<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rand Paul&#8217;s Dishonesty About Anwar Al-Awlaki and Drones</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5427803</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2014 03:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5427803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Posts were approved and available for your reading pleasure.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Posts were approved and available for your reading pleasure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5424231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2014 16:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5424231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My response is being held for approval by FPM; I&#039;ve had several deleted recently.  I&#039;m splitting my response into two parts in hopes one or more actually gets published:

&quot;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&#039;s inconvenient for your argument.&quot;

You&#039;re simply being incoherent here.  The Fifth applies to al Awlaki because he is a U.S. citizen, not because he is &quot;under the power&quot; 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 &quot;being under the power&quot; of the legal system.  I&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My response is being held for approval by FPM; I&#8217;ve had several deleted recently.  I&#8217;m splitting my response into two parts in hopes one or more actually gets published:</p>
<p>&#8220;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&#8217;s inconvenient for your argument.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re simply being incoherent here.  The Fifth applies to al Awlaki because he is a U.S. citizen, not because he is &#8220;under the power&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>You then tried to extend that argument by claiming that being the target of a drone strike is<br />
equivalent to &#8220;being under the power&#8221; of the legal system.  I&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5424219</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2014 16:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5424219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;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&#039;s a battlefield.&quot;

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.

&quot;Killing Al Qaeda leaders had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda.

Is that the argument you&#039;re going with?&quot;


It&#039;s not the argument I made, so I can&#039;t imagine why you&#039;d conclude that it&#039;s the argument that I&#039;m &quot;going with.&quot;


If you&#039;re struggling with the term &quot;troops in contact,&quot; let me know, and I&#039;ll help you with the terminology.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If the US has been attacked by an enemy force and has taken sides in an<br />
armed conflict and has killed and been killed, it&#8217;s a battlefield.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not in this country.  In the U.S., combat zones are designated by Executive Order.  Yemen has not been so designated.  The Red Sea &#8211; where the Cole was attacked &#8211; has been so designated.</p>
<p>&#8220;Killing Al Qaeda leaders had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>Is that the argument you&#8217;re going with?&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not the argument I made, so I can&#8217;t imagine why you&#8217;d conclude that it&#8217;s the argument that I&#8217;m &#8220;going with.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re struggling with the term &#8220;troops in contact,&#8221; let me know, and I&#8217;ll help you with the terminology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5424217</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2014 16:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5424217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;My claim is that targeting Al Qaeda is Constitutional. &quot;

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

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 &lt;i&gt;only against AQ and associates.&lt;/i&gt;  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&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;My claim is that targeting Al Qaeda is Constitutional. &#8221;</p>
<p>No.  That may be your revised claim, but here was your original claim:  &#8221; the AMUF [sic] only authorizes attacks against members of Al Qaeda and assorted associates.&#8221;</p>
<p>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 <i>only against AQ and associates.</i>  That was plainly incorrect.  The AUMF authorizes attacks against anyone that the Executive determines was involved in the attacks.</p>
<p>Concerning your newly revised claim:</p>
<p>EO 12333 originally prohibited assassination.  As revised following 9/11, assassination is now permitted.  You&#8217;re quite correct in noting that there is no obvious constitutional barrier to assassinating members of AQ.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5424213</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2014 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5424213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;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.&quot;

Not according to the U.S. government.  Here&#039;s the current status of combat zones.  You&#039;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):

&lt;blockquote&gt;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.  &lt;b&gt;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.&lt;/b&gt;

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&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So much for &quot;Yemen is a battlefield.&quot;

&quot;It&#039;s revealing, but unsurprising, that you put the onus for these tactics on the US, rather than Al Qaeda.&quot;

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

&quot;We can all be killed now. If we assume that the government is so awful that it&#039;s murdering Americans in the street, it surely won&#039;t be stopped by the law.&quot;

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&#039;t arguments, but abdications of reason and responsibility.  What&#039;s at issue is not whether those in power will misuse their authority; the question is what we have authorized them to do.  

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

That&#039;s a dishonest casting of the al Awlaki assassination.  He wasn&#039;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.  

