Obama should ask for a carefully worded war powers act resolution from Congress on the struggle against Al Queda and challenge the GOP to vote no.

There are questions about whether we are engaged in a criminal justice operation or a war. If it is a war, then the situation is clear. If an American were fighting alongside the Germans in WWI, then there is no question about killing enemy combatants. But is this legally a War? If so, where is the declaration? Is it ok to engage in asymmetric non declared wars if the president is a democrat, but not if they are republican?

What are the rules for the war powers act when faced with a threat from a loose-net group of individual capable of inflicting mass American casualties, but are not associated with a particular state?

Imagine if this were Rick Perry using drones against an American fighting alongside armed leftists fighting in a south american country against landowners who had committed atrocities against peasants, we would be in the streets. In this case, the rationale for force seems plausible, but it was executed neither in the structure of the war powers act, nor within the constraints of the criminal justice system.

If Perry ever did such a thing and we complained, on what grounds are we entitled to complain?

This is an opportunity. Just to make the rules clear- especially so that a possible GOP future president would be constrained in a way that progressives believe is prudent.

i find there to be an interesting link between this and the discussion over the past few days of the death penalty and jail-abuse scandal. is it the same thing, a a federal level, on a military level?

I think you may want to go back and watch the segment over again. I think you are letting emotions get in the way of rational discussion in this instance. We do not know what actual behaviors Alwaki has engaged in besides propaganda videos and the one in absentia court case filed by the Yemenese government. There are a lot of alleged accusations that Alwaki was either directly or indirectly involved in the plotting and execution of attacks on American soil, but nothing that had went to trial. Rachel was not, nor did she ever, suggesting that Alwaki is or isn't guilty nor was she propositioning that if he was guilty that he be allowed to walk free. Her point was nothing had ever been proven and the man had never went to trial. This is concerning because both he and the other alleged operative were US citizens killed by their own government. This brings up a lot of troubling legal questions about the power and reach of the federal government in it's anti-terrorism campaign. Now perhaps the killing of Alwaki was justified. Perhaps it wasn't. Where does this leave the powers entitled to the Executive Branch? Who dictates those powers and to what extent? How does one get classified as an enemy combatant? At what point does his 1st Amendment rights to spread propaganda- no matter how disgusting- get tramped out by the Executive's right to keep the country safe? These are troubling legal questions because they do not have a definition. There is a difference between pointing out all the loopholes raised and condoning action. I think you owe it to yourself to re-exam your initial position and to critically analyze what is or is not the right legal actions going forward. I think all of us have to do this.

here's the link to the segment. you should watch the whole thing, but at least catch it at the 10-minute mark where the examination, the questioning of what it means, if it's proper and legal and Constitutional, begins.

also, maybe you missed this, sualldway.

or the Troy Davis segments themselves last week, or even the "Inalienable" segment, tho that was about gay rights and personhood; it still relates to our Constitutional rights.

i think perhaps the most pertinent point is that al-Awlaki never had his American citizenship revoked and made an expatriot that i've heard mention. if the government had gone to court and demonstrated that he had committed an expatrioting act, that would have laid the foundation for his assassination (at least part of it, as assassination of anybody by presidential order is illegal); he would've no longer been an American citizen and no Constitutional right to due process. but again, the government didn't apparently do that.

of course, if it had, and al-Awlaki wanted to come in and defend himself in court, well, by all means, he should (have) shown up.

something else which may need factoring in to all this: that whole oath to defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. the president doesn't make it but rather members of the military, but then the president is Commander in Chief.

That's what he said he would do, Which makes it no different than what Obama and Holder wanted to do with the terrorist.

Always good to make a mistake while criticizing someone. Should read "I must question everything of Ackerman's I've read", not "question I every read of Ackerman's", which is of course just silly.

I think he was using hyperbole to inquire as to the extent to which US military and police forces can assert their powers in the war on terror. I believe in Cheney's biography (or one of this other books) he talks about how, under the rules given to him by his legal team, he could have sent US soldiers in to any city in the US and have them engage in military action against enemy combatants (even if those "enemy combatants" were US citizens). He actually had wanted to try this out in order to see whether or not the Bush Administration could get away with it legally. Ackerman is stating that because we are not at war with Yemen then there is no legally discernible difference with an American Al Qaeda operative and a foreign one, which therefore brings up the question of whether or not you can treat (and subsequently execute) an American Al Qaeda operative exactly as you would a foreign one. If you can then what stops the US from sending Navy SEALs into the home of someone suspected of terrorism? What stops the US from doing a drone strike on a location believed to house Al Qaeda sleeper agents?

