Slashdot Mirror
Military Drone Attacks Are Not 'Hostile'
sanzibar writes "Not satisfied with the legal conclusion of the DOJ, the Obama administration found other in-house lawyers willing to declare a bomb dropped from a drone is not 'hostile'. The strange conclusion has big implications in determining the President's compliance with the law. If drone strikes are in fact hostile and the Libyan campaign continues past Sunday, he may very well be breaking the law."
"You know, you can call a shovel an ice-cream machine, but it's still a shovel, Mom and Dad"
Pullleeez! If one was used on the US we would absolutely consider it a hostile act.
This is even worse than claiming that waterboarding isn't torture. WTF? I can't believe that I donated money to this douche in 2008.
The use of explosives by anyone on this forum would be considered "hostile" and would land them in jail. They can label it whatever they want, but you drop a bomb somewhere, you better expect a "hostile" reply.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
... a federal court just ruled that a gun fired with your gloves on is not "lethal", finally exonerating O.J. Simpson from the murder he was found guilty of in a civil trial.
It is a coercive, destructive, military act, 100% consistent with what our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote "war". Therefore I don't give a crap whether somebody re-defines it as "hostile" or "friendly" or a "love tap". It's illegal as hell.
Enough (of the right) lawyers and you get to modify reality.
That's pretty neat.
"No, dropping a cinder block thru your windshield was NOT a hostile act,
just clumsy, oopsie!"
In all seriousness though, he's exploiting a loophole
it seems, because the law was written in 1973, before
drones existed.
"It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict. Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy," he added.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
At some point we're going to get another irrationally warmongering hawk president. Can we get an iron-clad precedent set that in matters that matter the president isn't above the law, and can't just run around making stuff up?
It's too bad that would have to happen with this president and not the previous one, who happened to be Houdini of inventing BS from thin air. Free-speech zones. WMD. Blocking Scientific Papers. Etc. But we can't just agree to ignore the law for presidents we like.
The ______ Agenda
You're wrong, it is a law.
War Powers Resolution
It's called the War Powers Resolution for a reason... it was a resolution, of Congress... which does not have the signature of a President... it was not vetoed... or even pocket vetoed... because it was never presented to a President for his signature... preventing any possibility of a veto override.
As much as I loathe this President... I do have to give him credit for standing up against the WPA... it’s a shame he’s not competent enough to recognize the reality of the WPA and state it... rather than playing these games.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
It passed the House on July 18, 1973.
It passed the Senate on July 20, 1973.
President Nixon vetoed it on October 24, 1973.
His veto was overridden by the Senate on November 7, 1973. Thus immediately the bill became law, without the need for Nixon's signature.
And this is a high resolution scan of the final bill.
not only does he have some awesome lawyers, he is an awesome lawyer.
jim - "dude i just blew up starbucks"
laywer obama -"its OK! not hostile!"
jim - "but like, eleven people died"
lawyer obama -"chill. did i ever tell you about that time i was bombing libya? well, starbucks is a little bit like libya."
Would the republicans actually vote against war in Libya? Why would they do that?
How's that Hope & Change working out for y'all?
i heard that Bush's people were harassing journalists, specifically Greg Jackson, a research assistant for Ron Suskind, who was writing Way of the World, a bit if an expose about the pre-Iraq war intelligence.
they, according to suskind, detained Jackson, took his notes, and confiscated some of his stuff.
i voted for Obama so that kind of thing would stop.
and so the war would stop. and so that the assault on civil liberties would stop.
im a 100% fucking idiot. i am voting for uhm... oh wait, we don't have write-in ballots here, and we barely have 3rd parties allowed on the ballot.
Maybe you were unaware that "the previous guy" disagreed on this point, and took a very careful view of complying with the "War Powers Resolution". In other words, unlike Obama, Dubya got congressional approval for his war(s). Whatever vague point you were trying to make, your post is factually misleading.
Well, yes. Remember that the US government is very pro freedom - the freedom of the US government to do whatever it wants and the freedom of everyone else to shut up and like it.
