Rand Paul’s Dishonesty About Anwar Al-Awlaki and Drones

awlaki

Rand Paul’s obsession with defending an Al Qaeda leader continues. It’s even more dishonest because in his statement, Paul never uses Anwar Al-Awlaki’s name.

Instead Paul states, “I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat. I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat.”

Anwar Al-Awlaki was the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He was linked to most of the serious Al Qaeda attacks on America at the time including the Fort Hood massacre and the Christmas Day attempted bombing of Flight 253.

There are numerous other scenarios, not least of which are the unanswered questions about Al-Awlaki’s contacts with the 9/11 hijackers.

Whatever Rand Paul’s definition of being “directly involved in combat” is it somehow doesn’t include orchestrating multiple attacks against the United States.

Would he consider Osama bin Laden to be directly involved in combat? If not, was that an extra-judicial assassination?

In his floor statement, Paul never mentions Anwar Al-Awlaki or explains why he doesn’t believe that the Al Qaeda leader was not directly involved in combat. Instead he says, “Unpopular opinions change from generation to generation. While today it may be burka-wearing Muslims, it has at times been yarmulke-wearing Jews.  It has at times been African Americans.  It has at times been Japanese Americans.”

I seem to have forgotten the time that Jews rammed planes into the World Trade Center. Maybe Ron Paul can tell me more about that. Though I’m sure Rand Paul’s supporters will be just as happy to.

But we’re not dealing with opinions here. We’re dealing with a war. And Rand Paul is less honest than his father in explaining what he’s defending and why.

In his New York Times op-ed, Rand Paul did mention Anwar Al-Awlaki. Give Paul credit, he knows his audience. The people who think he’s a conservative wouldn’t sit still for Al-Awlaki. But New York Times readers will eat it up.

“Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was subject to a kill order from Mr. Obama, and was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a missile fired from a drone. I don’t doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment. Under our Constitution, he should have been tried — in absentia, if necessary — and allowed a legal defense. If he had been convicted and sentenced to death, then the execution of that sentence, whether by drone or by injection, would not have been an issue.”

This is the same broken record nonsense. Anwar Al-Awlaki was not killed because he was a traitor, but because he was an enemy commander engaged in a war with the United States. A war that was voted on by Congress.

If Rand Paul feels that he doesn’t meet this criteria, he should explain why instead of trotting out strawmen or phony patriotism.

In another op-ed, Paul writes, “Some will say that Anwar al-Awlaki was evil and deserved to die. I don’t necessarily disagree with his punishment. I disagree with how the punishment was decided. American citizens not on a battlefield must be convicted before they are sentenced to death. Let me repeat that order for some who seem to have lost sight of our Constitution and basic human rights — you must try and convict someone before you punish them.”

Paul is still playing his broken record. Awlaki wasn’t “punished”. He wasn’t sentenced to anything. He was killed as an enemy commander.

“Some will say that al-Awlaki wouldn’t come home for a trial. That’s probably true. In that case, he could have been tried in absentia,” Paul proposes.

Sentencing someone to death in absentia seems like an even more grimly totalitarian and senseless idea. And Paul still deliberately misses the point. Due process is for criminal proceedings. Not for war.

No soldier hires a lawyer before firing a shot across a battlefield.

In his statement, Rand Paul mentions John Adams defending British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. But once the fighting began, Adams would not be dispatched to defend them before they could be killed in combat during the Revolutionary War.

You don’t hold trials to kill enemies in wartime. You just shoot them.

But let’s break down the legality of Rand Paul’s argument.

Paul keeps insisting that “American citizens” must be tried before they are killed. But our criminal justice system no more allows us to execute foreigners without due process than Americans.

If a foreigner murders a man in Boston, he still has to undergo the same criminal proceeding as an American.

Rand Paul insists that before an Al Qaeda leader can be killed, he has to undergo a criminal trial or it’s an extrajudicial killing. It’s a leftist argument but there’s some legal logic behind it.

His emphasis that it should apply to American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki however has no legal basis.

If killing Anwar Al-Awlaki was an extrajudicial killing, then so is killing any Al Qaeda commander. If we have to put Anwar Al-Awlaki on trial before killing him, then we have to put every Al Qaeda terrorist we drone kill on trial first.

Rand Paul provides no legal basis for the distinction he’s making between Americans and foreigners. And that’s probably because he isn’t making that distinction. He just knows that emphasizing the American citizen part makes for a more compelling argument to a conservative audience.

I doubt that Rand Paul really believes that killing any Al Qaeda terrorist by drone strike should be allowed. He’s emphasizing “American” for propaganda value.

If American military action against a terrorist is bounded by criminal law, then it applies just as much to Ayman Al-Zawahiri as it does to Anwar Al-Awlaki. And we have to put every Al Qaeda leader on trial. If this is what Rand Paul really wants, then he should say so instead of attacking the United States from behind a dishonest argument with no legal consistency.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    In WW II the British attempted to kill Hitler. He was the enemy commander, but not out on the field of battle. Anwar Al-Awalaki was a terrorist commander in an asymetrical war. A legitimate target. Now, Rand Paul is just as “touched” as his father who is an anti-Semitic unimaginative drone. I don’t believe Rand has any chance of getting elected but he is positioning himself to become a spoiler.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      What’s strange is that if Rand Paul had wanted to make a serious Constitutional case, he would have been going after the Libyan War. The war on Al Qaeda went through Congress.

      It seems almost as if he’s obsessed with defending terrorists like his father was.

      • Daniel

        Rand Paul, like his father, is the product of an extreme personality type which is often seen in Libertarian oriented individuals. Rand Paul has imbibed the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand via his father from early childhood. In fact, he’s named after Ayn Rand(who ironically was Jewish, aka Alice Rosenbaum of Riga Latvia).
        Both Pauls have an inherent anti-Semitic streak. Libertarianism is the poltical manifestation of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy which is ultimately about hyper-individualism and the pre-eminence of the individual will to power which Rand euphemistically called “self actualization”.
        Rand Paul(and Paul Ryan as well) are both devotees of Objectivism. They believe in their own “intellect” as superior to others and that it is their destiny to assume power to educate the masses. RandPaulRyan have very few core principles they won’t compromise(as we are seeing presently). They believe in the glorification of their inner godhead and little else.

