Court orders Obama to release documents related to Awlaki

[TheHammer]

TL/DR

I have no interest in exploring your far fetched hypothetical scenarios, and I don't share your slippery slope fears.

Clearly we greatly disagree on who Awlaki was, what he represented, and his role in AQAP. You don't feel there is enough known evidence that he was a legitimate threat, and thus legitimate military target, whereas I do. And I see no possible means by which we will get around that. Any larger debate on this specific instance becomes impossible because that core issue cannot be conclusively settled.

Dude, there is no slippery slope. The US has assassinated a US citizen whose acts which made him a "legitimate military target" have been repeatedly held by the SCOTUS to be First-Amendment-protected speech. That isn't a farfetched hypothetical scenario, that's what actually happened.

I've already explained why that's all bullshit. But I think at this point everyone is preaching to their respective choirs.

[Terralthra]

TL/DR

I have no interest in exploring your far fetched hypothetical scenarios, and I don't share your slippery slope fears.

Clearly we greatly disagree on who Awlaki was, what he represented, and his role in AQAP. You don't feel there is enough known evidence that he was a legitimate threat, and thus legitimate military target, whereas I do. And I see no possible means by which we will get around that. Any larger debate on this specific instance becomes impossible because that core issue cannot be conclusively settled.

Dude, there is no slippery slope. The US has assassinated a US citizen whose acts which made him a "legitimate military target" have been repeatedly held by the SCOTUS to be First-Amendment-protected speech. That isn't a farfetched hypothetical scenario, that's what actually happened.

I've already explained why that's all bullshit. But I think at this point everyone is preaching to their respective choirs.

No, you haven't. You've said that somehow, the AUMF against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan applies to someone in a different group in a different country who had nothing to do with 9/11. It does not. The AUMF is not a blank check to make war against "the terrorists," and you've yet to explain or elucidate any connection between Anwar al-Awlaki and the 9/11 attacks.

[Simon_Jester]

TL/DR

I have no interest in exploring your far fetched hypothetical scenarios, and I don't share your slippery slope fears.

So, you continue to dodge the question, explicitly acknowledging that you don't even read my responses or try to understand the questions being put to you.

This is starting to sound reportable. I get that you're obtuse, but if you're just going to keep willfully repeating the same point without trying to address others' objections, you really shouldn't be doing this.

Clearly we greatly disagree on who Awlaki was, what he represented, and his role in AQAP. You don't feel there is enough known evidence that he was a legitimate threat, and thus legitimate military target, whereas I do. And I see no possible means by which we will get around that. Any larger debate on this specific instance becomes impossible because that core issue cannot be conclusively settled.

No, I think it can be settle very conclusively.

Why do you think the known evidence justifies this?

Can you explain, exactly, why you think this? What standard of evidence are you using.

Come on. Prove al-Awlaki was a Yamamoto and not a Trotsky. Put up or shut up.

You can see the problem with the US approach even right now in the Ukraine. It is very hard to claim the moral high ground even if you have it in this particular issue when you are blowing up people around the world. The propaganda war there is already lost. No matter how aggressive Russia has become, they can always say "well we are not the nation currently bombing other people", no matter how much aid they funnel to assholes.

Is it really worth it to blow up some fundamentalists to always be on the defensive when it comes to really important topics?

A lot of the good the EU's moral high ground is doing on that same issue right? The fact is when it comes to international politics, the "moral highground" isn't worth a whole lot strategically or tactically.

Its main advantage is that it lets you lead. People see you as someone who will protect them, not someone to protect themselves against.

Right now, much of the world sees us as someone they need (but lack) protection from... which is a big part of why we've been unable to kill Al Qaeda despite having dumped something like a hundred thousand times their annual operating budget into prosecuting various wars and campaigns against them.

If you can't beat someone despite spending ten thousand times more money than they do, you are doing something very, very wrong.

[TheHammer]

TL/DR

I have no interest in exploring your far fetched hypothetical scenarios, and I don't share your slippery slope fears.

So, you continue to dodge the question, explicitly acknowledging that you don't even read my responses or try to understand the questions being put to you.

This is starting to sound reportable. I get that you're obtuse, but if you're just going to keep willfully repeating the same point without trying to address others' objections, you really shouldn't be doing this.