Guess Bush/Cheney were smart enough to leave them in the hands of their countrymen to kill them (Saddam). Now I'm sure they were under the watchful direction of embedded CIA operatives. It sure made things cleaner.

IMHO, if an American citizen decides to align himself with our avowed enemy, then he should be treated as we would treat any enemy. An enemy is an enemy is an enemy.

Perhaps this is too simplistic, but sometimes the weightiest problems have a fairly simple solution.

Mouzer, completely agree he was probably using hyperbole, but I'm very tired of that from the media. I not looking for exaggerated claims to make a point, I'm looking for information and rational points of view. And in this case I continue to believe that the hyperbole misses the point - geography/location makes a difference. And to claim it doesn't is more than just naive. Several Al Qaeda agents have been arrested in the US in recent memory. Like Awlaki they were US persons, alleged to be operationally planning attacks not just against the US but against US military personnel or bases. Despite targeting the military they were not bombed or shot by the SEALs, instead they were arrested and are in various stages of trial. What's the difference - where they were at. In the US equals arrest and trial. In a country which can not or will not detain them equals military action. And the two are not simply interchangeable to make a point.

And the two are not simply interchangeable to make a point.

That's fair. I should however point out that the US is not supposed to treat foreign citizens differently than it does domestic citizens except in a time of war.

Mouzer,

He actually had wanted to try this out in order to see whether or not the Bush Administration could get away with it legally.

Please source. Thanks.

In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.

I should clarify that the reason why I had added this little tid-bit wasn't necessarily a bash against the Bush Administration. I was trying to show that Ackerman has actual world reasons backing his concerns about the US using soldiers on US soil to gather up enemy combatants, even if those individuals are US citizens. Ultimately the Bush Administration did not do this, obviously. I was rather disjointed in my response and I apologize for not making that clearer.

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Blah forgot I wasn't able to link. I will seed a couple links so I don't have to keep making ya'll copy and paste.

Thanks, Mouzer (and I don't mind copy/paste). I'm always impressed with you.

So, the Bush administration had discussion around the use of military on US soil when trying to interrupt planning about or stop a terrorist attack. Even if a logical discussion, US troops in a ""combat" role on US soil is concerning.

Again, thanks.

Right and again I want to clarify that I wasn't meaning to imply that the Bush Administration wanted to do this. I named Cheney because he is cited as the main advocate for such actions- in this instance President Bush stood up to Cheney and said "no" (which I fundamentally believe was the right stance to take). My fear isn't about Bush or Obama- my fear is about the hypothetical person in the future who may gain office and abuse such power. What happens when a future Democratic president takes power and uses such egregious rights to abuse conservative activists? What happens when a Republican president does the same with liberal activists? Both liberals and conservatives worry about giving power up to the government for the exact same reasons- none of us want to live in a fascist or communist society. Despite the rhetoric it is something all of us fear. Laws like this make me nervous because I do not know the parameters for which I am giving rights over to the government and my personal belief is that you do not give power over to the government without setting strict guidelines for that government to operate within. Now you RobDon may disagree with me on when or if a government should intervene (such as with healthcare), but fundamentally we are both terrified of Big Brother (as we should be). And it is for this reason that liberals like Maddow and myself become hesitant about the actions taken by the current US President. Now does this mean we think he's necessarily wrong for those actions? No. It just means we do not know where it leads in the future and because of this we are nervous. Hopefully none of our agencies would willfully target and execute an innocent American. But what do we do in the instance when such institutions do (even if it is done so in accident)? And it is that latter question that scares me.

You'll burn yer lips off kid.

The best coverage I've found is reader supported news. In fact, via their link I was watching live, from Australia, some of the speeches at the NYPD. As to why it's not being covered, I came here to comment on "The mysterious September 11 incident." I'm always amazed at the level of sarcasm aimed at those who question the very questionable official story of 911. Maybe there's a connection. oops, 'nother conspiracy theory, just like that. and, Lawrence O'Donnell has been doing some coverage. g'night.

http://readersupportednews.org/

Actually Rachel has twice now covered the Wall Street protests.

Yes, it is very different, I believe.

Maybe we need to re-negotiate our own laws and our international treaties to establish new guidelines for what is or isn't war? Of course, this too would come with potential (irreversible) consequences....