‘Smug Shot’ from the GOP Debate
**Written by Doug Powers
Probably the most talked about exchange from Saturday night’s GOP debate was the Newt Gingrich/Scott Pelley back and forth regarding the sanctioned killing of American born terrorists overseas (the least talked about portion of the debate was the second hour, because not many people could watch it).
Here’s video of the exchange in case you missed it (h/t Newsbusters):
Since Pelley was so eager to participate, Gingrich could have also posed one question on Pelley’s assumption the terrorist killings were against the rule of law: “Are you asking me if President Obama should be charged with a crime?”
CBS missed the real story here: Some GOP candidates for president agree with Barack Obama on something. The MSM finally gets the “bipartisanship” they often report is so hard to find, and all that the anchor of the CBS Evening News can do is lean forward and offer a healthy dose of smug:
In Pelley’s defense, he might have had that look on his face because of all the potential questions for Michele Bachmann he had to keep bottled up.
(Picture and coinage of the term “smug shot” via The Right Scoop)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments‘Prominent’ GOP Senator: If Romney Loses Michigan, We Need a New Candidate
February 20, 2012 05:46 PM by Doug Powers
112 Comments
Dana Perino: Media Blamed Bush for High Gas Prices But Gives Obama a Pass
February 20, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
56 Comments
Obama Campaign Setting Sights on Santorum
February 18, 2012 04:43 PM by Doug Powers
137 CommentsJoseph Kennedy III Announces Run for Barney Frank’s House Seat
February 16, 2012 11:27 AM by Doug Powers
133 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign,Media,Media Bias,Newt Gingrich
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Redstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
Newt is a sharp debater. No question about that.
Newt did a slam up job on this worm, IMO!
Another face for your viewing. This one has a 15K per day make up artist to make her look this way?
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/13/caption-this-22/
L
Absolutely right. I just wish we could trust him.
Yeah. Trust is an issue with most politicians. His track record isn’t very great with even those closest to him.
I unfortunately missed the debate, instead watching my Ducks destroy Stanford.
Sounds like I didn’t miss a whole lot, though.
I would pay good money to watch a Gingrich/Obama debate, to hell with the election, Brian Williams and Brett Bair moderating.
The look on that idiot’s face is not smug at all. He just let a big one go, and can’t blame the dog this time.
Yes indeed.
Looking forward to their dismantling of the Sun Devils in the PAC12 Championship game.
I don’t know why it was unfortunte to miss this debate, aren’t there like another 20 of ‘em before the primaries begin?
Ya know, he sorta reminds me of Red Skelton, without the Red and lacking the comedy.
Newt Rocks!! We need him in some capacity, maybe not POTUS, but we need his talents!! He is smart, articulate and not afraid to speak up!!
THAT’S the Problem! (depending on the ‘something’)
“A person who was found guilty under review”?
Conservatives, you disappoint me. You’re granting the executive branch unilateral power to assassinate American citizens. Better that a terrorist criminal go free than we give the unchecked power of murder to the president.
Pelley is an unaccomplished fool. Did he even graduate from college? He is not qualified to even sit on the panel much less ask any of the candidates a question. As*hat… Looks like he’s on the throne trying to pinch off a chipmunk.
He kind of does! Except I can’t picture this creep saying, “Goodnight, and may God Bless!”
Michelle Bachmann could beat this little man physically and intellectually. He is really embarrassing to watch. Totally unprofessional. He makes Perry look like Ronald Reagan.
Obama doesn’t need permission to murder an American citizen. Just saying…
So if the F16s had gotten to one of the hijacked flights before they hit the WTC, you would have been opposed to shooting them down?
Romney = Romneycare
Perry = “in-state” tuition for illegals
Cain = has too much support for the Fed
Newt is the sharpest guy in this election on either side! I’m not a huge fan, but I’ll take my chances. It might be nice to have someone in the White House that knows what he’s doing for a change.