        • Murray

          Can you define “hyper-individualism”? Can you provide examples of this in Ayn Rand’s writings? Does Ayn Rand say that “super” intellects should assume power?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I don’t think the Pauls are really on the Rand side of the spectrum.

          Can you picture Ayn Rand agreeing with Paul on foreign policy?

          They come from another school entirely.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Actually, Rand lived long enough to completely repudiate Libertarianism. One of her Objectivist followers, Peter Schwartz, also wrote an essay condemning Libertarianism.
          Libertarianism basically appropriated its “non-initiation of force” axiom from Rand, just as it stole all its other ideas from classical liberalism while eschewing the moral values of either source.

          If you want some explications on Libertarianism and Objectivism vs. Conservatism, may I set modesty aside and recommend my own Libertarianism Minus Conservatism = Zero and The Objectivist/Conservative Schism?

      • 1Indioviejo1

        Thank you for your article. I’m in the same groove with you on most everything you write. As to the Paul family, I believe their anti-Semitic stance permeates all else in their policy, be it foreign or domestic. IMHO Libertarians of their persuation are dangerous extremist.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s beyond anti-semitism, it’s a grab bag of conspiracy theories.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            I wonder whether the MORON Paul bots are connected to the lyndon larouche cult.

            I see the same maniacal fervor in both camps. Selfless drones willing to subject themselves to deprivation for their furher.
            .

        • nightspore

          It’s not anti-semitism. Libertarians have always had difficulties with issues involving war or defence. These things don’t quite fit into their free-market-will-do-it-all belief system

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I said beyond, meaning there’s a whole constellation of classic conspiracy theories. The Pauls and their followers are not normative libs.

      • trickyblain

        The Libya action has the precedence of over 230 unauthorized armed actions overseas. It’s the norm. Even in terms of Afghanistan and Iraq (and Korea and Vietnam), you can argue that nothing in the Constitution allows Congress to simply hand over all of its war powers to the Executive Branch. I wouldn’t argue it, but the case can be made.

        I think Paul is especially concerned with targeted assassination and oddly (as you note) the “citizen” standing. No idea where that legal argument comes from.

        I actually agree with you on this one (and would have if Bush had done the same thing).

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Libya was problematic. It was sold as a no fly zone when it was a regime change operation. The delays in even informing Congress and the American people were bad enough. The war was clearly opposed by the public.

          I don’t think Paul really cares about citizen standing. It just makes his position seem more compelling to some conservatives. In practice, I suspect he does not make those distinctions.

          He just isn’t willing to say so.

  • MJUdall

    During the nomination of John Brennan, Rand Paul held a filibuster. Stand with Rand hysteria ensued from the gullible right and his devoted libertarian kook followers. What I found strange about all of that was, he chose to use the filibuster to discuss drones instead of actually exposing John Brennan’s ties to radical Islam. On top of it all, they missed an opportunity to expose John Brennan as the bureaucratic social climbing boob that everyone in Washington knows that he is. Then Rand ended up doing what he does best– he flip flopped on drones in a TV interview. After 8 years of Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy mess, the last thing America needs is 4 years of Rand Paul.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      And his filibuster switched to his father’s blowback theory and claiming that some Al Qaeda groups don’t pose a threat to us

    • WilliamRD

      John Brennan’s ties to radical Islam ??
      You’re a few bricks short of a full load.

  • Sassan

    Great read! Thank you :)

  • http://cogitarus.wordpress.com/ ★✩★ David ★✩★

    Daniel, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for a brilliantly thought through article. The Constitution is a hedge around the federal government — we all know that — but when some citizens bow down to it, allowing innocent people to die by claiming “they are one of us” because they are “citizens” one of us, is about as moral and sound an argument as racism.

    Here’s my take on it; http://eaglerising.com/6213/making-idol-constitution/

    • Daniel Greenfield

      it turns the Constitution into a suicide pact which it was never meant to be

      • http://cogitarus.wordpress.com/ ★✩★ David ★✩★

        “suicide pact” the perfect analogy!

  • Habbgun

    John Adams was clear that the British soldiers were acting as a police force during the rioting and were clearly following civilized rules of engagement. It was the crowd that was aggressive and at some point the soldiers had the right to protect themselves. Al Awaki is a rioting crowd on steroids. He is a combatant. Adams is actually consistent with killing Al Awaki as a combatant.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Yes he was

  • kasandra

    I almost always agree with Mr. Greenfield, and I would in this case had Awalaki been killed in combat. But this was a targeted assassination. He was placed on our administration’s “Disposition Matrix”, as it likes to call its kill list, and the death was ordered by one person acting as judge, jury and executioner. I don’t think that’s the American way or, indeed, constitutional. I would prefer a panel make such decisions after the cases for and against are argued by advocates for the positions. The system they used is entirely opaque and I don’t think our system provides for one individual, even the president, making such decisions on his/her own accord. That having been said, I am very troubled by Sen. Paul’s quoting lyrics by notorious anti-Semite Roger Waters in a recent speech. The lyrics themselves weren’t anti-Semitic but I find it curious that he found it appropriate to quote Waters. The lyrics quoted were pretty innocuous and, I’m sure, a substitute could easily have been found. Yet, he quoted Waters.

    • Steeloak

      He was an enemy leader in a time of declared war. Enemy leaders are legitimate targets of assassination, no trial required.
      Would you care to argue that Hitler was not a legitimate target? How about Jefferson Davis? Tojo? Hirohito? Kaiser Wilhelm? All of them were valid military targets and the forces arrayed against them did try to kill them whenever possible.

      • kasandra

        To the best of my knowledge, Hitler, Tojo, Hirohito and Kaiser Wilhelm were not American citizens so I would have no problem assassinating them. I don’t know whether Jefferson Davis surrendered, voluntarily or not, his citizenship when he took up arms against the U.S. What I have a problem with is the assassination of a U.S. citizen at the order of the President because the person is beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. Ira Einhorn (one of the founders of “Earth Day”) murdered his girlfriend, chopped up her body, hid it in a steamer trunk, and fled to France for 14 or so years, which refused to extradite him. I believe he was convicted of the murder in absentia. Still, I don’t think the President had the authority to send someone to kill him.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          But if Einhorn had become the leader of a Communist terrorist group that was carrying out attacks on the US during WW3, there wouldn’t be a problem bombing his last known position.

