Krauthammer Nails it Again?

[ArnieBragg 1]

In defense of Obama’s drone war

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: February 14

 

The nation’s vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama’s drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked. They must be separated to be clearly understood.

 

1. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of enemies abroad? What criteria justify assassination?

 

Answer: (a) imminent threat, under the doctrine of self-defense, and (B.) affiliation with al-Qaeda, under the laws of war.

 

Imminent threat is obvious. If we know a freelance jihadist cell in Yemen is actively plotting an attack, we don’t have to wait until after the fact. Elementary self-defense justifies attacking first.

 

Al-Qaeda is a different matter. We are in a mutual state of war. Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war on the United States in 1996; we reciprocated three days after 9/11 with Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force — against al-Qaeda and those who harbor and abet it. (Such resolutions are the contemporary equivalent of a declaration of war, as evidenced in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.)

 

Regarding al-Qaeda, therefore, imminence is not required. Its members are legitimate targets, day or night, awake or asleep. Nothing new here. In World War II, we bombed German and Japanese barracks without hesitation.

 

Unfortunately, Obama’s Justice Department memos justifying the drone attacks are hopelessly muddled. They imply that the sole justification for drone attack is imminent threat — and whereas al-Qaeda is plotting all the time, an al-Qaeda honcho sleeping in his bed is therefore a legitimate target.

 

Nonsense. Slippery nonsense. It gives the impression of an administration making up criteria to fit the president’s kill list. No need to confuse categories. A sleeping Anwar al-Awlaki could lawfully be snuffed not because of imminence but because he was self-declared al-Qaeda and thus an enemy combatant as defined by congressional resolution and the laws of war.

 

2. But Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?

 

Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms. (Indeed, David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, suggests stripping such traitors of their citizenship, thereby formalizing their extra-constitutional status.)

 

Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process. Nor did the Americans storming German bunkers at Normandy inquire before firing whether there were any German Americans among them — to be excused for gentler treatment while the other Germans were mowed down.

 

3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?

 

In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander in chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.

 

This looks troubling. Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding which individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?

 

Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.

 

Okay, you say. But today’s war is entirely different: no front line, no end in sight.

 

So what? It’s the jihadists who decided to make the world a battlefield and to wage war in perpetuity. Until they abandon the field, what choice do we have but to carry the fight to them?

 

We have our principles and precedents for lawful warmaking, and a growing body of case law for the more vexing complexities of the present war — for example, the treatment of suspected terrorists apprehended on U.S. soil. The courts having granted them varying degrees of habeas corpus protection, it is clear that termination by drone (a measure far more severe than detention) would be forbidden — unless Congress and the courts decide otherwise, which, short of a Taliban invasion from New Brunswick, is inconceivable.

 

Now, for those who believe that the war on terror is not war but law enforcement, (a) I concede that they will find the foregoing analysis to be useless and (B.) I assert that they are living on a different and distant planet.

 

For us earthlings, on the other hand, the case for Obama’s drone war is strong. Pity that his Justice Department couldn’t make it.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-in-defense-of-obamas-drone-war/2013/02/14/3a69d76c-76e5-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?hpid=z2

[edjr 5,567]

when he lifts his dead rotted hands off the desk I'll start listening to this freak.

[hoytdwow 202]

Leave it to conservatives to support the killing of American citizens without due process

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Leave it to conservatives to support the killing of American citizens without due process

CK is wrong to support 007Bama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens.

[ArnieBragg 1]

CK is wrong to support 007Bama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens.

 

How is CK wrong?

 

Barry has the authority via Authorization for Use of Military Force no?

[MDC 5,895]

Krauthammer's record of being 100% wrong about everything continues.

[Voltaire 4,564]

Agree completely with Krauthammer. Once you preach jihad take up arms against the US you become an enemy combatant and a legitimate target.

[edjr 5,567]

you could nail his hands to the table and he'd feel no pain.

[Voltaire 4,564]

Leave it to conservatives to support the killing of American citizens without due process

Folks who promote jihad, aid and abet the enemy and take up arms against the US consciously choose for themselves to become legitimate targets for getting blown up.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Agree completely with Krauthammer. Once you preach jihad take up arms against the US you become an enemy combatant and a legitimate target.

 

But what if you didn't really? What if you were framed, or it was a case of mistaken identity? Hell, a drone could be preparing to strike you right now and you wouldn't even

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

What about children that are killed in these attacks? Are they considered jihadists?

[Voltaire 4,564]

But what if you didn't really? What if you were framed, or it was a case of mistaken identity? Hell, a drone could be preparing to strike you right now and you wouldn't even

Don't travel down the slippery slope. The number of "Americans" on the list is probably two, now one. And they chose to be on the list themselves.

 

Now, I don't follow this Islamic terrorist bullsh*t that closely, but this focker we're talking about -al Alawki- was already well known to me before his lead deficiency was remedied. Meanwhile, Adam Gadahn is the other one I plan to celebrate if/when he gets blown up.