Clearly we greatly disagree on who Awlaki was, what he represented, and his role in AQAP. You don't feel there is enough known evidence that he was a legitimate threat, and thus legitimate military target, whereas I do. And I see no possible means by which we will get around that. Any larger debate on this specific instance becomes impossible because that core issue cannot be conclusively settled.

No, I think it can be settle very conclusively.

Why do you think the known evidence justifies this?

Can you explain, exactly, why you think this? What standard of evidence are you using.

Come on. Prove al-Awlaki was a Yamamoto and not a Trotsky. Put up or shut up.

You can see the problem with the US approach even right now in the Ukraine. It is very hard to claim the moral high ground even if you have it in this particular issue when you are blowing up people around the world. The propaganda war there is already lost. No matter how aggressive Russia has become, they can always say "well we are not the nation currently bombing other people", no matter how much aid they funnel to assholes.

Is it really worth it to blow up some fundamentalists to always be on the defensive when it comes to really important topics?

A lot of the good the EU's moral high ground is doing on that same issue right? The fact is when it comes to international politics, the "moral highground" isn't worth a whole lot strategically or tactically.

Its main advantage is that it lets you lead. People see you as someone who will protect them, not someone to protect themselves against.

Right now, much of the world sees us as someone they need (but lack) protection from... which is a big part of why we've been unable to kill Al Qaeda despite having dumped something like a hundred thousand times their annual operating budget into prosecuting various wars and campaigns against them.

If you can't beat someone despite spending ten thousand times more money than they do, you are doing something very, very wrong.

Reportable eh? Go fuck yourself.

I'm not interested in answering the same god damn things over and over and over again. It has been discussed Ad Nauseam, and yours in particularly with their volumes and volumes of repetitive themes are among the worst. Not one new thought or idea has been introduced on this subject in this entire thread. I've made dozens, if not into the hundreds of posts on Awlaki in this and other threads. Hell, here are 92+ posts alone to get you started. If you find something not answered in those 92 posts I'll be glad to address it. In the meantime, Following this upcoming answer to Terralthra, I'm taking an Awlaki moratorium.

No, you haven't. You've said that somehow, the AUMF against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan applies to someone in a different group in a different country who had nothing to do with 9/11. It does not. The AUMF is not a blank check to make war against "the terrorists," and you've yet to explain or elucidate any connection between Anwar al-Awlaki and the 9/11 attacks.

No specific organizations are named in the AUMF. I'll cite from it for clarity:

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Awlaki was a self professed member of AQAP (not even going to debate this). By naming themselves "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" they have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the attacks. Their stated goals roughly the same as Al-Qaeda. It doesn't take any legal trickery to link them as a group who "aids and or harbors" Al-Qaeda.

Now, pay special attention to that last line regarding preventing future attacks. The AUMF wasn't merely for "revenge" or "justice" for the 9/11 attacks, it was to weaken and or destroy the groups responsible so that they couldn't mount future attacks. And because of that, "making war with this group" is perfectly justified under the AUMF.

There has been discussion about narrowing the AUMF, however even if that were the case it would almost certainly still include groups like AQAP who have planned attacks, and continue to plan attacks against the US and in Europe, to whatever capacity they can.

[Metahive]

Reportable eh? Go fuck yourself.

I'm not interested in answering the same god damn things over and over and over again. It has been discussed Ad Nauseam, and yours in particularly with their volumes and volumes of repetitive themes are among the worst. Not one new thought or idea has been introduced on this subject in this entire thread. I've made dozens, if not into the hundreds of posts on Awlaki in this and other threads. Hell, here are 92+ posts alone to get you started. If you find something not answered in those 92 posts I'll be glad to address it. In the meantime, Following this upcoming answer to Terralthra, I'm taking an Awlaki moratorium.

Ah yes, the time-honored tactic of plugging your ears and shouting loudly that you can't hear anyone after, of course, you claimed the last word on the issue. Maybe you should take a moratorium from more than just this specific topic, Hammerbozo.

Well, but nice that you have, in a way, answered my question. As far as "nuh-uh" and handwaving can be considered an answer anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

So, Hammer refuses to present evidence that al-Awlaki materially supported terrorists in a way that would make killing him an emergency. Cheering them on does not constitute material support.

Instead, he links us to his many posts on the subjects; I sifted about twenty of them and found no such evidence. I suppose it could be hiding, but I suspect from the rarity of the evidence that Hammer himself has long since forgotten what it is.