          The issue is not punishment. It’s taking out enemy personnel in a war.

          • kasandra

            No. I’ve said here and in several previous postings on this issue, if we were attacking his camp and he got killed, well, his misfortune. What I object to is the U.S. president drawing up a hit list of U.S. citizens and ordering those on the list to be assassinated without any other restraint on the exercise of his individual judgment. Elsewise, next time he revises the “Disposition Matrix” what is to keep him from saying “This Greenfield fellow sure is being a pain in the butt. Why, he’s stirring up opposition to my _____ policy which is in the national interest. Let’s hit him with a Hellfire surprise while he’s travelling abroad.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            For one thing the AMUF only authorizes attacks against members of Al Qaeda and assorted associates.

            “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.”

          • kasandra

            I’m not sure how you know who is a member al Qaeda. They don’t have membership cards or decoder rings. And I’ve said that if you are fighting with them you’re fair game in combat operations. My thoughts set out in my postings here apply only to targeted assassinations where I don’t trust the president, and particularly this one, to make the decision alone in an opaque and infettered manner.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            We can agree then that it would apply to self-identified members of Congress

          • kasandra

            Work’s for me.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I meant to write Al Qaeda, but that worked out even better.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s the AUMF, not AMUF, and nothing in the verbiage you quoted limits attacks to AQ. In fact, it gives the executive carte blanche to use force against all that he determines was involved in 9/11.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            that being Al Qaeda and its associates

          • hiernonymous

            The language of the AUMF (not AMUF) authorizes the President to use force against anyone he determines was involved.

            If the President determines that the Rosicrucians were involved, the AUMF authorizes him to use force against them. If the President determines that the Pope was involved, he is legally authorized to flatten the Vatican. Nothing in the language of the AUMF prevents him from making such a determination.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re raising secondary questions about possible abuses that are not the issue here.

            Have we droned the Pope? Are we about to?

            Why not deal with the issue instead of throwing up more pointless distractions.

          • hiernonymous

            Those issues are not secondary. You claim that the language of the AUMF limits the president to targeting a particular organization, when the language says no such thing.

            The issue is that the AUMF is an open-ended authorization that gives the executive carte blanche to name anyone an enemy and kill them. You insisted that there was a limitation built into the AUMF that does not, in fact, exist.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            My claim is that targeting Al Qaeda is Constitutional. You claim that the president can abuse the AUMF.

            It’s a secondary concern that fails to prove that attacking Al Qaeda terrorists is unconstitutional…

            …unless you want to go full Truther.

          • hiernonymous

            “My claim is that targeting Al Qaeda is Constitutional. ”

            No. That may be your revised claim, but here was your original claim: ” the AMUF [sic] only authorizes attacks against members of Al Qaeda and assorted associates.”

            Do you not see the difference? Your newly revised claim is that attacks on AQ are Constitutional. Your original claim was the the AUMF authorized attacks only against AQ and associates. That was plainly incorrect. The AUMF authorizes attacks against anyone that the Executive determines was involved in the attacks.

            Concerning your newly revised claim:

            EO 12333 originally prohibited assassination. As revised following 9/11, assassination is now permitted. You’re quite correct in noting that there is no obvious constitutional barrier to assassinating members of AQ.

            Unless, of course, they are U.S. persons. In that case, the 5th Amendment kicks in, and such persons may not be targeted for assassination without due process of law.

      • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

        We are not in a declared war. We are in an unconstitutional war.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The AMUF was passed by Congress. It’s entirely constitutional.

          • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

            From what I understand the AMUF “granted the president the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.” The gov doesn’t produce evidence against suspected terrorist before execution let alone produce evidence that every one of them were involved in 911.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            the AMUF text covers the organizations responsible

            “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.”

            all members of Al Qaeda are targets, just as all members of the Japanese armed forces were targets

            We didn’t go around investigating whether individual Japanese pilots had anything to do with Pearl Harbor

        • Steeloak

          Congress does not have to use the words “The United States declares war on…” for it to be constitutional declaration of war. The constitution merely states that congress has the sole power to declare war. How it choses to do so is at it’s discretion. In the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress explicitly authorized the President to go to war and provided funding to do so.
          The unconstitutional war argument is entirely a bogus one cooked up by delusional leftists and the Rand Paul fringe Libertarians.

          • http://batman-news.com Cliven Dundy

            Congress approved the President to send troops to fight those responsible for 911 not start overthrowing foreign governments. If we are in a declared war, how do we know when we’ve won? What is our objective? Is it even winnable?

    • Drakken

      When you are openly siding with an enemy in a foreign land, you are a legitimate target. There is no due process in war, period. No panels, no group think, and no discussion. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact with our enemies, end of discussion.

      • kasandra

        Jane Fonda openly sided with North Vietnam in North Vietnam. If the AAA site she was visiting had been bombed and her killed, no problem. I would have had a problem sending a hit team to assassinate even her, though. That’s why we have laws on, e.g., treason.

        • Steeloak

          No, but had she decided to live in North Vietnam and helped direct their war effort against us, she would be a legitimate target. As it is she is an unrepentant traitor who should have been arrested for treason, tried and served time in prison upon her return.

          • kasandra

            And you, sir, have raised the most valid objection to my viewpoint – what happens when an American citizen has clearly gone over to the other side. If you read my posts here you will see, 1) I am not against targeted assassinations; 2) I am not against the killing of American citizens abroad in combat operations; and 3) I am not against the targeted assassination of Americans abroad who have gone over to the enemy. However, I am against the targeted assassination of Americans abroad, even those who have gone over to the enemy, on the say so of one person (i.e., the president) acting alone, without standards, in a completely opaque process. So all I can say with regard to your example is, in that case, the matter should be referred to the panel I envisioned in one of my posts in which the pros and cons would be argued by advocates for each side and the panel voted, majority winning. But LBJ should not have been able to wake up one day and say “Let’s assassinate that Fonda woman.” Even she, in my view, should, as an American citizen, have been accorded the minimal due process that my system contemplates. Or her citizenship could have been revoked through legal processes and then a Mk. 82 dropped on her sorry butt.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM
    • Daniel Greenfield

      It is the American way of war. There’s a military chain of command that ends with the president. The chain of command decides targets.