A person that has declared war on the U.S. should not be able to use his citizenship as a shield. How many foriegn born jihadist would love to be able to obtain U.S. citizenship then? Heck they do it already! Look at the NYC attempted bombing.
I see nothing anticonservative in this view.
It is never murder to kill our avowed enemies on the field of battle. Ahm a lackey chose the wrong side in a war we didn’t start but we must finish.
He chose poorly.
I realize that the candidates have to have debates so the voters can make some sort of choice by their answers. Why do they agree to do debates by those on the left? Why can’t they have a neutral group, if there is such a critter left in our country?
L
On one hand I don’t think we should be coddling Al Queda, but I’m deeply, deeply uncomfortable with the “make up the rules as we go, oh, and they’re top secret and you can’t know what they are” behavior of BOTH parties in these matters. Conservatives are having their patriotism used against them, and are being blinded and duped into supporting changes in government that are the very foundation of socialism and totalitarianism. We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year hunting these people. The cost of a trial is small change in the big scheme of things. We can give them a fair trial and *then* hang them. They’re not even being tried in absentia (never mind the problems with that).
Remember that the “Justice” Department has all ready referred to the Tea Party as a potential terrorist threat when you start getting to dismissive about the rights of terrorists.
It’s time to stand up for the rule of law on these things. Oh, and impeach Obama over it.
Clem Kadiddlehopper’s parasitic twin as it were.
Also, it’s important to mention that we’ve already progressed down this slippery slope. Even if you were to accept the argument that the guy’s a terrorist and joined the enemy and thus loses his rights as a citizen, what about his kid? Is a 16-year-old American citizen who was likely just caught up in his parent’s craziness also just another bomb target?
This isn’t a hypothetical: Obama targeted and killed the kid in a separate strike. This has gotten almost no media attention.
You can put lipstick on a Pacu …..
I hate to say it, but Newt is the best candidate so far. He definitely has issues. But he would make a very good candidate and would wipe the floor with Odumass.
That would be an unpremeditated act of self defense not specifically targeting those citizens not in command of the jet being used as a missile. Collateral damage, not asassination. Unfortunate circumstance due to physical contraints that would not allow for more precision.
There were many American citizens fighting for Germany in WWII. If an American soldier recognized one before he shot him, would he be guilty of murder? Al Awlaki was a dead man walking by lacing himself on a battlefield, and he effectively surrendered his citizenship years ago when he made the choice to kill Americans indiscriminitely.
Notice that Pelley never publicly criticized Obama for the very act he was using to bait Newt during the debate.
Reddog, a college degree is not a sign of intelligence but rather that of an education. Some of our cities parks are full of college grads currently. Pelly’s stupitity comes from his politics not his education.
Happy has it right. I am now leaning Newt/Michelle as a great ticket, for now and the future.
Al Awlaki’s treasonous acts were no secret.
But, to your point, I’d be in favor of a court publicly declaring an erstwhile American Citizen a traitor and an ‘enemy combatant’ on the testimony of at least two witnesses. What happens after that is up to military operational necessity.
Often at least one bad apple in every family.
Fact #7: Regardless of whether he believes it or not, he said it.
And he knows what that means to the Muslim world. He grew up in the world’s most populous Muslim nation (Indonesia). He attended Koran study classes there. He knows what the Shahada means, and that the Muslim world interprets his recitation of the Shahada as an indication that he is a Muslim. They write off his English professions of “I am a Christian” as Taqiyya. They know that he would not have been elected 7 years after 9/11/2001 if he had openly confessed to being a Muslim.
His recitation of the Shahada in Arabic is all the Muslim world needs to know to believe that he is a Muslim.
And the fact that he now occupies the White House brings even more seriousness to the Indonesian title of his book:
An American Expat in Southeast Asia says:
Absolutely true. As Calvin Coolidge said long ago: “… Education will not do it. The world is full of educated derelicts, … persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”
I didn’t even mean to imply the guy was stupid, only that Pelley touts being in the Texas A&M journalism program, but no mention of a degree – a symbol of accomplishment. Just annoyed at his self-inflating puffery, which seems common with those of his political persuasion.