Reportable eh? Go fuck yourself.

If you're going to jump into these debates, and you're not prepared to back up your own claims, you're doing something wrong.

See, your entire position for years has boiled down to "al-Awlaki was a member of this organization, therefore he was liable to being killed at any time we pleased." You have never, so far as I can recall, made a serious attempt to address anyone who said anything against this position. People have attacked it both directly and indirectly. You don't even notice; you just repeat your original position.

You've just kept banging on the same drum while ignoring everything else raised as an objection.

I'm not surprised you're getting tired. Everyone else did a long time ago.

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Hammer, yes or no:

Do you think that because the purpose of the AUMF is stated to be "to prevent any future acts of... terrorism," that the AUMF authorizes unlimited use of force against all organizations deemed terrorist in perpetuity?

Again, yes, or no.

If the answer is 'no,' then your position falls apart, and the AUMF doesn't authorize our randomly hunting terrorists not involved in the 9/11 attacks for the rest of eternity. It is a specific authorization to use force to dismantle the organization that carried out those specific attacks.

If the answer is 'yes,' the entire part you didn't boldface seems superfluous. Why specify that the force be used "against those... persons he determines... [were involved in the 9/11 attacks]?"

Why not just say "hey, Mr. President, it's open season on terrorists, unlimited bag license!"

I mean, suppose we declare war on a country and say "authorize the use of force against X-istan in order to secure the sovereignty of the Y-ian people." That does not mean we are authorized to use force against the nation of Z-onia if they should happen to (in my opinion) threaten Y-ian sovereignty at some later date. The authorization is specific to the people it says are targets.

Now, if the answer is 'yes,' we'll be playing whack-a-mole with 'terrorists' in the Middle East, at absurd expense and progressive erosion of our civil liberties, for the rest of our lives and probably those of our posterity. Because any bunch of clowns can tack "al-Qaeda" onto the end of their group. At this point, some of them are probably doing it more to sound edgy than anything else; witness al-Qaeda in Somalia which doesn't even seem to interact with the West.

Do you really think it is in the US's strategic interests to remain permanently entangled in the Middle East, eternally generating groups with anti-American objectives that resent our involvement, and eternally having to fight them at massive expense?

Awlaki was a self professed member of AQAP (not even going to debate this). By naming themselves "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" they have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the attacks. Their stated goals roughly the same as Al-Qaeda. It doesn't take any legal trickery to link them as a group who "aids and or harbors" Al-Qaeda.

Does being a member of AQAP automatically make you a non-civilian? Some organizations, even hostile ones, have civilian members.

[TheHammer]

So, Hammer refuses to present evidence that al-Awlaki materially supported terrorists in a way that would make killing him an emergency. Cheering them on does not constitute material support.

Instead, he links us to his many posts on the subjects; I sifted about twenty of them and found no such evidence. I suppose it could be hiding, but I suspect from the rarity of the evidence that Hammer himself has long since forgotten what it is.

If you really looked its there. Multiple times over. If you don't feel like sifting through my posts that's your problem. Feel free to google it.

Reportable eh? Go fuck yourself.

If you're going to jump into these debates, and you're not prepared to back up your own claims, you're doing something wrong.

See, your entire position for years has boiled down to "al-Awlaki was a member of this organization, therefore he was liable to being killed at any time we pleased." You have never, so far as I can recall, made a serious attempt to address anyone who said anything against this position. People have attacked it both directly and indirectly. You don't even notice; you just repeat your original position.

You've just kept banging on the same drum while ignoring everything else raised as an objection.

I'm not surprised you're getting tired. Everyone else did a long time ago.

You say "everyone else", except that there are those that support my position. They've just grown as tired as I have of beating this dead horse. Unfortunately for me, I haven't been as wise as they are until now.

And your memory is flawed. Again, read through the 92+ posts on the matter and get back to me. Saying you "skimmed 20 or so" is irrelevent. You're better off working off the older posts and moving forward because it was early in this debate when I hunted down the links and posted the evidence. Your repeated assertion that I need to do so again for your convenience is bullshit.

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Hammer, yes or no:

Do you think that because the purpose of the AUMF is stated to be "to prevent any future acts of... terrorism," that the AUMF authorizes unlimited use of force against all organizations deemed terrorist in perpetuity?

Again, yes, or no.

No the AUMF as written currently does not.