 

Both mindboggling extrememly legitimate beyond words targets.

 

Al Qaeda doesn't have any other "Americans" with mega-high profiles- only these two. One of them is done, the other hopefully joins him soon. Then the issue -like magic- goes away.

 

If another crops up -puts his own ass on the list himself - Bye! There may be dozens that deserve it that I would defend in all instances of getting blown up, but the one we're debating over isn't a low profile hack, the one we're discussing is one of their two top shelf "Americans". No need shedding tears for him.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Don't travel down the slippery slope. The number of "Americans" on the list is probably two, now one. And they chose to be on the list themselves.

 

Now, I don't follow this Islamic terrorist bullsh*t that closely, but this focker we're talking about -al Alawki- was already well known to me before his lead deficiency was remedied. Meanwhile, Adam Gadahn is the other one I plan to celebrate if/when he gets blown up.

 

Both mindboggling extrememly legitimate beyond words targets.

 

Al Qaeda doesn't have any other "Americans" with mega-high profiles- only these two. One of them is done, the other hopefully joins him soon. Then the issue -like magic- goes away.

 

If another crops up -puts his own ass on the list himself - Bye! There may be dozens that deserve it that I would defend in all instances of getting blown up, but the one we're debating over isn't a low profile hack, the one we're discussing is one of their two top shelf "Americans". No need shedding tears for him.

I think it may be you who is traveling down the slippery slope. While i agree alawki deserved what he got, the drone strike program is inspiring the gov to use them to monitor us.

 

The reason we have due process is to avoid the assumed guilty before proven innocent type of legal system. Yes you will punish some that deserve it, but you also inevitably snare many innocents along the way.

 

The problem when you allow your gov to have more and more power over their citizens lives is starts a snow ball affect. People get power hungry and they want more of it.

 

Finally they are usuing fear as a way to rationalize these tactics. Again, in a way i agree with them. Its dangerous though to start allowing them in some instances as it allows an easier entrance into every day life.

 

Its a fine line and its really difficult to do something to satisfy everyones idea of whats right and whats wrong. I guess the biggest issue is the colateral damage that is more an aside than what imo should be more of an issue.

[Voltaire 4,564]

I think it may be you who is traveling down the slippery slope. While i agree alawki deserved what he got, the drone strike program is inspiring the gov to use them to monitor us.

 

The reason we have due process is to avoid the assumed guilty before proven innocent type of legal system. Yes you will punish some that deserve it, but you also inevitably snare many innocents along the way.

 

The problem when you allow your gov to have more and more power over their citizens lives is starts a snow ball affect. People get power hungry and they want more of it.

 

Finally they are usuing fear as a way to rationalize these tactics. Again, in a way i agree with them. Its dangerous though to start allowing them in some instances as it allows an easier entrance into every day life.

 

Its a fine line and its really difficult to do something to satisfy everyones idea of whats right and whats wrong. I guess the biggest issue is the colateral damage that is more an aside than what imo should be more of an issue.

 

It's not a fine line. It's as obvious as the fifty yard line in Dallas with the big blue star on it. We've been at war with al Qaeda for twelve years, in that we've only used drones on one instance to target an "American" and that target was beyond question legitimate- hanging out with al Qaeda terorists in Yemen, plotting targets through violence, spreading his jihandist message in unaccented American English to any Muslim American that he could reach on youtube and twitter, and using his knowledge of American culture/law/society against us.

 

There's only one other person outspoken like this along with most likely -this is a guess pulled straight from my butt- another few dozen or so possible fellow travellers with US passports.

 

When we start blowing up people stateside or in civilzed countries or when we start doing three or four Americans each month/year/decade in global Islamic sh*tholes let me know. I may reconsider. Until then keep crying, I don't give a fock. I'm glad he's dead.

 

Would it make you feel better if we revoke citizenship for people in known terrorist enclaves that make youtube videos promoting violence against the US? Would that step prevent the crying when/if we blow up Gadahn?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

It's not a fine line. It's as obvious as the fifty yard line in Dallas with the big blue star on it. We've been at war with al Qaeda for twelve years, in that we've only used drones on one instance to target an "American" and that target was beyond question legitimate- hanging out with al Qaeda terorists in Yemen, plotting targets through violence, spreading his jihandist message in unaccented American English to any Muslim American that he could reach on youtube and twitter, and using his knowledge of American culture/law/society against us.

 

There's only one other person outspoken like this along with most likely -this is a guess pulled straight from my butt- another few dozen or so possible fellow travellers with US passports.

 

When we start blowing up people stateside or in civilzed countries or when we start doing three or four Americans each month/year/decade in global Islamic sh*tholes let me know. I may reconsider. Until then keep crying, I don't give a fock. I'm glad he's dead.

 

Would it make you feel better if we revoke citizenship for people in known terrorist enclaves that make youtube videos promoting violence against the US? Would that step prevent the crying when/if we blow up Gadahn?