Thanks RP. Strong post. Excellente.
But the identity of the hijackers was unknown. Given that both the origin and destination of the flights in question were within our borders, one could safely assume that the hijackers were citizens.
My point is that it’s naive and dangerous to pretend that citizenship should be some sort of magical shield. I guess liberals still want to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Again, naive and dangerous.
We need to make sure we elect a commander-in-chief who knows the difference between a criminal act and an act of war. That leaves Ron Paul out. He makes it clear every time he opens his mouth that he can’t tell the difference.
Glad I missed it until today. What says a perfectly good weekend down the cr@pper quite like a carefully crafted Prog gotcha’ lecture, practiced in front of a mirror for hours?
Everyone do the Jutt!
I missed the debate, but from what I have seen of the debates and the coverage it looks like Newt is really taking it to the media.
I would love to see Newt as the Press Secretary of a Republican administration. Those press conferences would be priceless.
From the coverage I have seen it looks like Ron Paul got a whole 89 seconds of talking time in this last debate.
John Deaux,
There are Federal Aviation Admin. Regulations that provide guidance as to who and who cannot be in the cockpit of that airliner.
Breach it and you have the ‘right’ to be ventilated. Repeatedly and profusely. How do you like your rights now..? Like Michelle said, we’ve got to get Progs out of the Picking The GOP Candidate Business.
I guess you could file that under Living and Breathing Constitution from a “conservative” perspective. WOW. How far down the path of self destruction we’ve gone.
This was by far the worse republican primary debate to date. It was great to see Major. But the format and time allowance was awful not to mention Pelley injecting himself into the debate. I couldn’t watch the last half hour online, the live feed was terrible. CBS Big Fail.
That’s because he is nucking futz.
i tried to watch the second half, only to never find the link they said was there. perhaps this was part of cbs’ aid to obama, just don’t let anybody see half of the debate.
I’d quicker forgive Cain’s alleged but unproven sexual harassment charges than what Newt did on the couch with Nancy. But there’s no doubt he’s the best prepared of the candidates.
I can’t think of one single reason NOT to kill someone who is trying to kill me. Or who has stated that they are out to kill me. Citizen or not, if they demonstrated their determination to kill me or those I love, I would kill them in a New York minute. Any citizen of the U.S. who goes to another country and declares war on America is a traitor and should be executed by any means necessary. Our country is worth fighting for, worth saving, worth dying for and worth killing for.
Please explain how killing someone who is waging war against the U.S. is open for interpretation? Was Washington wrong for his actions during the Whiskey Rebellion?
I second that motion Marshall. The long term plan must be to reclaim and thoroughly disinfect our public education system. That is where it begins. All of the current crop of Vichy Media were all inculcated with socialist ideology in those schools.
That’s the point. The link was non-functional, or maybe it was a deliberate link to nothing. Either way, they are tools and useful idiot losers.
txvet2 said:
What did they ‘do’ on the couch again? Oh! Oh dear… That. Yes, anything but ‘that’.
Newt and Bachmann would wreck havoc on Obama and the Delaware Dimwit. I like it even more.
Me too!
RedDog,
And we have to shut off all the avenues that make being a Prog so damned easy, and lucrative. Up until very recently it’s been about as ‘difficult’ as water seaking its own level?
Michelle works very hard to bring out the Truth and make this blog a success. Hell, I’ve seen left-leaning housing bubble blogs shoot to a million hits a month simply by having plastered “Bush sucks!” in every article!
The more the inflammatory their feeble assertions.., the more the traffic! Pretty basic formula really?
I would love to hear Newt speak to the legal justification for the Declaration and the Revolution itself. Serious stuff. At some point citizens raised up arms against citizens and pulled the trigger. Consider that for a moment… When are we justified? Even the Founders had to struggle with the enormity of those choices, those decisions. They knew it was of vital importance to sort it out.