If the answer is 'no,' then your position falls apart, and the AUMF doesn't authorize our randomly hunting terrorists not involved in the 9/11 attacks for the rest of eternity. It is a specific authorization to use force to dismantle the organization that carried out those specific attacks.

My position doesn't fall apart. I just showed you in my last post the link between AQAP and AQ. They might be new recruits to the organization, but they are members none the less. The AUMF specifically references preventing future attacks. AQAP's stated goals are to carry on with attacks against the US et al, some of which they had attempted to various degrees. You can't honestly believe that it means that only included members of the organization on 9/11 and exclude any who were added after the fact.

If the answer is 'yes,' the entire part you didn't boldface seems superfluous. Why specify that the force be used "against those... persons he determines... [were involved in the 9/11 attacks]?"

Why not just say "hey, Mr. President, it's open season on terrorists, unlimited bag license!"

I mean, suppose we declare war on a country and say "authorize the use of force against X-istan in order to secure the sovereignty of the Y-ian people." That does not mean we are authorized to use force against the nation of Z-onia if they should happen to (in my opinion) threaten Y-ian sovereignty at some later date. The authorization is specific to the people it says are targets.

Now, if the answer is 'yes,' we'll be playing whack-a-mole with 'terrorists' in the Middle East, at absurd expense and progressive erosion of our civil liberties, for the rest of our lives and probably those of our posterity. Because any bunch of clowns can tack "al-Qaeda" onto the end of their group. At this point, some of them are probably doing it more to sound edgy than anything else; witness al-Qaeda in Somalia which doesn't even seem to interact with the West.

Not applicable.

Do you really think it is in the US's strategic interests to remain permanently entangled in the Middle East, eternally generating groups with anti-American objectives that resent our involvement, and eternally having to fight them at massive expense?

That's a different debate entirely. I think if we have a hostile group pop up that has carried out attacks, and threatens more attacks, that they should be dealt with appropriately.

Awlaki was a self professed member of AQAP (not even going to debate this). By naming themselves "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" they have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the attacks. Their stated goals roughly the same as Al-Qaeda. It doesn't take any legal trickery to link them as a group who "aids and or harbors" Al-Qaeda.

Does being a member of AQAP automatically make you a non-civilian? Some organizations, even hostile ones, have civilian members.

To truly be a "civilian member" of a violent group, they would have to divest themselves of any participation in the militant actions of the group. That's a tricky thing to do, but I suppose is possible.

However, again feel free to search the 92+ posts for my arguments as to why Awlaki wasn't a civilian. I've already addressed this multiple times and my Awlaki moratorium stands until something new is asked. Here is what the UN had to say about Anwar Al-Awlaki (Al-Aulaki). I suspect that's not good enough for you, but the way I see it, that's your problem.

[Siege]

The official number of civilians killed each year by U.S. drone strikes will remain unknown, after senators dropped a demand for a public declaration, congressional aides said, after the U.S. intelligence chief expressed concerns the disclosure might reveal classified information.

Drone strikes have been a key element in President Barack Obama’s battle plan against both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, with unmanned aerial vehicles, often operated remotely from inside the United States, dropping bombs on targets in Afghanistan, northwest Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

But because of innocent bystanders that have been killed in the atttacks, the program has strained relations between the U.S. and governments in these countries and provoked public outrage.

The provision to reveal the number of civilian deaths was included in the main Senate intelligence bill for 2014, which passed a committee vote in November but has yet to be adopted in full. Right now, the U.S. government doesn't release casualty figures for drone strikes.

But Congressional aides said the reporting requirement has now been eliminated from the Senate bill. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. It's unclear when the legislation may be sent to the Senate for a vote on its passage.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote a letter on April 18 to Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, in which he expressed reservations with the bill's requirements.

"To be meaningful to the public, any report including the information described above would require context and be drafted carefully so as to protect against the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods or other classified information," Clapper said.

"We are confident that we can find a reporting structure that provides the American people additional information to inform their understanding of important government operations to protect our nation, while preserving the ability to continue those operations."

I doubt the insanity of this 'we need a carefully drafted context in order to justify all the dozens of people we've blown up over the years' craziness will be apparent though to someone who genuinely seems to think that "first they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out for I was not a terrorist... Then they went away and didn't bother anyone else" is a killer argument because he doesn't realize the definition of 'terrorist' is as bendy as a yoga master.