Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[Lamplighter]

Would you like to expand your thoughts in regards to this posting ?

As I read the link, I get more and more the impression the whole issue
is far too cloudy and uncertain to justify Holder's position and Obama signing the law.

But then, I'm still interested in your thoughts...

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Would you like to expand your thoughts in regards to this posting ?

As I read the link, I get more and more the impression the whole issue
is far too cloudy and uncertain to justify Holder's position and Obama signing the law.

But then, I'm still interested in your thoughts...

My thoughts are pretty much the same as stated previously.

While the 'War on Terror' can act as an umbrella for many power moves from the president to TSA, there are some aspects of it that I believe are good for national security. By stating we at war with Al Qaeda and similar extreme organizations it gives the administration more power and ability to make quick and direct decisions.

As long as there is discipline among the executive branch I am not opposed to the president ordering a drone strike against someone like al-Awlaki. But this means that this only applies to very extreme situations where there is strong evidence that the person is directly promoting violence against US citizens, does not represent US interests in any possible way (defecting citizenship or working in interests of other state or non-state players), and evading capture in a location where there is no realistic way of getting this person. In those extremely rare cases I do not believe due process should apply.

The US Constitution should not protect US citizens at the expense of others if they do everything in their power to harm the country.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

My thoughts are pretty much the same as stated previously.

<snip>By stating we at war with Al Qaeda and similar extreme organizations
it gives the administration more power and ability to make quick and direct decisions.

As long as there is discipline among the executive branch I am not opposed
to the president ordering a drone strike against someone like al-Awlaki. <snip>

The US Constitution should not protect US citizens at the expense of others
if they do everything in their power to harm the country.

Yes, I understand your views from our previous postings,
and I guess I was asking about your views of the arguments presented in this particular link.

Our differences are quite basic, and can be seen in the sentences above.

First, I believe it was a fundamental mistake to declare "war"
on a nebulous group (Al Qaeda) because it leads to exactly
what you stated: "similar extreme organizations".
The consequences are a never-ending "war"
... who is going to sign a document of surrender to bring this "war" to a close ?

Second, more and more it is being interpreted to have given unprecedented powers to the President.
... who or what is going to assure "discipline among the executive branch" ?

Third, I believe we base our entire form of government on that aspect of the Constitution
just the opposite of the idea that it "should not protect US citizens..."
The Constitution is the primary protection of the minority,
and the individual, from the emotional wiles of the majority.
... if not the Constitution then who/what will provide that protection ?

OK, so much for my back and forth.
... I am interested in how you view the content of the article in your link... if you care to expand on it.