      • WilliamRD

        So this is the American way of war Grenfield??

        “When Obama’s senior adviser Robert Gibbs was asked last year why Abdulrahman was assassinated, Gibbs replied that the teenager should have picked a “more responsible father.”

        And we should’ve picked a far more responsible judge.

        Or, as Abdulrahman’s grandfather puts it, “The government has killed a 16-year-old American boy. Shouldn’t it at least have to explain why?”

        • Daniel Greenfield

          His son was hanging out with terrorists. He wasn’t the target. He was what happens when you stand next to a target.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Your mistake (and one of Rand Paul’s) is in thinking we can only kill enemy combatants at the moment they are actually engaged in combat operations. But legitimate military targets can be taken out any hour of the day or night – did you miss “The Dirty Dozen” where the assignment is to kill as many German officers as possible while they’re relaxing at a castle with a bunch of women? Or if you want real-life examples, we shot down Admiral Yamamoto’s transport plane for the express purpose of killing him, and not as an incidental attack as part of the Solomon Islands campaign. Yamamoto was a legitimate target and could be killed any time he was within our reach. So was Anwar al-Alwaki.

      Also, your preferred “panel system” (a new kind of death panels, I suppose) would contravene Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which makes the President commander-in-chief. Therefore, no panel may be instituted which could overrule his judgment as to which military targets to strike and when.

      • kasandra

        I’ll try this one last time. Yamamoto was not a U.S. citizen. The German soldiers and civilians in the castle in The Dirty Dozen were not U.S. citizens. But, assuming you are a U.S. citizen, you are and I don’t like a system in which the President can simply order you to be assassinated. If you committed treason he can have you arrested or even kidnapped, brought into the jurisdiction and try you. Similarly, my preferred solution does not encompass U.S. citizens killed by U.S. forces in combat. So don’t go there. I just believe that a U.S. citizen committing treasonous acts can be assassinated at the say so of the president alone.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Suppose Yamamoto had picked up US citizenship while he was here… why would this in any way change his status in wartime?

          • kasandra

            Because, to my mind, certain rights attach to being a U.S. citizen including the right not to be murdered at the say so of a single government official.

          • Steeloak

            By waging war on the United States, any American citizen who engages in it is automatically both an enemy and a traitor. Rules of war apply the same as to any enemy non-citizen.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            the simple answer, before the Warren court, was Denaturalization. Then the Warren court decided that was cruel and unusual punishment.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I’m afraid that doesn’t work.

            Rand Paul is arguing that due process, criminal proceedings, applies to targeting terrorists. It’s the same argument the left has been making for a while.

            If due process applies to targeting terrorists, there’s no legal basis for distinguishing between terrorists with or without US citizenship.

          • kasandra

            I’m not a Rand Paul supporter so I that isn’t relevant to me. And I’m certainly not a leftist. I make up my own mind on issues and my postings here are my take on this issue and where I draw the line.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Anwar al-Alwaki could not be arrested since he was in an area not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. If it will make you feel any better, I’d agree that any U.S. citizen in an area under U.S. Court jurisdiction, he should be arrested, not assassinated, but if he’s anywhere U.S. Marshals can’t arrest him, then he’s a military target.

          Maybe this will help you see the problem differently: suppose a U.S. citizen joined the German army during WWII. The President (through his Generals) orders a strike on this citizen’s unit (whether or not he knows the unit contains a U.S. citizen is really irrelevant). Do you really think the President can’t do this? In fact, I as the lowliest private soldier in the U.S. Army am fully entitled to kill this man on sight in accordance with the laws of war – and that would be true even if I recognized him. He’s an enemy combatant by his own choice, and enemy combatants may be engaged at will.

          There is no difference between this hypothetical U.S. citizen in the German army and Anwar al-Alwaki in his terrorist group, except that al-Alwaki, as an unlawful combatant, should receive even less consideration!

          • kasandra

            I’ve labored mightily here to explain that I have no problem if an American who is fighting with an enemy is killed by U.S. forces during combat operations. My problem is solely with giving the president the unfettered ability to have an American citizen, convicted of no crime, assasinated on his say so.

  • Centaur927

    Greenfield is correct to question the definition of “combat” and whether Rand would justify taking out Osama bin Laden since he wasn’t on a battlefield.

  • Gee

    According to the Rules of Engagement a combatant is a target. No trials, no appeal, just death.
    That is how it works

    • hiernonymous

      A combatant is a target on a battlefield. Yemen was two countries and one desert removed from the nearest active combat.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Might want to tell that to the men of the USS Cole.

        There’s an active Al Qaeda insurgency in Yemen. It’s no different than Pakistan.

        • hiernonymous

          The U.S. government shouldn’t assassinate U.S. citizens in Pakistan, either.

          U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan. In the process of engaging hostiles in Afghanistan, it would be unreasonable to expect military forces to suss out the U.S. citizens who have chosen to join those combat formations. Too bad for them.

          U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Yemen and Pakistan There are no battalions engaged in combat against enemy formations.

          If you consider the USS Cole incident as proof that Yemen was a battlefield, that leads to two conclusions:
          1) security was criminally wanting; Cole’s security was appropriate for a port call, but not for a fight, and
          2) you’ve redefined the incident as no longer being an act of terror. By definition, a military target on a battlefield cannot be the object of terrorism; it’s a combatant.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            US forces are engaged in hostilities in Yemen. There is an active conflict in which the United States is involved.

            You’ll have to take that up with the commanding Officer of the Cole.

            I’m not him and he is a formidable guy.

          • hiernonymous

            The Cole attack doesn’t make Yemen a “battlefield” any more than MAJ Hassan’s shooting makes Texas a battlefield. Last time I was in Yemen, there were no units engaged in combat there. U.S. military presence was confined to the embassy and a few folks involved in training. I’ve been on a few battlefields and Aden certainly wasn’t one.

            I can’t imagine why you’d think a conversation with Kirk Lippold would be a daunting prospect; perhaps you’re easily intimidated.

