that, once the check is written, it’s rather difficult to unwrite the check.
The 2001 AUMF is a horrific law; with its overbroad wording, it gives the president enormous powers. That was clear at the time; people said so at the time. Barbara Lee’s vote is one history’s greatest.
And let me state the obvious: even if you accept that the 2001 AUMF can be interpreted to authorize kill lists and such, it doesn’t give the U.S. government the authority to break international law or the Bill of Rights. This was clear to everyone in the debate over torture; I don’t know what it eludes people now.
New thread, same old discredited arguments? The kill list doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights.
It could, of course. It depends who’s killed and how. You can certainly make the case the United States denied Al Alwaki and his son his 5th amendment rights.
The son, I think not. The government didn’t do anything to him intentionally.
The father was given ample warning that he’d been targeted and refused to surrender himself for prosecution. Given those circumstances, his rights were not violated.
This is the stupidest comment I’ve seen here in a long time.
You don’t lose your 5th Amendment rights when you refuse to surrender.
You have no idea if the son was targeted.
Well, you never have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to surrender to lawful authorities and then hole up with armed dudes to prevent your lawful capture. So I suppose he couldn’t lose something he never had.
And yeah, I’m pretty fucking sure the son wasn’t targeted, since he wasn’t a militant or a terrorist. Oh, and there’s that small matter of his having been right next to someone who was targeted when he was killed. And because the U.S. has not been shy about acknowledging (through unofficial channels) who’s targeted and who’s been intentionally killed, and officials have said he was never targeted.
So under you non-reading of the 5th Amendment, the government can kill anyone who holes up and refuses to surrender?
If that person is armed and dangerous (or guarded by those who are armed and dangerous), yes.
“Freeze or I’ll shoot!”
Explain :) (AFAIK, this doesn’t violate your 5th amendment rights even if you get shot. Getting shot while resisting or avoiding arrest is not legally the same as being executed…unless, of course, the “resisting arrest” claim is just cover for the extra-judicial killing…but you have to make the case!)
Can you remind me again what crime he was charged with? Thanks.
Exactly; he wasn’t charged with a crime. He was designated as a military enemy of the United States, and behaved as someone who was a military enemy of the United States would be expected to behave. The Fifth Amendment applied to his case no more than it did to bin Laden’s.
So, again: no need for a formal indictment or charge before demanding surrender. The government is entitled to demand that you surrender, and then you get to challenge that at an arraignment or status hearing within 48 hours of your arrest.
It’s a pretty crucial distinction. The government has never claimed the right to kill Roman Polanski or even, say, the hypothetically at-large-in-Ireland Whitey Bulger.
He behaved like a “military enemy” by posting YouTube videos from Yemen?
And his son?
When did the government demand his surrender? What the hell are you even talking about?
Are you being snarky or not anon, I can’t tell? It is perfectly obvious that on a battlefield the government can demand surrender of it’s enemies without an indictment. In hostile territory is not much different.
I think the big problem is the breadth of the AUMF. Trying to put the cat back in the bag afterwards forces you to defend unrealistic standards of war time behavior.
Given their intent and his affiliations, yes.
Man, I bet you thought that feigned obtuseness was a real gotcha, too.
Ah, so as long as you appear suspicious, that can be considered equivalent to guilt, so long as the government really believes it.
And the only way to avoid this is to surrender yourself for indefinite detainment, without charges, even though your presence on a kill list is secret.
Sounds totally reasonable.
The Obama Administration has never taken the position that they can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen without charge or trial. If they were to take that position, I agree that it all breaks down; as I said in the thread yesterday, due process is the guarantee that if you surrender, we will not treat you arbitrarily. But there the problem would be the detention position, not the kill position.
Can you remind me what a couple hundred thousand Confederate soldiers were charged with? Thanks.
He behaved like a military enemy by 1) joining al Qaeda, a military enemy with whom we are currently at war, and 2) organizing an attempted mass casualty attack against over 200 people on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day. We know the former from his own public statements, and we know the latter from the testimony of the attempted bomber himself, who was captured and questioned by the FBI.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
while being based in an area known as an al-Qaeda haven, that is.
There are some meaningful questions surrounding the al-Awlaki killing, MikeJake, but it really needs to take place among people with a solid understanding of the facts of the matter.
It might be recalled that this issue was actually litigated on his behalf in US courts before he was killed.
I don’t think anyone denies this. The problem is making the case that what’s happening does break international law or the Bill of Rights.
I’m pretty sympathetic to this line in principle, but I’m not seeing it work out. E.g., the “the other side has to have the organizational wherewithal to respect the conventions” seemed quite broken. Similarly, “you can’t grant an option to declare war” argument below.
I’m open to arguments based on international law, but in my experience they tend to be based on “international law” in the Chomskian sense (i.e. a vision of international law based on what we would like it to be rather than what it actually is.)
In fact, quite a few people think that the AUMF-authorizes-it puts to bed the legal questions.
It’s hard to make unequivocal statements about international law because the Obama administration refuses to reveal the criteria it uses to target people.
But we can say that the targeted killing program might violate international law.
I do actually agree with this. The lack of oversight is the biggest problem. In a real war, you accept the lack of oversight as a necessary cost. In this case, it was inappropriate for Congress to give up oversight.
But that doesn’t make it illegal either domestically or internationally.
