Would not the AUMF be applicable to the right wing hate machine?

[Vinnie From Indy]

Would not these people calling for violent overthrow of the US government be susceptible to killing under the guidelines of the AUMF?

http://www.unknownnews.org/rwradicals.html

[phleshdef]

1. Stop spamming the board with the same damn topic. You don't need attention that bad.

[sabrina 1]

3. I think it's a fair question. What do you think?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. It's a very fair question, but uncomfortable for many here

They seem to not want to come to grips with the implications.

[phleshdef]

7. I think its spamming the board with the same topic in multiple threads.

And its not a legitimate question at all as the UAMF only applies to the perpetrators of 9/11. So actually, its a fucking idiotic question.

[sabrina 1]

9. Well, this is the only thread I've seen asking this question.

Awlaqi was a US citizen. What would be the difference between him and any other US citizen preaching hatred for the US Government if it is perceived to be incendiary enough to cause others to commit acts of violence against this country? Sorry, I don't see why the AUMF would apply to one US Citizen and not another.

[phleshdef]

12. The AUMF only applies to organizations responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so thats why.

Preaching hatred has nothing to do with it. Being actively participating in organizations responsible, specifically, for the 9/11 attacks is the only criteria that qualifies anyone to be targed under this authority. The only organization that has ever been proven as being responsible for those attacks is Al Qaeda. A little common sense can tell you what conclusion to draw from that.

[sabrina 1]

14. Well, how does make anyone feel safe? The Government can claim

anything, and has, in the past about anyone. Democracies are not based on blind trust in what the Government tells us. The FFs knew how dangerous that would be so they worked hard to come up with a system of law that would diminish the power of the government in this regard.

We have already been lied to about Awlaki. He was not a leader of Al Queda. In fact he was barely known in the ME. He had no more influence to orchestrate attacks on this country than any other radical cleric ranting and spewing hatred against this country. And there are plenty of them. Should we kill all of them too?

What did he have to do with 9/11? How was he responsible for it? He was opposed to 9/11 apparently. So in that case, how does the AUMF apply? And since when did Democrats accept the AUMF as legitimate? Airc, Democrats vehemently opposed that 'law' as anti-Constitutional. When did we change position on that? In fact 'restoring the rule of law', the goal we as Democrats had when we threw out Republicans, included getting rid of that anti-Constitutional 'law'. Now we are using it as justification for the continuation of Bush policies? I will ask again, 'was Bush right after all'?

[Puregonzo1188]

17. Wait, Al-Anwaki was responsible for 9/11?

[phleshdef]

18. Poor wording on my part. "Members of the organization responsible for 9/11"

[sabrina 1]

2. Why not?

If we are now in the business of assassinating people rather than trying them, it has to be consistent.

The US President is now a king. He can do whatever he wants apparently.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. It applies to anyone, anywhere

President is now the sole judge and jury. Whoever he decides is a danger can be executed.

[sabrina 1]

6. That is what George Bush said. He could declare anyone an

Enemy combatant, including a US citizen, and they would not be entitled to a trial and he could order their killing without approval from anyone. Remember how the 'Left' reacted to that? We went wild airc. All the dangerous implications of such power in the hands of a president were clear to every Democrat at that time. Where are all those people now?

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Well, you and I are at DU...

trying to help Democrats to remember their position!

[sabrina 1]

10. True, and I know there are others, but am I imagining it

or remembering wrong, that when Bush was doing this there was not a single person on this board who defended it the way people are now defended it? I could be wrong but seriously, I don't recall any Democrat ever trying to defend these extra-judicial assassinations of anyone. We had endless arguments with rightwingers over it (I did, on other boards where rightwingers were posting) but I never, once had to argue with a Democrat. They understood the ramifications completely.

[SwampG8r]

19. thet are at OFA meetings

[PSPS]

11. This is a very valid observation

When I was hearing radio reports of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, they were usually accompanied by official statements describing his activities that warranted the action. As I was listening to this short "laundry list" of misdeeds, it occurred to me that I was listening to the programming guide of our own right wing hate media machine.

[sabrina 1]

15. Which is now apparently the programming guide of the left.

I thought we elected Democrats to change that programming, that was the intention of every democrat I know who voted for this President. Now we are seeing democrats defending the Bush Doctrine. It is truly sad, imho and very disturbing in terms of the future of this country.

[TheKentuckian]

13. It is applicable to whoever any Administration decides it does and no one ever need know

or indeed is in position to ever even second guess to allow for even correction of any step along the way that potentially is mis-calibrated or even completely flawed.

That is how broadly and unchecked the legislation is but folks insist on limiting their thought process to this target and this President, some to the point of pretending that there is no legitimate risk of misuse or even error. This extends to making our CIA and even a Bush or potentially a Perry Administration infallibility and utmost wisdom, restraint, and nobility magically in application and philosophy when it comes to these powers.

This is the most crazy thing I've ever seen as far as evaluating a system. The people who aren't concerned are in a place that I cannot perceive. Too much unbounded, unchecked, unverified, secret power to trust to anyone, much less some of the yahoos and crazy neocons that potentially can be President.

There is literally nothing constraining these powers to Obama or the targets to those that draw cheers today. I think one would be batshit crazy to trust Joe Lieberman with this much less Dick Cheney. Trusting Obama and thinking his targets appropriate doesn't make this good, acceptable, or even tolerable law that is not subject to error, misuse, or even complete abuse.

This unlimited, unchecked, secret, and unverified power and authority we are talking about. The answer to all questions of error and abuse are simply magical thinking. Nothing more than it can't and won't happen while others fully admit they didn't trust Bush with such powers, even admit he misused them to the point of deserving impeachment and/or prosecution and fear other administrations could be less trustworthy, more ideological, and more inept than Bush's who on any other day have plenty of questions about the reliability and accuracy of our clandestine services regardless of who is President but still support these and other such powers now because they believe Obama to be a good steward of even this kind of power, never mind Obama is not immortal nor allowed to be more than a temporary holder of the Presidency beyond two terms but the powers remain.

I deeply resent the roadblocking of this conversation from moving from individual players to the system that these individuals work or are judged in, going so far as to use the myopic, stupid, and patently dishonest Reich Wing frames like "siding" or "having sympathy" for terrorist or even the vile "giving aid and comfort". Complete and utter distortion and falling on to authoritarian thinking without a pause.

We start really talking about the system in place and I'd hope thinking people would be a bit less gung ho.

[saras]

16. Bush thought that environmentalists were, even if inadvertently, supporting Al-Qaeda

As people have repeatedly pointed out, there is nothing in the relevant law to allow for oversight over such judgements.

[treestar]

20. Not unless they are actively planning something

And arrest is not a good option.

When people are in the US an arrest is reasonable to expect unless they are fleeing and fighting at the moment. Yemen not so much. If their authorities did not think an arrest was likely to happen, and are in agreement with the drone attack, that's a different consideration.

[librechik]

21. If Repubs were running things, it would be applicable to OWS

it's that corrupt