            Bottom line is that the U.S. was fighting two wars at the time – one was in Iraq, and one was in Afghanistan. Dropping missiles in the hinterlands of Yemen had exactly nothing to do with supporting troops in contact or any other exigencies of pressing combat that rightly trump our Constitutional protections. Redefining the whole world as a battlefield and any act of violence as “war” is an Orwellian undertaking that serves no purpose other than to make easy things that should be difficult.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If Texas had a large armed Muslim insurgency, your analogy might not be completely foolish.

            If the US has been attacked by an enemy force and has taken sides in an armed conflict and has killed and been killed, it’s a battlefield.

            ” Dropping missiles in the hinterlands of Yemen had exactly nothing to do with supporting troops in contact”

            Killing Al Qaeda leaders had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda.

            Is that the argument you’re going with?

          • hiernonymous

            “If the US has been attacked by an enemy force and has taken sides in an
            armed conflict and has killed and been killed, it’s a battlefield.”

            Not in this country. In the U.S., combat zones are designated by Executive Order. Yemen has not been so designated. The Red Sea – where the Cole was attacked – has been so designated.

            “Killing Al Qaeda leaders had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda.

            Is that the argument you’re going with?”

            It’s not the argument I made, so I can’t imagine why you’d conclude that it’s the argument that I’m “going with.”

            If you’re struggling with the term “troops in contact,” let me know, and I’ll help you with the terminology.

  • Erudite Mavin

    Thank you Daniel for the needed commentary on Rand Paul.
    Rand Paul is his father’s son in more ways than most understand.
    Rand is going to skim over Al Awlaki because Rand comes out of the
    Ron Paul, it was Bush, or the Jews, or America’s fault period.
    Have gone face to face with their supporters and their 9/11 Truther signs.

    Anwar Al Awlaki lIved here in San Diego over 4 years. The terrorist who
    flew the plane into the Pentagon also lived here in San Diego and
    was a follower of him at his mosque.

    There is a large number of pages now public from the San Diego FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
    They were on to Al Awlaki and much reported also about associates.
    Al Awlaki goes wide and deep re 9/11/01. If the same would have occurred
    in 1942, no question about him being an accomplice and worse and received
    death as such.

    No lesson learned re Al Awlaik, the same San Diego FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force even years after 9/11 were still on Al Awlaki 2009 and intercepted around 18 to 20 e-mails between Maj. Nidal Hasan and Anwar Al Awlaki and forwarded to Washing D.C. who claimed they did not receive all which was not the fact.

    This for D.C. to cover their a**. In other words the Obama adm. had a heads up
    while their head was elsewhere.

    Just how many 1,000s does Anwar Al Awlaki have to be co responsible for, for Rand Paul to get it. This is just one of the many dangers of libertarians and
    their cult of theory, not reality.

  • oaebcr

    I did a GOOGLE search and found this link, fortunately or unfortunately I can not decide. Be certain that this Web site is a joke and the author Greenfield is an idiot and/or evil. Anyone equating Rand Paul with being anti-Semitic because of concern for due process of an American Citizen, with no proof in his speech or writings is also evil.

    Osama Bin Laden was not an American citizen. Any considerate person would question whether or not killing an American solely within the Executive branch is wise or not. What is imminent attack? Did a 16 year old boy really have to die that way?

    I hope that the author and his lap – dog, like – minded people who comment are Democrats and not Republicans. Hopefully you will die off soon.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The post didn’t call Rand Paul anti-semitic. This is typical Paultard trolling.

      • TJohnson

        Really? You said this, “I seem to have forgotten the time that Jews rammed planes into the World Trade Center. Maybe Ron Paul can tell me more about that. Though I’m sure Rand Paul’s supporters will be just as happy to.” What are you trying to say there?

        To answer some of your other critiques. No. Rand Paul would not give Osama Bin Laden due process. Bin Laden is not an American. You also give no evidence to support your conclusion that Rand Paul wouldn’t support drone strikes against terrorists if that was the best course of action.

        And I like that dig about Rand Paul being a New York Times conservative. Not everyone’s top issue is Muslim Jihad. In fact, that has nothing to do with conservatism-at all. Conservatism is a fusion of libertarianism and traditional mores. NOBODY does that better in politics than Rand Paul.

        Feel free to continue calling people “Paultards” and use the anti-Semite card, Mr. Sharpton. I’ll make sure to watch out for limited government conservatives like Grover Norquist. He’s obviously a Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist what with his beard and advocacy for online poker, defense cuts, and getting a sensible tax code.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          What’s your legal basis for claiming that only Americans are entitled to due process?

          • TJohnson

            I’ve spent almost no time thinking about this issue and am certainly not an an attorney. My understanding (very possibly incorrect understanding) is that foreign citizens on foreign soil aren’t entitled to due process. It is only when they are on American soil that they get due process. Isn’t that the whole justification for Gitmo?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush said otherwise.

      • WilliamRD

        David Horowitz sure does call Rand Paul anti semitic. You’re lightweight Greenfield.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Provide your evidence to support your claim.

          • WilliamRD
          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Your link is a FAIL.

            No quote of Horowitz saying that Randy Paul is anti semitic in this article by Weigel..

            Again, provide evidence of your claim.

          • WilliamRD

            Sorry, but my link is right on the mark. According to Horowitz cutting foreign aid to Israel is anti-semitic. Well the two biggest proponents of cutting foreign aid are Rand Paul and his father. Horowitz called Ron Paul a vicious anti-semite.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Where in your cited article, or anywhere else, an actual quote from David Horowitz that Rand Paul is anti semitic?

            MORON Paul, Rand Paul’s father is an idiot for shilling for Fascist Iran.

            Whose side is MORON Paul on?

            Americas or Fascist Irans?

          • WilliamRD

            You’re an idiot end of story.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Is my name David Horowitz? Try again.

    • M2000

      Paulbots like you are nutcases.

  • http://www.darrellpackglobal.wordpress.com Darrell Pack

    I have real respect for Daniel Greenfield and agree with him most of the time, but I feel that on this issue he is missing the wider issue. The wider issue is that the same president and administration that killed al-Awlaki without any trial, even in absentia, had a serious discussion about using unmanned drones in strikes against Americans on USA soil, and that without trial. Perhaps a good case can be made for killing al-Awlaki as a combatant and enemy commander (cop shooting in a crime scene type of thing etc.). However, does not that precedent become a step toward liberating the American government from giving Americans their habeous corpus rights?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Who needs drones when GWB pilots Black Helicopters?