&quot;You&#039;re the only one having trouble with the Fifth. It&#039;s not a &quot;Get Out of Being Bombed&quot; card for foreign terrorists.&quot;


Al Awlaki wasn&#039;t, by U.S. law, &quot;foreign.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Yemen is not the whole world. It is a battlefield in which an Al Qaeda<br />
has insurgency has killed Americans and America has killed Al Qaeda<br />
terrorists.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not according to the U.S. government.  Here&#8217;s the current status of combat zones.  You&#8217;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.</p>
<p>From the IRS page on the current status of combat zones (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote><p>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.  <b>There are currently three such combat zones (including the airspace above each):</p>
<p>Arabian Peninsula Areas, beginning Jan. 17, 1991 &#8212; 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.</p>
<p>Kosovo area, beginning Mar. 24, 1999 &#8212; Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea and the Ionian Sea north of the 39th Parallel.</p>
<p>Afghanistan, beginning Sept. 19, 2001.</b></p>
<p>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 &#8212; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Macedonia.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>     In support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan combat zone):</p>
<p>Pakistan, Tajikistan and Jordan &#8211; Sept. 19, 2001</p>
<p>Incirlik Air Base, Turkey &#8211; Sept. 21, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2005</p>
<p>Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan &#8211; Oct. 1, 2001</p>
<p>Philippines (only troops with orders referencing Operation Enduring Freedom) &#8211; Jan. 9, 2002</p>
<p>Yemen &#8211; Apr. 10, 2002</p>
<p>Djibouti &#8211; July 1, 2002</p>
<p>Israel &#8211; Jan. 1 through July 31, 2003</p>
<p>Somalia &#8211; Jan. 1, 2004</p>
<p>     In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Arabian Peninsula Areas combat zone):</p>
<p>Turkey &#8211; Jan. 1, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2005</p>
<p>the Mediterranean Sea east of 30° East longitude &#8211; Mar. 19 through July 31, 2003</p>
<p>Jordan &#8211; Mar. 19, 2003</p>
<p>Egypt &#8211; Mar. 19 through Apr. 20, 2003</p>
<p>		Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 17-Apr-2014</p></blockquote>
<p>So much for &#8220;Yemen is a battlefield.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s revealing, but unsurprising, that you put the onus for these tactics on the US, rather than Al Qaeda.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes &#8211; it reveals an understanding that responsibility for the decisions of the U.S. government lies with the U.S.  </p>
<p>&#8220;We can all be killed now. If we assume that the government is so awful that it&#8217;s murdering Americans in the street, it surely won&#8217;t be stopped by the law.&#8221;</p>
<p>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&#8217;t arguments, but abdications of reason and responsibility.  What&#8217;s at issue is not whether those in power will misuse their authority; the question is what we have authorized them to do.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Sure. All the enemy has to do is use its American members as shields.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a dishonest casting of the al Awlaki assassination.  He wasn&#8217;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.  </p>
<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re the only one having trouble with the Fifth. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;Get Out of Being Bombed&#8221; card for foreign terrorists.&#8221;</p>
<p>Al Awlaki wasn&#8217;t, by U.S. law, &#8220;foreign.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Centaur927</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5424169</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Centaur927]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2014 11:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5424169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good points, and if this American jihad in Syria had been droned before his suicide attack we&#039;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]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good points, and if this American jihad in Syria had been droned before his suicide attack we&#8217;d be seeing Randy on the Senate floor next week filibustering against it.</p>
<p><a href="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" rel="nofollow">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</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5423886</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 19:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5423886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.

&quot;We&#039;ve never before tried to define the whole world as a battlefield and everyone in it as a combatant.&quot;

It&#039;s revealing, but unsurprising, that you put the onus for these tactics on the US, rather than Al Qaeda.

&quot;If it does not apply, then we may all be killed by our government at the executive&#039;s will.&quot;

We can all be killed now. If we assume that the government is so awful that it&#039;s murdering Americans in the street, it surely won&#039;t be stopped by the law.

&quot;And absolutely nothing about this case would make war impossible, or even more difficult.&quot;

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

&quot;What applying these protections makes more difficult is cutting corners on police work.&quot;

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

&quot;It&#039;s interesting that people who seem to find the Second Amendment so plain and clear have so much difficulty with the Fifth.&quot;