No, the difference is that Ron Paul recognizes that the constitution requires prosecuting a war to have a declaration of war. Legally, the U.S. has not entered a war since 1941. We’ve had conflicts, authorized uses of force, and the latest newspeak: “kinetic military action” (as opposed to what? Zen military action? Passive-aggressive military action?). The problem (for the politicians) is that when you go to war there are all sorts of inconvenient rules to follow. They much prefer the “make it up as we go” approach – it avoids uncomfortable debate and taking potentially unpopular stands. So they just sweep it all under the rug with some War Powers Act magic and do whatever they want.
As I mentioned above, I’m not in favor of coddling Al Queda. But this is supposed to be a nation of laws, and Conservatives have run away screaming from this notion. But whining about the difference between an act of war and a criminal act when you lack the courage, fortitude, and integrity to actually declare a war is just pathetic. If some American citizen is so awful that they need to be killed (a premise I can accept) but is somehow impossible to bring to trial (getting shaky), even in absentia (really shaky), and we can’t even have some sort of publicly-auditable process to have their rights as a citizen stripped (not to mention their right to life) – just leave it to the whim of a President and a secret memo written by some secret person… sorry, you’ve departed the Land of the Constitutional and entered the Progressive Land of Shut Up and Obey.
Unfortunately under the theory many leftwingers, and more than a few libertarians, base their politics and policies on both Jefferson and Madison had no clue what was and wasn’t Constitutional and the two wars against the Barbary Pirates were unconstitutional. Under that theory Jefferson should have been impeached and removed from office for ordering the Navy and Marine Corps to conduct offensive military operations against the Barbary States.
Whether we trust Newt or not, he’s the very best Republican to go up against Obastard, and trounce the Jackass-In-Chief in debate forums and otherwise. You know, it’s a shame that the Jackass Party can still control what happens in the Repub Party (witness the Jackass Party support for Romney, and the destruction of a fine man in what they have done to Cain).
John Deaux and happyscrapper said:
It isn’t feasible to send police to arrest American citizens in highly adversarial foreign countries who are actively working with the enemy; we have no jurisdiction. We can’t send military personnel to do it; military shouldn’t be arresting citizens, after all. So as usual, the supposedly “Constitutional” thing to do is nothing.
We can just absorb another attack. And another, and another…
Yeah, except you’re skipping the whole “demonstrated their determination to kill me or those I love” part… and trusting freaking Obama… let me repeat that, you are trusting freaking Obama to make that call. You want to kill people, but you don’t want to declare war. You want to give the power over life and death to a bunch of politicians that you know you can’t trust in any other area… what on earth makes this one so magically different? You people are turning into Progressives… you only want the laws to apply when it’s convenient, and in all other matters just leave things to the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats. You rail against the blank check given the government with TARP – and rightly so! – and yet you are entirely credulous when they ask for a blank check on the power to take life. This, from that party that calls itself pro-Constitution and pro-life….
Well said.
What’s with this ‘not trusting Newt’ stuff? He carries baggage – just as all of us carry baggage. He makes mistakes – just as all of us make mistakes. But what I see from exchanges like this is the man never gives pat answers he believes will score him political points (the hallmark characteristic of a politician). He never acquiesces to a media point (please stop referring to the liberal media as ‘mainstream’ – I am writing this from ‘flyover country’, and there is nothing at all ‘mainstream’ about these people). The man makes declarative statements based upon what he believes.
Newt showed the country he can own the liberals in debate. Like a WW Smack Down!
I wish he had used better judgement about reaching over the isle to the left. It doesn’t sit well with some of us.
I’m not arguing that the US cannot defend itself from immediate action on citizens taking up with the enemy. I’m espousing the same arugument that Ron Paul is trying to make. That the specific targeting for asassination of a US citizen should have Congressional oversight and debate and not just the purvue of the Executive branch. Dangerous road this is if we’re all deemed enemies of the State by mere fact we don’t agree with the current King’s politics. Just sayin is all.