  • Shadowwind

    Even if Paul was technically correct on this issue, I really don’t see why anyone with common sense would belabor this issue. At best it’s some sort of trivial intellectual exercise done by bored college kids, and at worst it’s the usual nuttiness from the fringe right and left (which are actually pretty similar in what they believe, especially on foreign policy).

    • UCSPanther

      There’s nothing to defend. Awlaki chose to run with Al Quada and join them over in Yemen, and got blown up for his trouble.

      • WilliamRD

        And what about his 16yr old son who Obama murdered while sitting in a cafe sipping on coffee??

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Why would a traitor want his son with him when he’s plotting jihad on America?

          Do they have to share the 72 virgins?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          WilliamRD, If you were sipping coffee with Alwaki, you’d be sipping coffee with 72 virgins too.

  • A Z

    I’m done with Rand Paul and Ron Paul.

    I could back a libertarian like Rand Paul, but he would have to say “mea culpa “about his position on the drone program. He is trying to score easy points. In the meantime he is harming national security.

    Stick a fork in him (figuratively speaking). He is not seemingly good candidate he was 3 or 4 years ago.

  • Jakareh

    That’s it. If Rand Paul is the Republican nominee, I’m casting another write-in vote for George Washington. I did that last time.

  • pete

    he ALREADY threw America under the bus – with his declaration of “De Facto AMNESTY”, tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed by illegal aliens but it doesn’t seem to bother him a wit.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      A lot of libertarians are open borders

  • FrankTalk14

    Where is the evidence that Anwar Al-Awalaki did what the mainstream media and government accused him of? Other than pronouncements by the FBI and CIA?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Are you a 9/11 Troofer too?

      • FrankTalk14

        What is a “9/11 troofer”? Are we inventing vocabulary now?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM
          • FrankTalk14

            It says the term is used by neo-con trolls as an ad hominem attack, which probably describes you best. I did not even bring up 9/11, I just asked what evidence you have about Al Awlaki, one of numerous people murdered by US drones.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Better a neo-con than a neo-commie or a MORON Paul Libertardian.

            If you were hangin’ with Alwaki, you’d be mist too thanks to General Dynamics. :-)

    • Daniel Greenfield

      His own videos and public statements

  • WilliamRD

    Obama
    killed this 16-year-old American without trial and Congress doesn’t
    give a damn – See more at:
    http://rare.us/story/obama-killed-this-16-year-old-american-without-trial-and-congress-doesnt-give-a-damn/#sthash.vhE5GqGa.dpuf

  • M2000

    I despite wRONg Paul and his son Rand Paul. They are both wRONg. Look at their friends over at Antiwar.com they’re supporting Libyan Islamic radicals whom were responsible for killing 4 Americans and our ambassador.

    • WilliamRD

      Scuze me, but Antiwar.com doesn’t support anyone in Libya. You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer that’s for sure.

      • M2000

        Uh, yea they do they support the raging Islamic fanatics as victims of “imperialism”. The fact that you Paulbot apologists don’t seem to mind to apologize for them is the obvious.

        • WilliamRD

          care to provide a link to back up your BS

          • M2000

            Justin Raimondo recently wrote an article doofus, from looking at your comments whatever Islamic fanatics do is okay to Paulbots, any non-Muslim country that tries to fight them is evil. Doesn’t matter if it’s Israel, the USA, or even let’s say Russia or China.

            Pathetic, pandering dummies.

          • WilliamRD

            You still can’t provide a link. End of story.

          • M2000

            Look it up yourself you lazy Paulbot.

          • WilliamRD

            You’re an idiot.

  • M2000

    Vote for Rand Paul Nuthouse 2016.

  • WilliamRD

    This is just another Neocon hatchet job on Rand Paul who is becoming a serious threat to their foreign policy views.

    “Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to
    be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      MORON Pauls son Randy, wig wearing Randy, is a chip off the crazy old man.

      Better a Neocon than an NeoCOMMIE.

      • WilliamRD

        You’re a punk kid

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Vote for MORON Paul!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Can you explain why due process should apply to terrorists with US citizenship but not those without it?

      Please provide a legal justification for this position

      • hiernonymous

        Sure. The Fifth Amendments states that no person shall be “…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

        The Bill of Rights applies to U.S. citizens and U.S. persons – the latter including non-citizens who reside in the United States. Non-citizen terrorists abroad have no protections under the U.S. Bill of Rights; whatever protections they enjoy are a consequence of international law, treaty, and limitations we have imposed on our own government.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The Supreme Court ruled otherwise when it came to Gitmo detainees.

          You want unlimited territorial jurisdiction when it comes to the Fifth Amendment even for persons not physically under the power of agents of the state, while limiting that to “US persons”.

          That doesn’t work since the Fifth makes no such distinction. Illegal aliens are equally protected by it as far back as the 19th century.

          • hiernonymous

            The Gitmo detainees are physically under the power of agents of the state.

            Though that’s a fair enough caveat – I should add “non-U.S. persons under the control of or subject to legal proceedings by the United States.”

            “Illegal aliens are equally protected by it as far back as the 19th century.”

            Yes, that’s what I said – “including non-citizens who reside in the United States.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            More goal posts.

            A terrorist being droned is arguably under the power of agents of the state.

            Agents of the state have participated in the interrogation of terrorists in foreign countries.

            You’re trying to create a shifting category that doesn’t exist in real life.

            Either everyone is subject to due process or they aren’t.

          • hiernonymous

            “A terrorist being droned is arguably under the power of agents of the state.”

            If an individual is under the power of agents of the state, then there’s no reason that he can’t be brought in for questioning and trial. If he can’t be brought in, he’s not under the power of agents of the state.

            “Either everyone is subject to due process or they aren’t.”

            It’s the latter – not everyone is subject to due process. Non U.S. persons don’t automatically have the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. As I note elsewhere, the right to due process is not limited to legal proceedings. The Bill of Rights unambiguously states that our government may not deprive us of life or liberty without due process; it says exactly nothing about excepting that right if it’s a military officer rather than a police officer who is doing the depriving.