America, Fuck Yeah!
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
To fuck over Obama, same reason they do everything. They demanded that he intervene in Libya specifically so that they could use it against him. If he had refused to intervene, they would have used that against him too. Their one and only goal is to destroy him. They've come out and said so on multiple occasions. People just tend to assume it's a joke, or something.
Obama isn't trying to 'stand against' the WPA, he's trying to say it doesn't apply to him. He supported it in the past, and if he said it didn't apply, he would look like a hypocrite.
The constitution says that only congress may declare war, but from the beginning, the US has engaged in conflicts without declaring war. In fact, congress has only declared war five times. The original words in the constitution draft were that only congress could "make war," but it was changed to say only congress could "declare war," in recognition of the fact that sometimes the president should be allowed to fight without declaring war.
No one knows where the line between what the president can do and what congress must authorize exists, though. The WPA is nothing more than congress's opinion, because they don't have the right to restrict the president further than the constitution.
Now, if congress really cared, they could bring the matter up to the Supreme Court, and get an injunction prohibiting the president from further action in Libya. But they haven't, which is how you know their words are nothing more than an attempt to win cheap political points.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Harold Koh is one of the big lawyers supporting the air strikes for the Administration. He condemns Republicans for going to war without authorization when in academia, but was brought into the Administration with President Obama, and since has changed his tune a bit. It should be interesting to see (1) if a Republican president keeps him on whenever one next gets elected and (2) whether he will return to academia and try to walk back his current position.
There are some interesting theories as to whether the air strikes are legal or not. The question isn't whether they are hostile, it's whether they are "hostile" as that word is used in a particular context--probably the war powers resolution, IIRC. But there are some interesting end-runs you could potentially do around that, such as through the UN--maybe Congress approved the UN charter, which validates the security council resolution authorizing the action, for example. That shouldn't work--there are limits that the Supreme Court puts on how far Congress can delegate its powers, and there's no way they can delegate the declaration of war, particularly if they do so ambiguously.
Ultimately, if the House wants to stop it, they can always cut the funding.
On the upside, $10M a day is going mostly to our military industrial complex, which pumps some money into the economy. Also on the upside, getting rid of tyrants.
Still, I get the image of a big freeciv display in the situation room...
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
While Obama should've gone back and gotten authorization from Congress to extend the mission in Libya, he acted properly initially, because otherwise there'd be a lot of blood on our hands (see: Bush Sr. in Iraq) as the resistance capital Benghazi was about to fall had we not intervened.
Of course, as far as I know we never declared war on Pakistan either, but Congress has been happy to sign checks for drones to fire missiles inside Pakistan territory. Is this not also "putting US Armed Forces into hostilities"? And if you want to be technical, Congress has not passed a bill declaring war on anyone since World War II. It's all "authorization to use force", which is more of the kind of Orwellian terminology in use post-WWII, such as changing the Department of War to the Department of Defense.
In my opinion, this is not "hostilities" in the sense of invading a country. We are in Libya at the request of the Libyan people to prevent a humanitarian disaster. Obama may have slipped up on the technicalities, but the technicalities are only being brought up now because of politics. The cause is a just one.
Oh horseshit. Neocons like John Yoo have long argued that anything a President does with respect to war is constitutional. You cannot just turn around and say that reasoning doesn't apply to Obama.
You can't apply strict constructionalism only when a Democrat is in the White House. It has to apply equally to all Presidents. Like Reagan and his little secret wars.
If you really want strict constructionalism the War Powers Act is clearly unconstitutional because it delegates a power specifically assigned to Congress to the President. I know it's attractive to Congress to dodge any kind of hard issue like deciding to go to war, and then later hoist the President by the short hairs for public effect, but in absence of an Amendment that's the way it is. You can't end run the amendment process by passing a law.
So you can't have it both ways. Either constructionalist and the Congress has to actually declare war, or wink wink nudge nudge and the President can send troops wherever and whenever. No one way when a Republican is in power and the other way when a Democrat is in power.