So the gov can revoke anyones citizenship they feel is sending out a dangerous message?

 

Dont let fear cloud your judgement. If you do the terrorists have won.

[Voltaire 4,564]

So the gov can revoke anyones citizenship they feel is sending out a dangerous message?

 

Dont let fear cloud your judgement. If you do the terrorists have won.

Maybe you're right now that I think about it. I wouldn't want to open the can of worms where they stary revoking citizenship, no: the Japanese in WWII internment camps, anti-government militia types, Black Panthers, James Jones/David Koresh freaks, BudBro/Little Rusty conspiracy types. That could be abused.

 

I can see your fine line and slippery slope there.

 

Al-Awlaki and Gadahn are unique cases. I've no idea how many American citizens are collaborating with Al Qaeda, but these are the only two really high profile American terrorists that I know of that are operating overseas in terrorist cells.

 

Guys that pop up stateside like the underwear bomber, the Ft. Hood shooter, the Times Square van guy, and Jose Padilla along with our own homemade terrorists like Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh all go through normal judicial channels. Heck, Eric Holder even tried to get one of the Guantanimo terrorists tried stateside and almost lost his case. The judge threw out 98% or so- all but one charge. But guys caught stateside or in countries with functional police forces can be provided a bit more legal rights than those armed and declaring war on the US while hiding out in al Qaeda controlled havens in lawless states.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

It's not a fine line. It's as obvious as the fifty yard line in Dallas with the big blue star on it. We've been at war with al Qaeda for twelve years, in that we've only used drones on one instance to target an "American" and that target was beyond question legitimate- hanging out with al Qaeda terorists in Yemen, plotting targets through violence, spreading his jihandist message in unaccented American English to any Muslim American that he could reach on youtube and twitter, and using his knowledge of American culture/law/society against us.

 

There's only one other person outspoken like this along with most likely -this is a guess pulled straight from my butt- another few dozen or so possible fellow travellers with US passports.

 

When we start blowing up people stateside or in civilzed countries or when we start doing three or four Americans each month/year/decade in global Islamic sh*tholes let me know. I may reconsider. Until then keep crying, I don't give a fock. I'm glad he's dead.

 

Would it make you feel better if we revoke citizenship for people in known terrorist enclaves that make youtube videos promoting violence against the US? Would that step prevent the crying when/if we blow up Gadahn?

 

Do you recall the era of McCarthyism? Do you think it would have been a good idea to kill suspected communist sympathizers during that time? I'm not really equating the two but I'm saying its a dangerous precedent to start doing this. You have no qualms with our targets today but what about down the road?

[MDC 5,895]

We were accidentally killing civilians when this was primarily a ground war so I'm not sure drones are better or worse. Overall though I think counter terrorism should mostly be an international police effort rather than a military endeavor. And I think the War on Terror has overstayed it's usefulness by years and at this point we are creating more terrorists than we're killing due to blowback.

[Voltaire 4,564]

Do you recall the era of McCarthyism? Do you think it would have been a good idea to kill suspected communist sympathizers during that time? I'm not really equating the two but I'm saying its a dangerous precedent to start doing this. You have no qualms with our targets today but what about down the road?

Great example, thank you very much for asking.

 

I would not hesitate to kill any 'American' communist sympathizers on the Korean peninsula taking up arms agaisnt America on behalf of Fatherly Leader Kim Il Sung and the glorious army of the north.

 

If someone is in the enemy camp conducting war on behalf of the opponents of the USA, the USA should not feel a need to hesitate to blow that focker up.

[nikki2200 4]

And this is exactly why I can respect Krauthammer and his opinion. He recognizes hypocrisy and is not automatically on the everything Obama does is bad train. He likes to point out the hypocrisy of Obama on these issues because of his past criticism of Bush. Which is a valid point.

[drobeski 3,061]

Great example, thank you very much for asking.

 

I would not hesitate to kill any 'American' communist sympathizers on the Korean peninsula taking up arms agaisnt America on behalf of Fatherly Leader Kim Il Sung and the glorious army of the north.

 

If someone is in the enemy camp conducting war on behalf of the opponents of the USA, the USA should not feel a need to hesitate to blow that focker up.

But what about their feelings

[wiffleball 4,645]

Agree completely with Krauthammer. Once you preach jihad take up arms against the US you become an enemy combatant and a legitimate target.

[hoytdwow 202]

So, to recap, when Obummer advocates drone strikes he is a tyrannical dictator. When Krauthammer does, it's a serious philosophical issue worthy of discussion.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Bump

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

I wish we could just get this over with concerning these animals, just duke it out in one big battle. Strong men like me will take on these sand monkeys, and guys like I got worms can fetch us water.

[HenryHill9323 65]

Bump

Holy obsession!

 

[HenryHill9323 65]

But what if you didn't really? What if you were framed, or it was a case of mistaken identity? Hell, a drone could be preparing to strike you right now and you wouldn't even

Sounds like you agree with RP.