You&#039;re the only one having trouble with the Fifth. It&#039;s not a &quot;Get Out of Being Bombed&quot; card for foreign terrorists.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Fifth dealt with penalties, not with a battlefield conflict.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>&#8220;We&#8217;ve never before tried to define the whole world as a battlefield and everyone in it as a combatant.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s revealing, but unsurprising, that you put the onus for these tactics on the US, rather than Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>&#8220;If it does not apply, then we may all be killed by our government at the executive&#8217;s will.&#8221;</p>
<p>We can all be killed now. If we assume that the government is so awful that it&#8217;s murdering Americans in the street, it surely won&#8217;t be stopped by the law.</p>
<p>&#8220;And absolutely nothing about this case would make war impossible, or even more difficult.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sure. All the enemy has to do is use its American members as shields.</p>
<p>&#8220;What applying these protections makes more difficult is cutting corners on police work.&#8221;</p>
<p>Terrorists leading conflicts abroad are not subject to policing. But then your guy sent the FBI to Benghazi.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s interesting that people who seem to find the Second Amendment so plain and clear have so much difficulty with the Fifth.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re the only one having trouble with the Fifth. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;Get Out of Being Bombed&#8221; card for foreign terrorists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5423881</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 19:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5423881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My claim is that targeting Al Qaeda is Constitutional. You claim that the president can abuse the AUMF. 


It&#039;s a secondary concern that fails to prove that attacking Al Qaeda terrorists is unconstitutional...


...unless you want to go full Truther.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My claim is that targeting Al Qaeda is Constitutional. You claim that the president can abuse the AUMF. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a secondary concern that fails to prove that attacking Al Qaeda terrorists is unconstitutional&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8230;unless you want to go full Truther.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5423880</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 19:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5423880</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;s a battlefield.

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

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

Is that the argument you&#039;re going with?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Texas had a large armed Muslim insurgency, your analogy might not be completely foolish.</p>
<p>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&#8217;s a battlefield.</p>
<p>&#8221; Dropping missiles in the hinterlands of Yemen had exactly nothing to do with supporting troops in contact&#8221;</p>
<p>Killing Al Qaeda leaders had nothing to do with fighting Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>Is that the argument you&#8217;re going with?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5423879</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 19:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5423879</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t mean that if you join a foreign army, you can&#039;t be bombed from the air.


If it meant that, WW2 would have been impossible.


Tapping Merkel&#039;s cell phone wouldn&#039;t have been a constitutional violation even if she were a US citizen.


See the El Hage case, another one of your Jihadist &quot;citizens&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;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&#8217;s inconvenient for your argument. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has already held that the Fifth Amendment applies to persons irrespective of citizenship.</p>
<p>The Fifth Amendment refers to criminal action being penalized without due legal proceedings. It doesn&#8217;t mean that if you join a foreign army, you can&#8217;t be bombed from the air.</p>
<p>If it meant that, WW2 would have been impossible.</p>
<p>Tapping Merkel&#8217;s cell phone wouldn&#8217;t have been a constitutional violation even if she were a US citizen.</p>
<p>See the El Hage case, another one of your Jihadist &#8220;citizens&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WilliamRD</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422371</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WilliamRD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 13:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now he&#039;s a brat. You are a disgrace  and John Brennan did say it]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now he&#8217;s a brat. You are a disgrace  and John Brennan did say it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422133</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 04:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;A terrorist being droned is arguably under the power of agents of the state.&quot;

If an individual is under the power of agents of the state, then there&#039;s no reason that he can&#039;t be brought in for questioning and trial.  If he can&#039;t be brought in, he&#039;s not under the power of agents of the state.

&quot;Either everyone is subject to due process or they aren&#039;t.&quot;

It&#039;s the latter - not everyone is subject to due process.  Non U.S. persons don&#039;t automatically have the right to due process &lt;i&gt;under the Fifth Amendment.&lt;/i&gt;  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&#039;s a military officer rather than a police officer who is doing the depriving.  

There are any number of constitutional protections that don&#039;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&#039;s cell phone was a faux pas, not a constitutional violation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A terrorist being droned is arguably under the power of agents of the state.&#8221;</p>
<p>If an individual is under the power of agents of the state, then there&#8217;s no reason that he can&#8217;t be brought in for questioning and trial.  If he can&#8217;t be brought in, he&#8217;s not under the power of agents of the state.</p>
<p>&#8220;Either everyone is subject to due process or they aren&#8217;t.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the latter &#8211; not everyone is subject to due process.  Non U.S. persons don&#8217;t automatically have the right to due process <i>under the Fifth Amendment.</i>  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&#8217;s a military officer rather than a police officer who is doing the depriving.  </p>
<p>There are any number of constitutional protections that don&#8217;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&#8217;s cell phone was a faux pas, not a constitutional violation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422124</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 03:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Cole attack doesn&#039;t make Yemen a &quot;battlefield&quot; any more than MAJ Hassan&#039;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&#039;ve been on a few battlefields and Aden certainly wasn&#039;t one.  