I copied this as posted by NL207 on NewsBusters…..
So how do you do that with hundreds if not thousands of “Americans” overseas fighting jihad against America? A thousand OJ trials or a thousand kangaroo courts or just a routine rubber stamp just so long as it is a “publicly-auditable process”? Legally revoke their citizenship then give the order to blow them away? Either way you have a government hit list.
As I said earlier, lots of Americans fought for Nazi Germany and there was no dispensation for them when an old American neighbor recognized them over his gun sight? How long was the trial for deserters even? One was actually executed in WWII. I guarantee they did not agonize over it.
Of course we can. We extradite and prosecute people from other countries all of the time. We could have taken him alive, just like we could have taken bin Laden alive. The Yemeni government was fully informed of the air strike ahead of time; their leader even returned to the country right beforehand to be there to deal with the fallout. Instead, we lose the chance to interrogate these people, gather intelligence (or in the Bin Laden case, blow the intelligence by immediately announcing the operation), and put them on trial to demonstrate to the world that we can play by the rules and still win.
The military can’t arrest people, but it can blow them to smithereens? That’s not a moral argument I’d be caught dead supporting… Anyway, isn’t the whole argument here that he’s no longer a citizen? And that’s not saying the Yemeni’s can’t arrest him and deport him.
Absolutely wrong. In fact, the Constitution has a very specific remedy for situations like this – when non-state entities commit or threaten acts of violence against American citizens and interests, but as usual the politicians pretend it’s not there and the people (sadly, even Conservatives) don’t know enough about the Constitution to call them on it. It’s right there, in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11: Congress has the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.
What this means is that Congress can grant bounties to private organizations (mercenaries, or as we call them these days, “security firms”) to capture or kill specific people, subject to the rules of warfare (no killing innocent civilians, etc). This is especially useful in lawless areas – where there is no real government (Afghanistan) or the government is so terrified of violent elements in its population that it can’t enforce its own laws (most of the rest of the Middle East). Could you imagine a private company taking 10 years to find Bin Laden? Personally, I think we would have had him in under a year – and we wouldn’t have lost 5,000 American troops and trillions of dollars in the process. Naturally, Ron Paul was the only one to suggest this. Instead, we engage in a massive invasion that was incredibly expensive in both lives and money… while our “allies” (that we gave even more billions of dollars to) wound up hiding him. The government can’t even hunt terrorists right… why don’t conservatives support outsourcing this? Are you sure you’re the party of small government? It sure doesn’t seem that way some times….
I don’t have any problem with Awlaki being tried in absentia, or by military tribunal, or by some other process that allows for oversight. What I’m saying is that once someone takes up arms against the U.S., they lose their civil rights.
You cannot loose the right to trial by simply
The critera is clear…read the law…
Bingo. Now, does George Soros fit… ?
I’d bet that the very thought of Newt debating Obama sends shivers down the backs of liberals. I didn’t say “spines” because they don’t have one.
If they’re on a battlefield, shoot them. If they’re not, and it’s reasonably possible, arrest them.
So you’re arguing that we should do away for murder trials, and trust prosecutorial discretion in all cases with no right of appeal (kinda hard to appeal things when you’re dead), just because some celebrity got away with it?
There’s a difference between a hit list with some due process attached to it (still shaky), and a hit list that’s based on bureaucratic whim. You’d think a “Conservative” would understand this.
Again, there’s a difference between events that happen in combat on a battlefield (mainly, you’re being shot directly at), and those what occur from 30,000 feet up at people who probably aren’t even holding a gun. Just like police aren’t allowed to shoot suspects unless they’re being shot at.
Yeah, but he got a trial. And if the evidence is so overwhelming that it can be a short trial, that’s fine, as long as it’s a fair trial and it’s by the book. What you’re arguing here is that you’re really really mad and because of that we can do away with the rules. And I’m saying that when people set precedents when they’re really, really mad (even if the anger is completely justified), they’re setting themselves up for some nasty business down the road.