Also, I’ve no real belief that Congress would be any sort of useful contraint on the Obama administration to do less of this sort of thing. Closing Gitmo? Congress is all about the oversight and blocking. Killing purported terrorists? Congress is really happy about that.
Adding a defunct procedural shim doesn’t fix the current problem. (It might allow a democratic congress to do more against a republican president…if they would do anything.)
Which leaves us with an intra-executive system of oversight: someone in the executive branch checking the work of someone else in the executive branch. The various departments’ Inspectors General is an example of such a set-up.
The AUMF doesn’t authorize war crimes. If we began a genocide, that wouldn’t be covered and I can’t imagine anyone in this thread or related threads thinking otherwise.
You really really really need to make the distinction between disagreements about whether something is, given all the facts, legal and otherwise, a violation of international law and whether breaking international law is ok. No one, afaict, has argued the latter. Plenty of people have disputed your reading of international law. Since you’ve been rather short on backing up your claims and totally failed to respond to the fairly obvious (afaict) contradictions in many of your claims, I’m not finding you a very effective champion.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if international law wasn’t very effective at ruling out Obama’s flavor of the war on Al Quaeda et al. We can say that that’s not a good thing, but if you are going to argue that it’s illegal you really do have to make the case.
I offered no reading of international law; what I’ve done is post an article co-written by a renowned and not-especially-liberal international law expert (whom I happened to work with) who argues that the U.S. targeted killing program (seems to) be illegal. Seems to because we don’t the details that would allow a definitive determination. Some people have disagreed with one or two points, but not persuasively (because no one hear knows much about international law), and many of his points remain unchallenged. Of course, the fact that one expert says the program is illegal doesn’t mean it is illegal, but it should be enough to make people seriously consider that possibility, and ask questions.
But in any case, although I’m a believer in the system of international law and human rights — I work for a human rights organization — my opposition to the Terror War hardly hinges on it. For example, after a U.N. official said that the U.S. tactic of firing missiles at funeral parties and rescuers violated IL, I asked the expert mentioned above, and he said not necessarily — depends on who the U.S. believed was in those parties. But I still believe the U.S. shouldn’t be firing at funerals in an attempt to kill mid-level AG militants — I think it’s wrong and stupid. And I don’t think we should be at war with AQ — not in 2001 and certainly not know, and I could hardly be more certain that the killing Americans are doing in the name of fighting “terror” will come back to haunt us.
I believe that there is a possible targeted killing program that does violate international law. (Target random Japanese civilians would probably work.) The challenge is to show that it’s reasonable or probable that, given what we know, the Obama targeted killing program violates international law.
If you accept a war with Al Quaeda and like groups model and that that war was authorized by the AUMF and permitted by the Security Council (i.e., after 9/11 we informed the SC that we were so at war), then I think you have a tricky thing to argue.
I don’t think that’s a good thing, really, though I’m slowly being worn down. (I.e., it seems legal; it seems much better than many alternatives; there is an enemy; I worry about various sorts of overstepping.) In general, Obama seems to be doing a better job of targeting actual people engaged in hostilities rather than, say, democratically elected leaders he doesn’t like (cf Contras).
I would be really really interested to see a fleshed out argument that this is likely illegal.
We can go further than that. We can say that having such a targeted killing program per se does not violate international law. We can say this with absolute confidence. We have all the information we need to come to this conclusion.
What we are left with is the question of whether this or that particular action taken to prosecute this perfectly-legal war violated international law. We do not have all of the information needed to answer this question confidently. No doubt, this being a war, somebody somewhere has done something wrong.
Congress can delegate a lot of power to the executive in domestic policy (in terms of giving executive agencies the authority to write regulations). Why can’t it do the same with it’s war-declaring authority?
There’s much more precedent for the latter, since the executive has engaged in military action without congressional approval since the earliest days of the republic.
Uh, because the Constitution explcitly gives the power to declare war to the legislature, not the executive?
There is plenty of precedent for use of military force against nonstate actors, as Blackbeard the pirate could tell you.
What a stupid, dumbass, uncharitable interpretation of what I asked.
Says the guy who wrote
Be the change you want to see in the world, you whiny little hypocrite.
Per the Constitution, only Congress can regulated interstate commerce. Does that mean the Clean Air Act is illegal, because it gives the executive the option to, for instance, regulate CO2 emissions or not?
Congress has always, in all of its spheres of power, used enabling legislation to delegate to the executive.
That doesn’t mean the analogy holds in this case.
It’s not an analogy. An analogy is a comparison between two different things that have some feature in common.
Congress delegating one constitutional power and Congress delegating another constitutional power are not two different things. They are two categories of the same thing.
The “analogy” doesn’t have to “hold.” It falls upon those who claim that Congress can delegate some powers but not others to prove their case, against the assumption that Congress’s ability to delegate is uniform across its powers.
But Scott, why do you time and time again ignore all the horrible things Obama has done? Tribal politics are truly a sad place for you to end up!
And sure, you can point to the odd place where you’ve enunciated a “safe” criticism of your dear leader, but the hard nosed among us see through this transparent charade on steroids! You just criticise to shield your sycophantic infatuation!
And Romney’s going to end all of Obama’s excesses?
Or, will he double, or triple, them?
We have a two party system, sadly, and not a parliamentary one.
And I’ll take the lesser of two evils – especially one who’s aware that he’s not perfect. Obama pretty much admitted this on “The Daily Show” last week.
