Has the US been living under martial law since the passage of the AUMF?

[Vinnie From Indy]

I have seen dozens of people defend the killing of al-Alawki on this board using the AUMF authorization of Congress. Would it not be correct to offer that if the President can kill ANYONE solely at his discretion anywhere on the planet that we are, in fact, living under martial law?

[phleshdef]

1. The AUMF doesn't say the President can kill anyone. So your premise is dead from get go.

It specifically says that all necessary force can be used against members of the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which only means members of Al Qaeda. I think you need to look up the word "anyone" in the dictionary, find out what it actually means, then re-evaluate the otherwise failed premise of your OP.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The President can execute anyone, anytime

Simply by using a set of magic words to make it legal.

[tblue]

8. True, Manny.

I can't support this even if it's popular. I never would have voted for this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Care to rethink that?

(a) 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.

[MineralMan]

5. +10

[EFerrari]

6. Except a lawyer would tell you that there are standards

that have to be met, i.e., immediate threat to the United States and iirc, a defined battlefield. That's one side of the argument. The other side, i.e., the President, argues those points. It's not settled (yet) as I understand it from a little reading over the last few days.

[TheKentuckian]

15. What argument? The entire process is in a closed, unsupervised, unquestionable loop

with no system to even verify in hindsight.

There is literally nothing to make sure such power is on the tracks or to contain it or even to insure our assessments are accurate and our responses appropriate.

The entire premise is astounding. We know for a fact we rounded up innocent people and shipped them to Gitmo and can be pretty comfortable that we have whacked the wrong people to the point of a completely jacked up decade plus long and ruinous war but we should all be comfortable with this.

[EFerrari]

16. Well, the brave people at CCR and ACLU have mounted an argument.

Not sure who else because my reading has been limited.

But, yes, it is completely astonishing and depressing that most people are just accepting this throwback as if it's the natural order of things. But I'm coming to believe that a lot of people would cheer on the thugs dragging their own family out of bed in the middle of the night to haul them away.

[Luminous Animal]

7. The solution to voiding the AUMF is to elect a woman.

[tblue]

9. Not just any woman.

But I get what you're saying. All this unbridled testosterone sure is making a mess of things.

Thank you for making me smile a little.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Your welcome.

To clarify, the AUMF explicitly states he when referring to the President. No he, no AUMF.

[msanthrope]

14. Any congressperson can introduce a resolution to supercede it. Why hasn't a single one done that?

FYI--Presidents don't void Acts of Congress.

[NYC Liberal]

11. No, it has not. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Giving one person the power to order the killing of anyone reeks of the "Divine Right of Kings".

And, it relies on the idea that this particular guy is, and always will be, a benevolent monarch.

[msanthrope]

13. You could try reading the AUMF. It outlines who the President can act against.

Really. It's all there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Pretty much anyone he wants to.

"I thought he/she aided those responsible for 9-11. So I killed him/her."

[Angry Dragon]

18. Long Live the King

[mrmpa]

19. What is AUMF? ..................

Acronymys are good, but the name of the Act should be written and then in parentheses the acronym. I can't make a decision on your question, without knowing what it is you're referring to.

Thanks.

[MilesColtrane]

20. AUMF---->Google= see below

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=aumf&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[mrmpa]

21. Thank you very, very much. eom