It’s pretty simple, really. When it comes to choosing between principle and power, Newt seems to prefer the power choice. Some examples include siding with Nancy Pelosi on Global Warming (which is just a power play masquerading as environmentalism), supporting full blown RINO Dede Scozasomething, etc.
I think Newt would make a fabulous press secretary (he might even be able to rival Tony Snow). I just don’t trust him to make principled decisions for the benefit of the country over extending the power of big [Republican style] government.
Dude, if you’re going to quote law and tell us to read it, please be sure you read it first… You actually just wound up making my point for me, thank you very much.
They retain the right to take cover, runaway and to return fire.
I would dearly love to see what would happen to the smug look on Perry’s face when enemy combatants whose rights he’s so deeply concerned about are coming for his family. Ya think he would defend them? Pffft, right.
“HAAAAALP!! HAAAALP!! Somebody shoot ‘em!”
Question: If a country or group of terrorists or whatever, declare war on US, do we have to officially declare war on THEM in order to kill them? Or can we just defend ourselves? Inquiring minds want to know!
Please do tell me what the constituition says is a declaration of war?
While you at it, tell me whether or not you think it is legal for Jefferson to have sent our troops to the shores of Tripoli after the Barbary Coast Pirates without any declaration of war?
I’ve always liked Newt. I’m taking a second look at him for president based on how smart he is and how I think he is the one candidate that can absolutely destroy Obama one-on-one (well, I think Cain could wipe the floor with Obama too, and I like Cain, but I’m not so sure he’s ready for “prime time”.)
I definitely agree with EWTHeckman’s comment about Newt taking the “power choices” sometimes over principle. He’s very much a gamer in how he picks his battles– and that can chafe a lot of us conservatives who stick to our ideals.
Still, it’s not going to matter that we nominate someone who passes all of our idealogical litmus tests if they can’t beat Obama (who is awful, but has the entire media propping him up).
At this point, the most important thing is getting Obama out of office. I’d vote for just about anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich to make that happen.
I thought that American terrorist had renounced his U.S. citizenship and become a citizen of Yemen. Anyone know about this?
Once someone takes up arms against the U.S. they can lose their civil rights – if an appropriate court decides that’s the case. We have a process for that. If a guy is actually that bad, there is a clear path to justice. We’re just objecting to the immoral and unconstitutional shortcuts, and granting one person too much power. You’d think a “conservative” could go along with that.
A lot have people have said that he effectively renounced his citizenship by joining Al Queda, but “a lot of people saying things” doesn’t have any legal force unless there are ballots involved.
He did have dual US-Yemeni citizenship, which may be a point of confusion.
ErikTheRed, I have a quick question and I am not trying to be condescending in the least bit I really want to know.
Have you ever served in the military?
The reason I ask is that people who have served in the military (especially in a combat arms MOS) understand a little something called actionable intelligence. It could very well be that in the case of this guy it was a case that they new where and when he was going to be. These opportunities do not always present themselves and you must act quickly. The longer you take to decide the more likely you loose the ability to act. To see what I mean just look up all the missed opportunities to get Bin Laden in the 90′s under Clinton. He either choose not to act or waited to long to decide to act and that led to the loss of being able to act (which left Bin Laden free to plan and execute 9/11).
Just a little something to think about in this debate.
Newt would beat Obama, no question about it. If he had Cain or Rubio as VP, we would be guaranteed a landslide. I am even more convinced after hearing Bob Beckel say he hopes we nominate Newt. In other words, if a flaming moonbat like Beckel says Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama, and Newt would guarantee an Obama win…just assume the opposite. They want to run against Romney because he is a BAD candidate, but Newt would demolish mr. uh, uh, uh, obama. You can’t bring a teleprompter to a debate. Newt does not need one. Obama does.
Pretty easy. They pass a declaration saying we’re at war. Hasn’t happened in 70 years.