The alternative is some rich, entitled sociopath and his even more sociopathic mini-me.
Mitt Romney is a man who stands for nothing, and believes in nothing – except that he’s entitled to be the President – and one who’s likely to blow up the whole world, or at least a good chunk of it, and think that’s fine with his God.
Give President Obama a Democratic Congress with some guts, and he’ll close Gitmo. And he’ll make progress giving back some powers that have moved to the President over the past nearly 50 years.
Would any of you memebers of the “Liberal/Progressive Purity Police” rather have Obama giving back powers to this current Congress?
You do know I was being heartily sarcastic, right?
I’ve a pretty good track record in these threads of championing lesser evildom!
Oh, and not only did I vote Obama (again…yay absentee ballot), but I donated to the campaign. I am DRIPPING with EEEEEVIL!
WHOOOPSIE!!!
Sorry, I must be suffering from an ‘irony deficiency’ today.
I am an ass.
My sincerest apologies.
No worries! My evil clearly deserves it.
I am DRIPPING with EEEEEVIL!
Speaking as someone from Levittown, yes, Media is, indeed, part of the Evil Empire.
Pfft! So says a suburb of Trenton! (Functionally.)
Anyway, I’m from Rose Valley. We just go to Media for the evil snacks.
Trenton Makes, The World Takes.
That bridge was so fucking depressing once I understood the import…
transparent charade on steroids
This phrase is just full of harrumph.
Way to throw me under the bus.
I note that the Obama campaign has been sending out “The total you’ve donated to the 2012 campaign” emails to its supporters. Perhaps it would be a good idea for those who get said email to forward said email somewhere with a note that says, in effect, that you know that I support Obama, and I want Obama to knock this shit off.
So what do you think he should do about the problem? You seem to think he is doing this just to be an asshole.
Not sure where I said that he’s doing this just to be an asshole, but whatever. It’s much more likely that Obama’s given his subordinates broad guidelines to do what they think is necessary and effective to suppress Al Qaida, because Obama will get crucified from all sides if another massive terrorist attack happens. And the subordinates that he put in charge have run with that.
Naturally I wouldn’t use the words “knock that shit off” in an actual missive, but as presidents tend to look toward foreign policy and their legacy in their second term, I would want Obama to be focusing his energies in the right way.
because per the Constitution only Congress can declare war
What did the founders mean by that? Formal declarations of war were not exactly common in the founders’ era. In 1754, George Washington commenced hostilities against the French, touching off a global conflict, without any declaration. Wikipedia cites a study, limited to wars between European powers (including the US) 1700-1870, showing 107 wars, 10 of which were declared. I beleive in a living Constitution rather than one confined by the founder’s intent, but most of the wars fought by the US have been undeclared.
In short, I don’t think there is any legal requirement for a declaration of war before the US president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, initiates hostilities. Maybe there ought to be one, but that’s not what the Constitution presently requires.
France and Britain did formally declare war on one another in 1756, which is when the war spread from being a purely North American one to a global and European one.
Two years after the fighting started. And the British and French were already fighting in Europe (Minorca) at the time of the declaration.
Right. in the 1700-1870 period, though, declarations of war were certainly usual. They just normally happened after hostilities had already begun.
As opposed to now, when formal declarations don’t happen at all.
A founder in good standing named John Adams fought an undeclared war with France, so it’s really not clear that they didn’t have some kind of distinction in mind between wars and smaller-scale military actions.
Only 10 declared wars among European powers between 1700 and 1870? Even if I take this to mean that multiple declarations within the same war can only count one time, that seems way too low. What’s the link on that?
Ah, I see that it appears to be that if hostilities begin before war is formally declared, that doesn’t count. Fair enough, I guess. What are the ten, though?
See here. Don’t know which 10 he had in mind.
Yes. And, use of “war” when you are attacking some international terrorist organization is dubious anyway. The authorization of military force is not the same as “war” either. As to the President acting alone there, it’s a hazy line and a long term action like what is ongoing clearly to me would require some congressional authorization. Specific attacks, especially to address immediate threats, was clearly something the President had the power to do, particularly in an earlier era given time restraints.
In what respect, Charlie?
War powers have been used against pirates ever since the founding of states.
“War powers” means various things. There wasn’t some official “war” on pirates, “war” involving actual states and such. As noted, use of military force occurs w/o “war.”
Yes, but in this case, we have 1) a war declaration against someone, and 2) the use of war powers against them – war powers that are, notably, not being used against similar groups that are not affiliated with al Qaeda.
It’s quacking, and it’s walking with a flat-footed waddle. I think we’ve got billed water fowl here.
We have an authorization of military force (AUMF). Declaring war post-WWII is somewhat passe.
An actual war tended to be more concrete. This is more of a lingering thing. Yes, “war powers” are involved.
LOL.
Something I learned watching libertarians talk about gun rights: if you think a Constitutional issue that has been hotly debates for a century or more has an obvious answer than only a fool doesn’t immediately understand, you’re an idiot, of you’re lying about it.
systematic arbitrary killings on this scale
“This scale” actually appears to be quite small-scale. Opposition to the drone war tends to conflate targeted killing of individuals with use of drones against guerrillas in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but those are two very different sets of issues. And of course, the problem isn’t the drones–it’s the killing.