This President is 100% - after all, he's won a Nobel Peace Prize, how can he be wrong about what is hostile and what is not?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
They are firing shells, missiles, burning fuel, and consuming resources including time and attention. Once, shells, missiles strike their target, they are gone for good: burned up. The fuel is burned up. The time is burned up. None of these things can then benefit us or anyone else in the future.
If we spend money on tools that we need to make more things in the future, then spending the money may help our economy. But only if the amount of money we can draw from those added resources exceeds what we spent.
Every time the US declares war (or fails to declare it), its really a war against its own people. Its an excuse to funnel billions of dollars down a rat-hole that has no oversight, and no end in sight. Can you think of another country just before WW1 and WW2 that was addicted to war? Look what happened to them.
Our leaders think they can gamble at any stakes and take all the winnings for themselves. And if they lose, they can parachute out to some haven and leave the people with the crushing debt of their mistakes.
We have freedom, and the love and admiration of the surviving family members of the bombed. We are bombing the Love into them.
I won't argue the facts that you presented here; there is no doubt in my mind that you are far more acquainted with them than I. I will, however, argue that we are not on any moral high ground, nor are we building many friends around the world with our actions. As a result of 9/11, we have since pretty much invaded four sovereign countries -- one of which (Pakistan, the other three being Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) is ostensibly our ally (at least for now). We at least had some legitimate claims to Afghanistan, since they were clearly in cahoots with OBL. Iraq was ostensibly about removing an power mad dictator who was allegedly creating weapons of mass destruction. When none were found, we changed out tune to "well, he was in league with the terr'ists, and killing his own people"...much like our justification for invading Libya. But if that were really our motivation, then why aren't we in Syria or Yemen? Why didn't we get involved in Egypt or Tunisia? Why did we send just a token presence into Somalia in the '90s? Why were Libya and Iraq the only countries where we care that the leaders are attacking their own people?
I'm sure it's just pure coincidence that both Libya (#17) and Iraq (#12) are much greater producers of oil than Syria (#32), Yemen (#36), Egypt (#28), or Tunisia (#53).
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
They are firing shells, missiles, burning fuel, and consuming resources including time and attention. Once, shells, missiles strike their target, they are gone for good: burned up. The fuel is burned up. The time is burned up. None of these things can then benefit us or anyone else in the future.
If we spend money on tools that we need to make more things in the future, then spending the money may help our economy. But only if the amount of money we can draw from those added resources exceeds what we spent.
This is a good argument, but it is not true. Munitions have a shelf-life. When they reach the end of their shelf life they need to be disposed of safely. Doing so is about ten times as expensive outside a war than inside one. For some reason, nobody cares about the environment in a war.
I have no idea if the munitions used are actually end-of-life.
The value of goods produced and held is, as a whole, the wealth of the participants in the economy. Everything has some value to the holder, but it varies over time, often decreasing as things get old, eaten, worn out, etc.
The interesting part is the allocation of resources towards producing that which maximizes the perceived wealth created and held, and when it comes to munitions they tend to be very expensive for the perceived wealth; using those resources for basically any other production would create more value and make the economy wealthier.
The second world war was not essential to getting out of the depression, basically any other production on the same basis would have accomplished the same.
Another misconception is that jobs are intrinsically good for the economy. Make-work jobs are in themselves merely a covert wealth redistribution scheme. As far as the wealth of the economy is concerned, although less palatable, simply taxing the employed and paying the unemployed to sit around doing nothing would be neither more or less valuable (if we assume that munitions have near zero value to the participants in the economy).
Redistribution through building infrastructure or various public works is slightly less wasteful, but ultimately the least inequitable method of managing reduced demand would be to divide the actual work through more general reduced working hours, rather than the binary employed-unemployed tax-makework structure. In the end, as the whole point of an economy is to generate the most wealth for as little work as possible, it would be good to have a method to deal with the end-game in that function, just in case it turns out that demand for goods isn't infinite but balanced against the value of free time.