It was legally and constitutionally problematic, Jefferson was deeply concerned and disturbed by this, and on several occasions begged Congress for a proper declaration of war. The best he could get was an “authorization [for] the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli ‘and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.’” [Tom Woods, in an essay Presidential War Powers]
So, no, that was not really done by the book, and Jefferson wasn’t at all happy about it even though it was pretty close. Sadly, Congress abdicating its proper role and playing hot-potato with contentious issues has a long and inglorious history.
These days, we have the same problem, minus any real or pretended reluctance from the Executive branch.
Let’s say a terrorist becomes a citizen. What a great racket. I wonder if it’s been done?
Would Newt be meek enough to listen to Cain on national matters that affected business? If he would, what a great combo! Newt-Cain!
(hmmm, unfortunately sounds like an amphibian……um, back to the drawing-board.
So where in the Constitution does it say what is considered an official declaration of war?
Article 1 Section 8 states that the Legislature has the power to declare war, but it does not have any written requirements what a formal declaration of war is. If Congress authorizes the use of troops in a military action to kill the enemy of our country that is still a declaration of war as that would be deemed an act of war.
As for what you stated about Jefferson you are only half correct. He refused to use the forces for anything but defense until Congress passed an act authorizing him to use the forces for more than just defense.
No, I’ve not, but I do understand the concept of actionable intelligence. But we knew his location far enough in advance to give the Yemeni president a substantial amount of ‘heads-up’ lead time, so I’m not sure what your argument is here. This wasn’t a hair-trigger decision. There might be a hypothetical case to be made if it was a hair-trigger decision, and the proper legal channels had been navigated (stripping citizenship, trial in absentia – I could go along with this in certain very extreme circumstances). But this isn’t a hypothetical case.
I should mention now that the law has been changed so that if a person is declared a terrorist they can no longer be represented by an attorney – which makes trial in absentia more or less impossible.
I’ll concede that this is a relatively new form of warfare and that new rules may need to be written. But I will not concede that the President has the right to kill whomever he wants based on a secret process and a secret finding.
Another point, if you want to look at this from a military intelligence perspective – any information he was carrying on his person or in his head was also blown up. My personal opinion (for whatever it’s worth) is that this was done more to get some positive press for Obama rather than for its strategic or tactical military value. Just like Obama blew the usefulness of the intelligence gathered in the Bin Laden raid just so he could get a quick boost in the polls (and I would have loved to have seen Bin Laden on trial and then stuck in front of a firing squad).
Even with the problems in Newt’s past, it would be nice, just once, to vote for the smartest person in the room. Who has spent conciderable time on practical solutions to the big problems. Who isn’t as afraid he might tick someone off with the right answer.
wrcnossen–Yes, yes it would!
When was the last time a court acted in hours instead of weeks? How would a court be convened and Alawaki be able to present his defense or even have somone present a defense for him? If you are going to go by rule of law then those things would have to be taken into consideration.
And how exactly were we to get Alawaki? Sure the Yemeni President was informed, but it does not mean that he would give a “green light” to allow US forces to go in and grab him and his own police force and military were not going to go grab him for us. As for the Bin Laden raid I am not going to second guess the SEALs on the ground. If they felt they needed to kill Bin Laden then I am not going to question rather it would have been better to capture him alive. We were not there and we have no way of knowing if it was or was not plausible to capture Bin Laden alive.
OT, but here’s a shocker!
A good example:
Just three paragraphs, and it got us into WWII. Was that so hard?
I know it can be argued that this is semantic quibbling, but I would argue that Congress (and, often, the President) want to have it both ways – obey the various laws associated with war time when its convenient, and ignore them when it’s not – essentially manufacturing a gray area.
As I mentioned above, war is changing and rules probably need to be updated to reflect this. But something as serious as that should absolutely not be handled in secret and based on … well, we don’t know what it’s based on because it’s secret.