I can&#039;t imagine why you&#039;d think a conversation with Kirk Lippold would be a daunting prospect; perhaps you&#039;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 &quot;war&quot; is an Orwellian undertaking that serves no purpose other than to make easy things that should be difficult.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Cole attack doesn&#8217;t make Yemen a &#8220;battlefield&#8221; any more than MAJ Hassan&#8217;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&#8217;ve been on a few battlefields and Aden certainly wasn&#8217;t one.  </p>
<p>I can&#8217;t imagine why you&#8217;d think a conversation with Kirk Lippold would be a daunting prospect; perhaps you&#8217;re easily intimidated.  </p>
<p>Bottom line is that the U.S. was fighting two wars at the time &#8211; 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 &#8220;war&#8221; is an Orwellian undertaking that serves no purpose other than to make easy things that should be difficult.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422114</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 03:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.  </p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422107</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 03:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not sure why you think I&#039;ve &quot;conceded&quot; that this is not a legal proceeding.  You don&#039;t seem to have been following the point at all. Nothing in the Fifth limits it to legal proceedings.  It reads &quot;...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.&quot;   I&#039;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.

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

We&#039;ve never before tried to define the whole world as a battlefield and everyone in it as a combatant.  There was no &quot;combat&quot; 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.

&quot;If it did apply, war would become impossible.&quot;

If it does not apply, then we may all be killed by our government at the executive&#039;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&#039;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 &quot;...shall not be infringed&quot; 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 &quot;...nor be deprived....&quot;  It does not read &quot;...nor be deprived, unless it makes things hard for our intelligence staffs.&quot;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure why you think I&#8217;ve &#8220;conceded&#8221; that this is not a legal proceeding.  You don&#8217;t seem to have been following the point at all. Nothing in the Fifth limits it to legal proceedings.  It reads &#8220;&#8230;nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.&#8221;   I&#8217;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 &#8211; and nothing in the amendment suggests that that right only obtains if the process by which that deprivation is initiated occurs in the courts.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Fifth has never been held to apply to a military engagement with an enemy combatant on a battlefield.&#8221;</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve never before tried to define the whole world as a battlefield and everyone in it as a combatant.  There was no &#8220;combat&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>&#8220;If it did apply, war would become impossible.&#8221;</p>
<p>If it does not apply, then we may all be killed by our government at the executive&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>It&#8217;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 &#8220;&#8230;shall not be infringed&#8221; 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 &#8220;&#8230;nor be deprived&#8230;.&#8221;  It does not read &#8220;&#8230;nor be deprived, unless it makes things hard for our intelligence staffs.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422076</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 02:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422076</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Americans, resident aliens and even illegal aliens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property... in a legal proceeding.

As you&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Americans, resident aliens and even illegal aliens may not be deprived of life, liberty or property&#8230; in a legal proceeding.</p>
<p>As you&#8217;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.</p>
<p>The Fifth has never been held to apply to a military engagement with an enemy combatant on a battlefield.</p>
<p>If it did apply, war would become impossible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422070</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 02:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422070</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;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.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re raising secondary questions about possible abuses that are not the issue here. </p>
<p>Have we droned the Pope? Are we about to?</p>
<p>Why not deal with the issue instead of throwing up more pointless distractions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422067</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 02:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[US forces are engaged in hostilities in Yemen. There is an active conflict in which the United States is involved.


You&#039;ll have to take that up with the commanding Officer of the Cole.


I&#039;m not him and he is a formidable guy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>US forces are engaged in hostilities in Yemen. There is an active conflict in which the United States is involved.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ll have to take that up with the commanding Officer of the Cole.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not him and he is a formidable guy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422068</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 02:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422068</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I meant to write Al Qaeda, but that worked out even better.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant to write Al Qaeda, but that worked out even better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Greenfield</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/rand-pauls-dishonesty-about-anwar-al-awlaki-and-drones/comment-page-1/#comment-5422065</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 02:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=226033#comment-5422065</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;re trying to create a shifting category that doesn&#039;t exist in real life.

Either everyone is subject to due process or they aren&#039;t.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More goal posts. </p>
<p>A terrorist being droned is arguably under the power of agents of the state.</p>
<p>Agents of the state have participated in the interrogation of terrorists in foreign countries. </p>
<p>You&#8217;re trying to create a shifting category that doesn&#8217;t exist in real life.</p>
<p>Either everyone is subject to due process or they aren&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 784/871 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 23:32:09 by W3 Total Cache -->