            There are any number of constitutional protections that don’t apply to non-U.S. persons. The IC quite regularly engages in collection operations against foreigners that are prohibited against U.S. persons on constitutional grounds. EO 12333 was rooted in the idea that the 4th Amendment protections prevented the government from engaging in intelligence collection against U.S.persons that was otherwise considered perfectly acceptable. Tapping Angela Merkel’s cell phone was a faux pas, not a constitutional violation.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s your interpretation of under the power of agents of the state. You want to claim that a terrorist being droned is under the power of the US to the extent of covering him under the Fifth, but not when it’s inconvenient for your argument.

            The Supreme Court has already held that the Fifth Amendment applies to persons irrespective of citizenship.

            The Fifth Amendment refers to criminal action being penalized without due legal proceedings. It doesn’t mean that if you join a foreign army, you can’t be bombed from the air.

            If it meant that, WW2 would have been impossible.

            Tapping Merkel’s cell phone wouldn’t have been a constitutional violation even if she were a US citizen.

            See the El Hage case, another one of your Jihadist “citizens”.

          • hiernonymous

            My response is being held for approval by FPM; I’ve had several deleted recently. I’m splitting my response into two parts in hopes one or more actually gets published:

            “You want to claim that a terrorist being droned is under the power of the US to the extent of covering him under the Fifth, but not when it’s inconvenient for your argument.”

            You’re simply being incoherent here. The Fifth applies to al Awlaki because he is a U.S. citizen, not because he is “under the power” of a U.S. agent. You, quite correctly, had noted that in situations such as Guantanamo, where non-U.S. persons have come under the direct control of our legal system, then they have effectively become U.S. persons in terms of being owed due process.

            You then tried to extend that argument by claiming that being the target of a drone strike is
            equivalent to “being under the power” of the legal system. I’ve pointed out that an individual is not under the control of the legal system simply because the CIA can drop explosives on that individual.

          • hiernonymous

            Posts were approved and available for your reading pleasure.

  • john

    What about his 16 year old son you fucking Obama apologists?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That’s Bush apologist to you, anti-American traitor

      His son was hanging out with terrorists. He wasn’t the target. He was what happens when you stand next to a target.

      • WilliamRD

        More BS from Greenfield

        “John Brennan, at
        the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and
        homeland security, “suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally
        and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review.”

        Well, the review has been whitewashed. Our government decided to kill this kid even though there was no evidence he was a terrorist.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-killed-at-16-transparency-test-obama-owes-us-answers-about-this-dead-american/276276/

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Two options here

          1. The US, for some reason, decided to kill an unimportant 16 year old because it’s just that pointlessly evil

          2. The US was targeting a terrorist leader the 16 year old happened to be near

          You can choose to be a rational thinking individual or a Paultard

          • WilliamRD

            Paultard. And you call yourself an adult.
            CIA Director says we deliberately targeted the kid. So there you have it. Obama acting as Judge Jury and Executioner of an American citizen who was not linked to terrorism.
            Paul is right and basically you’re an idiot.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No the CIA director did not say that he found that the brat had been targeted. Really who’s going to spend a small fortune to take him out? And why?

          • WilliamRD

            Now he’s a brat. You are a disgrace and John Brennan did say it

  • Daniel Greenfield

    He probably is

  • hiernonymous

    Greenfield’s logic is seriously lacking. He tries to make the case that if al Awlaki was entitled to a trial, then an AQ leader is similarly due one But being an American citizen does invoke an additional layer of rights, and a U.S. citizen is entitled to due process from the U.S. government by virtue of his citizenship in a way that UBL was not.

    “If American military action against a terrorist is bounded by criminal
    law, then it applies just as much to Ayman Al-Zawahiri as it does to
    Anwar Al-Awlaki.”

    No, it does not. Zawahiri is not covered by the Bill of Rights. There are other arguments one can apply to Zawahiri; one might make an argument that he should not be subject to assassination, or that he should be dealt with by criminal procedure, but quite plainly the Constitutional protections that apply to U.S. citizens do not apply “just as much to Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”

    • Daniel Greenfield

      If you want to make the argument that non-Americans are not entitled to due process in criminal proceedings, you’re going to have to get more specific and provide a legal basis for it.

      • hiernonymous

        You just moved the goalposts.

        Once a non-American is the subject of a U.S. legal proceeding, then he is entitled to due process. Assassinations such as that of al Awlaki, of course, are not legal proceedings.

        The Fifth Amendment tells us that U.S. citizens may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process under the law. Therefore, al Awalaki was entitled to a legal proceeding before being deprived of his life. A non-U.S. person would not have the right to expect such a legal proceeding under the auspices of the Bill of Rights, but if we initiated such proceedings for other reasons, then, having done so, the subject of those proceedings would be owed due process.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Americans, resident aliens and even illegal aliens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property… in a legal proceeding.

          As you’ve conceded, we are not discussing a legal proceeding. If targeting killings of enemy personnel in wartime is a criminal justice, rather than military operation, and operates under the Fifth, then any terrorists would be entitled to due process regardless of citizenship.

          The Fifth has never been held to apply to a military engagement with an enemy combatant on a battlefield.

          If it did apply, war would become impossible.

          • hiernonymous

            Not sure why you think I’ve “conceded” that this is not a legal proceeding. You don’t seem to have been following the point at all. Nothing in the Fifth limits it to legal proceedings. It reads “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I’ve said from the get go that non-U.S. citizens do not enjoy the full range of Constitutional protections that U.S. citizens enjoy. One of those protections is that the government may not deprive one of life or liberty without due process of law – and nothing in the amendment suggests that that right only obtains if the process by which that deprivation is initiated occurs in the courts.

            “The Fifth has never been held to apply to a military engagement with an enemy combatant on a battlefield.”

            We’ve never before tried to define the whole world as a battlefield and everyone in it as a combatant. There was no “combat” occurring in Yemen, and there was no battlefield. Establishing that al Awlaki was an enemy was a job for the courts, not some military intelligence staff at JSOC or some such.

            “If it did apply, war would become impossible.”

            If it does not apply, then we may all be killed by our government at the executive’s will. A declaration that one is an enemy of the state is all that is required, and, as I recall, that is precisely the sort of abuse that the Bill of Rights was written to prevent.