I think the problem is more the overall strategy. As noted in the WaPo article,
The idea that we’re going to monitor half the world, and play whack-a-mole with anyone who looks like a threat, while inflicting all the collateral damage that such a strategy necessarily entails, doesn’t seem like a viable way to convince people to not want to kill us. It’s not that we’re slaughtering innocents wholesale, it’s that every time we make a mistake we plant a seed of hatred and revenge against us. Which necessitates more killing, which plants more seeds, etc etc.
Two points here:
First, doesn’t seem like a viable way to convince people to not want to kill us.
How convincing you find this argument depends upon the degree to which you consider al Qaeda to be representative of the general public in the Muslim world. Is the threat we’re facing from al Qaeda a reflection of general public opinion? Or a reflection of the the ideology of a tiny, rabid cult?
Second, the claim that terrorism develops from military action, while logical on its face, doesn’t hold up to any kind of analysis. Where are all of the Iraqi terrorists attacking the US? The Afghans? The Iranians? The Somalis? The Sudanese? The Libyans? The Lebanese? Those are the countries (the Muslim countries, anyway) against which we conducted the most military action prior to 9/11. And yet, if you look at a list of the 9/11 attackers, the Cole bombers, or the top figures in al Qaeda, or other people who have carried out terrorist attacks against us, you’ll find that those countries are almost entirely absent. Instead, that list is full of Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis, Kuwaitis, and Emiratis – that is, people from countries against whom we have never conducted military action, and which are in fact our allies. The correlation between who is on the receiving end of American military action and who conducts anti-American terrorism is not just low, it’s negative.
Military action engenders a desire for revenge, it’s true. Look at the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, signing on to shoot at American troops. But that’s not the same thing as conducting terrorist attacks. Think about it: did 9/11 make you want to kill members of al Qaeda? Or did it make you want to slaughter random people in offices, trains, and cafes?
One could certainly argue, though, that counter-terrorism operations harm the United States in other ways, for instance, our bilateral relations with Pakistan, and that those geopolitical considerations outweigh the benefits of further eroding al Qaeda.
In fact, it seems inarguable that this would be the case beyond a certain point. The question is, are we at that point? Near it?
What you’re saying is – once we put a McDonalds in a country, they turn into terrorists?
No. There are many Muslim US allies – for instance, Turkey – in which there is a meaningful US presence that have produced no, or virtually no, anti-American terrorists.
It’s the undemocratic, abusive, corrupt allies that are the problem.
How were the Cole bombers terrorists? A warship isn’t a legitimate military target?
Am I interested in dropping down this semantic rabbit-hole? No, I am not.
The Cole was attacked by al Qaeda. The question is, what produced al Qaeda? Where did they come from? Whether you want to split hairs between the Cole attack and the embassy bombing is irrelevant and uninteresting; they are both expressions of the same impetus – the desire of al Qaeda to attack the United States.
I think Reagan’s death toll was probably far higher, as were Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s.
I’m unsure what “arbitrary” executive power is at issue here. Congress authorized military force. The word “arbitrary” implies to me lack of legislative or other authority. The “legal cover” line comes off as if that is just some fig leaf, when it actually is quite important.
The killings occur after various people weigh various rules, including of national self-defense, rules (as the article in the WP notes) discussed publicly by the likes of Koh repeatedly, limiting the reach, just like complex rules of engagement has seriously restricted the reach of military action as compared to the past.
The opposition to the policy as a whole is duly noted & I’m no big fan of it (this is different than specific killings being lawless) but that doesn’t explain the “arbitrary” line. As rea notes, the scale is smaller than some make it to be. And, bad sounding labels aside, if we are going to do this, it would be nice if there were rules put in place.
I’m all for oversight and transparency. On some level, this isn’t going to be. Military action includes various secret decisions. This along with other things underlines the problems with excessive use of force.
Have parts 2 and 3 been published? The Post‘s site isn’t clear on that nor easily navigable in my browser.
You voted for, and will vote for this.
I don’t understand the theories of civic responsibility and representation that allow a smorgasboard/menu of accepted responsibility.
“Well, I voted for the autobahn, but the death camps are in no way my fault.”
And there is no point to criticism after the election, Obama will laugh at you if he ever heard you. Just a way to salve your conscience.
I vote to make the country better. It is entirely beyond my power to vote to make the country perfect.
And I can definitely find fault in those who refused to form a popular front against the Nazis back in the day, because the constitution of such a popular front would not be entirely to their liking.
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
The AUMF is really a red herring, in my view. The issue of the division of authority between Congress and the President on this issue is the least interesting aspect of it, if for no other reason than, as Scott correctly points out, Congress has steadily abdicated its authority. The real issue to me, one that all the invocation of the AUMF cannot possibly shed light on, is what limits there are on the US government as a whole.
Imagine, if you will, that Congress passed a new AUMF that said, in effect, we authorize the President to use any force he deems necessary and appropriate to neutralize any actual or potential threat to US security. (I submit that this is hardly a far-fetched possibility if the right party alignment takes over the two branches.) In other words, a blank check from Congress to the President. I wonder if the various defenders of the “disposition matrix” (what a wonderful euphemism) on this site then believe that there would be any limitations — substantive or procedural — on the President’s ability to order the “disposition” of anyone, anywhere, and if so, what are those limits and where do they come from? Because it looks to me like the Bush/Obama policies are inexorably transgressing all previous candidates for such limits. About the only one not crossed yet — and one must always caveat here, that means, as far as we know — is extrajudicial execution on US soil. Is that, in the end, the only limitation, and if so, are we really comfortable with that?