I have a second objection to the lack of a formal declaration, and this one is just my personal opinion: I think it dishonors the troops. These guys are getting killed and maimed (and while I’ve not been in the military, I do live in an area with a lot of Marines and many of my good friends have seen action in Iraq and Afghanistan), and Congress won’t even do them the honor of really acknowledging what they’re doing – they feel OK wrapping it in newspeak and innuendo (like I said above, “kinetic military action?!??”). But that’s not a legal or technical argument, just my $.02.
They didn’t just find out who he was and what he was up to at that exact moment. This was known for a very long time, more than enough to dot i’s and cross t’s. Back then he could have been tried in absentia, although as I’ve mentioned now the rules have been changed to make this impossible (how convenient).
So you’re saying they let us drop a freaking bomb on their country, but wouldn’t allow us a little snatch ‘n grab? I find that a bit hard to swallow – especially since a snatch ‘n grab might have been done more quietly and with less political fallout. And yes, he might have been killed in the process (like Bin Laden). Or he might not have been. We’ll never know now. As to whether or not his police force or military could do it, I can’t say – but if you have evidence one way or the other I’d consider it.
I didn’t say it wasn’t (I wasn’t there either, and I’m willing to take the SEALs at their world), I did say earlier that it would have been nice to capture him, and I directly said here that Obama seriously devalued the operation for political gain.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but how could it be even remotely possible for the U.S. (through congress) to declare war against every individual terrorist that has declared war against us?
I will agree – to a point – that the President should not be the sole judge of who dies and who doesn’t. Perhaps one of the many Congressional Commitees could act as a balance.
However, in this particular case there was and is NO doubt that this individual declared his intention to kill Americans.
The evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to look. This case is like when a person robs a bank in front of 50 witnesses, is caught on video tape and then openly confesses to the crime – then somehow once apprehended suddenly only becomes a suspect. There is no good reason to risk a single American life in taking him down.
What, you didn’t see Obowmao’s Photoshopped BC?
This is the problematic, what I call “Ron Paul” thinking that plagues modern America.
The Yemeni President is not in the TOC. He has no say in what our military does. If he objects, he can discuss the matter with Satan in short order.
That’s a problematic area, but seeing as how they didn’t bother declaring war on Iraq or Afghanistan, which are countries, I’m not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. As I mentioned above, the avenue of Letters of Marque and Reprisal would be a better vehicle – they were specifically intended for use against individuals and groups (mostly pirates, back in the day). They also allow for some sneakier behavior in cases when a target is in a country that you don’t want to invade, as long as you’re not hurting civilians / noncombatants, gratuitously destroying private property, etc.
As mentioned above, there’s already a legal avenue for stripping citizenship, and there used to be a process for trial in absentia (but that’s been taken out). I personally wouldn’t object to a military tribunal, but there are plenty of people that would insist it should be handled in civilian courts. Heck, in the case of somebody who not only confessed but openly bragged about committing terrorist acts you could even consider bringing back the concept of “outlawry” (where somebody was so awful they were considered to be outside the protection of the law). Again, this is why there should be some serious thought and discussion put into how the laws should work with terrorists. Bush and Obama have both skipped this uncomfortable step.
Exactly. So what’s the problem with getting a court to sign off on such an easy and obvious case?
Yeah, but last I checked our legal system we don’t respond by dropping a bomb on them. Although I don’t watch that much TV, so I may have missed something.
And if that’s the case, get a court to sign off on it. They were hunting this guy for months at the very least. This could have been done.
So if a major Irish terrorist supported was hiding in the United States and the United States refused to cooperate and extradite him, then England would be justified in dropping a bomb on a home in Boston – and bomb the White House if the President objected? Before you answer, consider that this is not a hypothetical case.
Heck, we have a former IRA fundraiser sitting in the House of Representatives right now.
The only possible justification I can imagine for your thinking is that the US can do whatever it wants, because might makes right. That’s a bit… Neanderthal.
I’d like the media to stop selecting the party candidates before the public has gotten to vote. After we clean out DC, the media is next followed by education system which created all the liberal morons we have running things.