            And absolutely nothing about this case would make war impossible, or even more difficult. When we fight an actual war, we have no problems at all. What applying these protections makes more difficult is cutting corners on police work.

            It’s interesting that people who seem to find the Second Amendment so plain and clear have so much difficulty with the Fifth. For all of you who insist that “…shall not be infringed” is so clear that the introductory clause is meaningless, please note that there is no introductory clause in the Fifth that even hints of a limitation to “…nor be deprived….” It does not read “…nor be deprived, unless it makes things hard for our intelligence staffs.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Fifth dealt with penalties, not with a battlefield conflict.

            Yemen is not the whole world. It is a battlefield in which an Al Qaeda has insurgency has killed Americans and America has killed Al Qaeda terrorists.

            “We’ve never before tried to define the whole world as a battlefield and everyone in it as a combatant.”

            It’s revealing, but unsurprising, that you put the onus for these tactics on the US, rather than Al Qaeda.

            “If it does not apply, then we may all be killed by our government at the executive’s will.”

            We can all be killed now. If we assume that the government is so awful that it’s murdering Americans in the street, it surely won’t be stopped by the law.

            “And absolutely nothing about this case would make war impossible, or even more difficult.”

            Sure. All the enemy has to do is use its American members as shields.

            “What applying these protections makes more difficult is cutting corners on police work.”

            Terrorists leading conflicts abroad are not subject to policing. But then your guy sent the FBI to Benghazi.

            “It’s interesting that people who seem to find the Second Amendment so plain and clear have so much difficulty with the Fifth.”

            You’re the only one having trouble with the Fifth. It’s not a “Get Out of Being Bombed” card for foreign terrorists.

          • Centaur927

            Good points, and if this American jihad in Syria had been droned before his suicide attack we’d be seeing Randy on the Senate floor next week filibustering against it.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/american-who-killed-himself-in-syria-suicide-attack-was-from-south-florida-official-says/2014/05/30/03869b6e-e7f4-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

          • hiernonymous

            “Yemen is not the whole world. It is a battlefield in which an Al Qaeda
            has insurgency has killed Americans and America has killed Al Qaeda
            terrorists.”

            Not according to the U.S. government. Here’s the current status of combat zones. You’ll notice that several states were designated as combat zones as a result of the 1991 Gulf War and have not been taken off the list. Even though their continued inclusion as a result of that EO is absurd, that list still does not include Yemen. The Cole attack occurred offshore, and is covered by the designation of the Red Sea as a combat zone. You will note that Yemen is specifically included in the list of states that receive combat zone tax benefits, not as a result of ongoing or previous combat operations, but because the personnel there operate in support of wars elsewhere.

            From the IRS page on the current status of combat zones (emphasis added):

            Combat zones are designated by an Executive Order from the President as areas in which the U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged in combat. There are currently three such combat zones (including the airspace above each):

            Arabian Peninsula Areas, beginning Jan. 17, 1991 — the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, the part of the Arabian Sea north of 10° North latitude and west of 68° East longitude, the Gulf of Aden, and the countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

            Kosovo area, beginning Mar. 24, 1999 — Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea and the Ionian Sea north of the 39th Parallel.

            Afghanistan, beginning Sept. 19, 2001.

            Public Law 104-117 designates three parts of the former Yugoslavia as a Qualified Hazardous Duty Area, to be treated as if it were a combat zone, beginning Nov. 21, 1995 — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Macedonia.

            In addition, the Department of Defense has certified these locations for combat zone tax benefits due to their direct support of military operations, beginning on the listed dates:

            In support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan combat zone):

            Pakistan, Tajikistan and Jordan – Sept. 19, 2001

            Incirlik Air Base, Turkey – Sept. 21, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2005

            Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan – Oct. 1, 2001

            Philippines (only troops with orders referencing Operation Enduring Freedom) – Jan. 9, 2002

            Yemen – Apr. 10, 2002

            Djibouti – July 1, 2002

            Israel – Jan. 1 through July 31, 2003

            Somalia – Jan. 1, 2004

            In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Arabian Peninsula Areas combat zone):

            Turkey – Jan. 1, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2005

            the Mediterranean Sea east of 30° East longitude – Mar. 19 through July 31, 2003

            Jordan – Mar. 19, 2003

            Egypt – Mar. 19 through Apr. 20, 2003

            Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 17-Apr-2014

            So much for “Yemen is a battlefield.”

            “It’s revealing, but unsurprising, that you put the onus for these tactics on the US, rather than Al Qaeda.”

            Yes – it reveals an understanding that responsibility for the decisions of the U.S. government lies with the U.S.

            “We can all be killed now. If we assume that the government is so awful that it’s murdering Americans in the street, it surely won’t be stopped by the law.”

            By that simpleminded line of thought, it is bootless to attempt any checks or balances on the exercise of power. Assuming that placing limits on the powerful is an unreasonable assumption of badwill, or that it is futile, aren’t arguments, but abdications of reason and responsibility. What’s at issue is not whether those in power will misuse their authority; the question is what we have authorized them to do.

            “Sure. All the enemy has to do is use its American members as shields.”

            That’s a dishonest casting of the al Awlaki assassination. He wasn’t simply collateral damage in an otherwise authorized operation; his name was specifically added to a list of targets for killing by the executive branch.

            “You’re the only one having trouble with the Fifth. It’s not a “Get Out of Being Bombed” card for foreign terrorists.”

            Al Awlaki wasn’t, by U.S. law, “foreign.”

  • annie500

    It is time we review the myth of birth right citizenship.Just google birthright citizen ship and read the many articles. Mark Alexander explains it the best. Alien birthright citizenship:A fable that lives through ignorance. Some other people to read, Edward Erler, John C Eastman and Hans von Spakovsky to name a few are also very good. Do any of you think it is O.K. for women to come into this Country to have their babies and then go back to their real home Counties. Read Jennifer Medina Match 28th 2011. It is called maternity tourists. Citizen Hamdi is another great example of the fallacy of birthright citizenship. His parents were here on a temporary visa for a Saudi company. While still an infant he went home to Saudi Arabia and never came and had nothing to do with the U.S. until he bore arms against U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2001. As Saclia stated in his dissent ‘A presumed citizen’.

    Please do some reading about this subject and demand that the Congress start to do their job for the true citizens of this country.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You have a point.