One of the things that pisses me off about Greenwald and his ilk is that all this carping about the legitimacy of the drone war distracts attention from the real problem, which is that we should get the fuck out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, and not engage in that type of pointless military adventurism. Do that, and occasionally killing the odd pirate or terrorist who can’t be reached through the court system doesn’t bother me.
we should
gethave gotten the fuck out of Afghanistan as soon as possibleThat should have been over by 2003 at the latest. Because Bush stayed – drift? imperialism? distraction? – for the rest of his term, he not only added all of those years onto the timeline, but left his successor in a situation in which “as soon as possible” took a lot longer.
“Mision creep” We went there to get bin Laden. We should have gotten him, and gotten out.
I don’t think Bush went there to get bin Laden. I don’t think he went through the Taliban to get at al Qaeda. I think he was at least as interested in putting his Risk pieces in Afghanistan as in actual counter-terrorism – right from the beginning.
We had 30,000 troops in Kabul the day those hired Tali-buddies escorted Osama bin Laden out of Tora Bora.
How happy we could all have been if Bush used drones to kill OBL instead of an invasion!
“Systematic arbitrary?” What does “systematic arbitrary” mean?
I get the concern about targeted killings being “arbitrary.” I don’t find the claim that the strikes are being carried out in an arbitrary manner terribly convincing, but I can see how these powers could be used arbitrarily, and why that would be a bad thing – you know, the old “killing people on the President’s whim” argument. We certainly don’t want that to start happening.
Wouldn’t systematizing the selection process be a solution to this problem of arbitrariness, as opposed to an expansion of it?
It does seem odd that those invoking “due process of law” are opposing setting up a process.
To be fair, I think the distinction is between instituting due process and institutionalizing a power.
Obama reliably using a magic 8 ball to determine who to kill would be systematizing and remove it from Obama’s direct whim. So it’d be less arbitrary in one sense.
I don’t think it’s wildly unreasonable to be concerned about systemisation that is entirely under one branch’s control, esp. one which is so dependent on one person. Clearly, the possibilities for such a system to fail to be independent is clear.
So, while I think this tension is not negligible, the complaint is not necessarily bonkers.
But how many of the complaints – Scott’s, mizner’s, Greenwald’s, etc. – contain even an iota of consideration about, or even interest in, what the actual process is? As opposed to complaints that a process of any kind is being developed?
Complaints about “systematizing” the capture-or-kill list are complaints about there being a process per se.
All of us — all of us want transparency so that we can see what the actual process is.
By the way, all this talk about the kill list tends to overshadow the even more disturbing kind of hit — signature strikes based on a target’s pattern of behavior.
Please reread the comment you replied to.
You have a lot of complaints, david. I’m talking about this particular one.
Of all of your complaints, I’ll add, it is the policy criticisms – the lack of transparency eroding democratic decision-making, the point about signature strikes, for instance – that are the strongest. Even the blowback complaint, though I disagree in terms of specifically terrorist blowback, is an important point.
all this talk about the kill list tends to overshadow the even more disturbing kind of hit — signature strikes based on a target’s pattern of behavior.
You’re conflating again. Once again, there are two uses of drones–the targeted killing of terrorists, and support for US troops in a combat zone like Afghanistan. Haven’t seen any evidence that they are being used in the first context, as opposed to the second.
I don’t think that’s the most charitable or even most reasonable reading. I’d like to think that Greenwald or mizner, for example, a shift from a war context (and thus primarily executive branch solo decision making) to a criminal footing with perhaps FISA like courts would be superior even if all the same strikes occurred (and even if they opposed those strikes, as I’m sure they would). It would at least provide a nominally independent review.
Now they might still complain that those courts were overly deferential, but still, their mere existence and role might serve as a break.
(I have to say that mizner, in particular, is really terrible at keeping all of his points straight and separate. But it’s worth teasing out the best version, such as it may be.)
I think they make a lot of different points.
I’m talking about this specific point, that they have made in response to this particular story from the Washington Post. They are complaining that the administration is developing a systemic approach to this decision-making.
Wrong again — I’m complaining that the administration is further embedding sweeping, unaccountable powers in the executive — not moving to wind down the war on Terror but doing quite the opposite.
To the extent that the administration is providing internal oversight and safeguards to avoid mistakes, that’s better than not doing so but no substitute for allowing for external oversight. Of course, it’s also the duty of Congress to claim it — there are nascent attempts to do just that, by Widen and others.
Ok, so this looks like my reading is correct.
So, Yay, procedures with at least branch internal checks and balances!
Boo, only internal to one branch checks and balances, one with disproportionate power concentrated in a key figure.
I don’t understand why involving Congress more closely would be a win, given how Congress has played out here.
The analogy with the FISA court seems strong. Unless we’d get more denials of action (that’s really the only measure I can imagine that would be evidence of them making a difference) then the accountability is merely nominal.
Oh, I guess there could be internal checking. I.e., a bit of inclination to be more restrained not because there would be likely actual consequences but because the need to justify externally prompts more cautious behavior.
Still, this is a pretty thin reed.
Like I said, david, you’re complaining about a lot of things.
I’ve identified one of them. Talking about a different complaint you’ve raised is all very nice, but it’s not the argument I’m addressing.
Even if you feel compelled to write “Wrong again.”
This is hilarious. On a site filled with professors and professionals the consensus argument of the pro-Obama folks is that other presidents did bad things too and/or Romney wouldn’t stop it. Nobody would accept that reasoning from one of their students, jr. associates or clerks.
If you are going to say there is nothing morally wrong with this policy, fine. I disagree, but fine. If you are going to say that this is good policy, fine. I disagree, but fine. But at least have the courage to make one of those arguments and not hide behind what others have done or may do.
Otherwise when Romney/Ryan [in the unlikely event they win] cuts half of our social programs and guts environmental laws get ready to accept the line of reasoning that other presidents have cut programs or that Obama would have had to cut programs as well.
Reading comprehension, you does not has it. There may be a large number of us who do argue that this is nothing new, though that is far from a consensus, there is a serious divide over whether it is OK. I, Mal, and Scott, among others, would say it was wrong in the past and wrong now, while others disagree.
This is kind of my point. You dont take issue with the argument I made, you just a) insult then b) pick 3 people out of many to generalize your point while ignoring c) that my quote specifically mentioned the pro-obama folks, not everybody who posts. (And to counter the coming snark…by pro-obama i mean those who support him regardless of what he does. Not those who will hold noses and vote for him and who are liberal in persuassion.) My point which is quite clear is that the reasoning behind the arguments posters are making here would not be accepted by these same posters if made in a different context, I specifically mentioned our collective professional lives.
Now my post was at 11:20am at that point. Nobody you mentioned (you scott or mal) was able to say that the drones are wrong without throwing something in about what others have or have not done. Or trying to explain it away with an “in context” type of explanation.
Your initial post references the 50′s and 60′s, and the threaded replies from davids post that start at 9 all have “contentext-ualizers” in there in the sense that we are admonished that we must understand where these policies come from and that we shouldn’t single out just Obama. Scott then riffs that it is illogical to assume a 3rd party cand would change this policy if elected.
Too many here , IMO, view this as a horserace/political type thing. I and others view this as a fundamental moral and legal issue in the same sense single payer, poverty, and social programs are. So, I will leave off with where I left off before. Either just say it is wrong or right. Otherwise, be prepared to accept as a logical argument anything a republican does as moral if they can point to a previous administration doing anything remotely similar.
Feel free to respond, note there were no insults in my response to you. I am hoping its not too much to ask you to reciprocate
Let me take a crack.
1. I think on the whole I am okay with the way the drone attacks have played out. I understand why someone would worry, or believe it was wrong; but I also think that a lot of the reasons about why I should oppose drones haven’t been well argued.
2. That being said, I think you’re misreading the arguments here. When I invoke precedent, it isn’t to say that Obama is justified because of the acts of past Presidents. It’s because many of the people who oppose drone warfare disingenuously act as though Obama is a unique historical monster for using drones, and that every President before this one was a perfect angel who deferred to the other branches, etc. Almost every President has sought, successfully or not, to expand the power of the executive. Acting as though Obama is unique is misleading, and most of the time past Presidents are invoked to show that historically, the drone stuff is small potatoes.
3. That being said, in my mind this line of attack is part of a broader set of attacks by those who oppose drones to shut down debate by being as inflammatory as possible. This is best characterized by Greenwald, where the argument goes “Anyone who doesn’t agree that the executive should be limited clearly hates/doesn’t care about brown people/foreigners.”
So yes, if the other side is going to incorrectly use precedent in their arguments, then I’m going to correct them on that. I don’t think that drones are okay because “Other Presidents have done worse.” I also don’t think that Obama is unique in this regard, and acting like a President trying to assume more power is a brand new feature of the US government is disingenuous.
I reject your premise that arguing a national policy from a perspective of the nation is impossible. This has been going on in many forms for a very long time. Obama is not any different than many other President’s in his terrible international Civil Rights policies.
I find it impossible to exist in a world without context. Perhaps you can say “In a vacuum, Obama is the worst President ever in international killings”. However, we do not live in a vacuum. We live in a country where unfortunately, it appears, that the vast majority of the country doesn’t give a fig newton about drone strikes in foreign countries. The reasonable way to address this while also making the country better is to elect Obama first, and make this a NATIONAL issue not a “Obama is so awful!!” issue.
We should not be electing a Congress that gives these kinds of powers to the Executive. We should not be electing a President that carries out these kinds of strikes, but even worse his opponent would only kill MORE! We should move the political discourse towards making another “anti-war” party. Additionally, we have to make clear “anti-war” includes unilateral military “assassinations”.
In my opinion, no one here is arguing that drones aren’t wrong. That isn’t the point. Generally, people on LG&M don’t believe in taking other’s lives without significant proof and transparency unless the threat is truly urgent. However, the legality of Obama’s actions were called into questions. If it wasn’t illegal when the Constitutions drafters wrote it, why is Obama getting you all fired up about it being illegal? The reason for this defense is to make apparent how silly those arguments are to have.
Why even make it illegal? It should instead be politically impossible. I would prefer a world where Obama did this and there was OUTRAGE and he wouldn’t get re-elected because of the blow back. Instead we live in a world where Obama is getting labelled as an apologist and weakling because he’s ONLY doing drone strikes. The solution surely isn’t to vote for the person who would be responsible for even more deaths, but to work to move the entire political discourse to a more friendly region.
In my opinion, no one here is arguing that drones aren’t wrong.
You might wanna ask jfL about that.
Actually, the implicit insult in most of the responses you agree with is what you all apparently see as the “moral superiority” of your position.
I kind of accept Socialist Party people because a lot of them are pretty consistent about not participating in mainstream political orthodoxy. It makes them seem crazy, but they are genuine. The irksome thing about this whole railing-against-Democrats-whilst-supporting-ineffectual-politicians thing is that you seem to want the benefit of being taken seriously (because you’re so morally superior) without having to work to build a constituency (which is what most people who want to make political change have to do to be taken seriously).
It has been pointed out time and again that the reason why the US has this bloody history is because the American people have traditionally not known or cared about the ethics of counter-terrorism, asymmetrical war, and the infringement on civil liberties(like most citizens of the imperial metropole), esp. after 9/11. They’ve also produced a lot of historical evidence that change on certain fronts was brought about incrementally, often with people compromising values behind the scenes. That puts the onus on YOU, not politicians, to make a movement to put pressure on government institutions so that military action is not always the default option. So this focus on Barack Obama being a unique source of all bad things in the War on Terror is, at best, misguided. Barack Obama will no longer be president someday, but the institutions that make it possible for the president to make war will still remain close to Washington DC.
For example, correct me if I’m wrong, but Awlaki was already on 3 different terrorist lists (from different agencies) before Obama signed him on to a 4th one. Awlaki was already “targeted”, but apparently no one cared until Barack Obama had to sign him in to some other list.
Also, as I keep pointing out, Marcy Winograd lost TWICE to AIPAC hawk Jane Harman in a district that includes Venice Beach, CA. Predictably, no one wants to talk about the business of actually getting anti-war, pro-civil liberties people actually elected.
Of course, with Greenwald being the point man for everyone’s talking points, you guys are hardly in a position to conceive of strategies for systemic evaluation and change. It’s all EVIL, GOOD, EVIL, GOOD …
Also, let me remind everyone that Greenwald supported the Iraq War and thought Citizen’s United was acceptable. Because he’s so darned intelligent about imperialism and crony capitalism.
Basically this. Paula, you did a much better job of articulating what I wanted to say than I did.
That puts the onus on YOU, not politicians, to make a movement to put pressure on government institutions so that military action is not always the default option.
As long as that movement does not focus on the behavior of the chief executive, you mean?
You like the word “behavior” because it makes change seems like a psychological cure.
But sure, yeah. I think it’s particularly stupid to focus on the “chief executive”.
When in fact its probably all the different intelligence gathering agencies that provide him with certain conclusions, as well as various corporate entities that “promise” a cleaner more efficient war with their products. As they have with every single president, I’m sure.
And the American people, who can’t give enough of a shit to put pressure on him to act differently.
Why would they put pressure on him to act differently (change his behavior) when he’s the wrong guy to focus on?
OK, in place of “him”, put “their government” — which could mean local and state representatives.
In which case I’ll remind you:
Find a way to keep stuff like that from happening, and maybe you can talk about the presidency.
Alternately, you can give me a solution to the problem of defense contractors and the amount of money and jobs they bring to individual states.
Also also, this:
Would be a lot more convincing if you hadn’t led off your original post with this:
Which is meant so shut down and insult your opponents right from the start.
I didn’t insult anybody. I said a) i find the situation funny. b) that the logic and reasoning being used would not be accepted by these same people in their professional lives. Whichof these insults?
In no means does this shut down or insult an opponent. Instead it questions the logic they are using to make thier argument. Basically, that’s debate.
Also, you speak of “implicit insult” of moral superiority. Fair enough, but then how do we debate or judge anything? In a pro or con debate, especially a political one, there is always a moral demension to the argument. That’s not an insult, or at least I don’t view it as one. Otherwise all debate would just shut down.
I can understand if you get upset that people criticize but do nothing to get anti-war people elected, but that is tangential to this debate. All I have said is that I find it amusing that people here refuse to just say it is wrong or right on its own terms.
Though some here do have higher profiles lately, most of us dont know a whole lot about the other. That’s why I have tried to stay away from insults or from saying (like you) that these same people aren’t getting pro-war cands. elected.
Listen; I have worked for anti-war cands and yes they usually lose, I will vote for Obama (again)and voted for Gore and Kerry, and contrary to what dr dick believes I do have basic reading comprehension. I just feel that the drone war expansion is both wrong and illegal and bad policy. If you want to kill me for that fine.
But I don’t think I am being insulting saying that or illogical.
The issue is that these two “sides” don’t agree on precisely this point. I don’t actually find it worthwhile to consider abstract forms of “right” and “wrong” when you can actually find historical evidence for things happening. Like, yes, I’d have been really happy if we’d never gone into Afghanstan after 9/11, but it was not actually feasible at the time given that “not invading Afghanistan” was the view of an extreme minority. I still think I was “right”, but fat lot of good that does me or anyone else.
So, yes, I find these conversations about “right” and “wrong” sophomoric unless they come with a good side of realpolitik. Which, so far, the Greenwaldian presentation hasn’t produced. Sorry.
let me ask you straight out. was bush wrong to invade afghanistan?
???
Not according to this blog as of August, 2008.
by pro-obama i mean those who support him regardless of what he does
I can’t remember seeing anyone of that description here. Other than maybe Michelle, I’m not sure anyone meets that description.
I would argue that those whose vote is going to him without a moments waivering or hesitation despite some of his actions would fall into that category. Most of the usual posters imo fall into that category. Based on their posts, there is no wavering in voting for him or consideration of anyone else.
Further, many here just
cannotwill not say flatly that Obama is wrong about something. There is always some kind of romney would be worse, the other side does it too, or others in the past have done it. Listen, I fully believe you can support someone who you disagree with on an issue or two. But just say it.For example, Obama is on a moral and policy level wrong on drones. I feel it will be a stain on his presidency.
OTOH, I will still vote for him. True its with lots of hesitation and with consideration of others [stein]. All I am doing is calling those out to have courage enough to flatly say he is wrong. Without trying to put in a disclaimer about others.
One must earn ericincleveland’s permission to vote for Obama’s re-election.
really? where’s that
I don’t see how in the perspective of an election, mentioning the other candidate is worse makes the criticism of Obama any different.
“Bologna is gross, but arsenic will kill me”
Does that mean I should eat the arsenic, but deciding to eat bologna simply because the arsenic will kill me makes me a bologna-lover?
I think the point you’re missing is that my issue is that so many of you think of this as an election issue. It’s a moral one. In the same sense that if your budget is in the red you don’t balance it on the backs of the poor because that is wrong, even if someone else would or has.
Who cares about the context of an election if we are arguing and debating the rightness/wrong-ness of a policy. It is right or wrong. I specifically said that I don’t find it illogical to support and vote for Obama and think he is doing something wrong. I myself will.
This is another thing that CF said way back in his original article that drove me crazy.
You know what? Obama is not perfect. I wish he didn’t seem to have such an obsession with a grand bargain. I wish he would do better on judicial and other appointees – it’s obstruction, but senate Democrats aren’t gonna fight on it if he doesn’t make it a priority.
But I am damn proud to support him – I think he’s done mostly the best he can considering the constraints he’s under, and that it’s no crime to demonstrate that the Republican part would be demonstrably, horribly worse for the country. Stop trying to tell me that I can only “waver,” about voting for him or that I should be “voting through gritted teeth,” to paraphrase CF.
I adore this oft-used line, “Obama is not perfect,” as if there were doubt!
When the people I’m arguing with ascribe to me positions that I don’t hold (in this case, that my support for Obama means that I think he’s perfect/won’t criticize him), then yeah, I feel like I need to clarify that point.
But thanks for playing!
Fine. Win your argument and prove us wrong. List one thing, anything, where he was wrong on policy without mentioning anything or anyone else. Just “He was wrong on X.”
Was it not obvious from what I wrote above?
If that’s not concrete enough for you, I can spell it out.
1. Obama is committed to transcending partisanship by agreeing to a grand bargain, any grand bargain, really anything big that attracts Republican signatures. I think he was ready to sign a disastrous deficit reduction bill last year, and seems committed to deficit reduction at a time when it would be a poor choice for the economy, and I oppose this obsession.
2. I think he has been incredibly lax in getting appointees through the senate. Judicial, fed, and other appointments are incredibly important for preserving any kind of law I’d like passed, and fed appointees might have helped speed up the recovery. His decision not press the senate harder on this is inexplicable to me, and I am disappointed that he thinks this doesn’t matter.
Good enough?
actually yes.
These are the big ones to me. There are a lot of things where I wish Democrats had made more progress than they did – I wish we got single-payer, for example. But constraints matter, and I believe you have to judge your politicians by what they accomplished given the circumstances, not what one might wish they could accomplish in a vacuum.
So yeah, I’m going to tout the guy, and my party, and I don’t feel like I need to qualify it by saying, “I’m voting Democrat, even though…”
I’m sorry if I’m snapping – but I think of myself as an additive guy. Start from the status quo, and see what your candidate has brought to the picture.
All too often I feel like the professional left is subtractive – imagine your ideal world, and now focus on all the ways your candidate has failed to get there.
Tangentially, I’m with Scott on the “No criticism during the election” rule.
You’re not going to do his election prospects any damage with these criticisms. Hell, I’m ready to start a collection to send mizner to Southeast Ohio, to spread the gospel of Obama’s overly-hawkish counter-terror policy amongst the blue collar white residents of that fine region.
Go on, everyone. Let ‘er rip, with a clear conscience.
Is there an actual fund for that? I’d pay to have this mizner dude come talk to my family.
Who are, in fact, from the Philippines, and many of whom loves them some Fox News.
Well, sure, killing people of color in faraway lands is popular. On the other hand, it depends how it’s framed: I think the right candidate could get pretty far with the nationalist version of the argument — the U.S.A shouldn’t be the policeman of the world; nation-building at home (Obama uses this line)/ the U.S. government shouldn’t be killing and locking away American citizens without a trial, or spying on them without a warrant etc.
I think the last one fails, unfortunately, because in Conservatopia so many American citizens are already held to be traitorous sorts who probably should be carefully investigated and possibly locked up by law enforcement. Certainly anyone with brown skin, a long beard, and a foreign-sounding name is not going to garner much sympathy in white working class circles.
I think you are profoundly detached from the reality of American society.
I’m no legal expert, but by having the program operate under the authority of the CIA rather than the military doesn’t that already suggest it exists outside any AUMF?
The CIA becomes part of the war-making bureaucracy during wartime. Remember, its predecessor organization, the OSS, was founded during World War 2.