of the Administration's stance and his own unprincipled position
There has been long debate in the US over the question whether efforts against various terrorists should be conducted by using war powers or by using the criminal justice system. The current administration has repeatedly indicated a preference for using the criminal justice whenever possible, most recently exhibited by the prosecution of Suleiman Abu Ghaith:
In US court, bin Laden relative denies plot charge
By REUTERS
03/08/2013 21:45
Son-in-law of bin Laden, charged with conspiring to kill Americans, becoming one of highest-ranking al-Qaida figures to face trial in US for crimes connected to 9/11 attacks.
... The son-in-law of bin Laden, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was killed by US forces in Pakistan in 2011, was captured on Feb. 28 and brought secretly into the United States on March 1, prosecutors said in court ...
The prior administration, of course, always preferred a military response, and Republicans continue to oppose use of the criminal justice justice system:
Republicans Decry Obama’s Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspect in Civilian Court
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/republicans-decry-obamas-decision-to-try-al-qaeda-suspects-in-civilian-court
John Parkinson
Mary Bruce
Mar 8, 2013 4:12pm
... “Abu Ghaith has sworn to kill Americans and he likely possesses information that could prevent harm to America and its allies,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in a statement. “He is an enemy combatant and should be held in military custody.” The White House claimed there was a “broad consensus” across the federal government, from the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, to prosecute OBL’s son-in-law in civilian court. “The intelligence community agrees that the best way to protect our national security interests is to prosecute Abu Ghaith in an Article III court,” Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today ...
Republican opposition has frequently been able to prevent use of the criminal justice system:
Congress Bars Gitmo Transfers
December 23, 2010
By PETER LANDERS
Congress on Wednesday passed legislation that would effectively bar the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trial, rejecting pleas from Obama administration officials who called the move unwise. A defense authorization bill passed by the House and Senate included the language on the offshore prison, which President Barack Obama tried unsuccessfully to close in his first year in office ...
Differing standards apply to military operations and standard criminal prosecutions. In particular, the targets of criminal prosecution enjoy certain definitive rights; in comparison, the "rights" of military targets are considerably diminished. In determining what constitutes a "proper" military target, we should at least ask whether the military operation has been lawfully authorized, which involves consideration of Congressional acts. Congress has repeatedly authorized military operations against al-Qaeda. In determining whether a military operation is appropriate against alleged al-Qaeda operatives, we might also consider prospects for bringing the person into custody for criminal prosecutions. The administration was able to bring abu Ghaith into custody and did so; however, the administration concluded that it could not bring bin Laden and al-Awlaki into custody and therefore proceeded militarily. The current administration has never claimed any blanket authority for military operations against any target whatsoever that it may choose: it has noticed that Congress authorized military operations against al-Qaeda, and it cannot fail to have noticed that Congress has in some cases insisted that terrorist suspects be handled militarily rather than by the ordinary criminal justice system
There is certainly such a thing as principled opposition to warfare, and I consider such principled opposition honorable. War inevitably involves the death of innocents, among whom we should probably count al-Awlaki's 16yo son Abdulrahman. The death of innocents is tragic and constitutes a good argument against war
Similarly, I do not doubt that there are good arguments against the use of drones: for example, there is reason to expect that civilian populations subject to drone attacks will resent the drones and despise those who employ the drones, so that the long-term consequences of drone use may be entirely counter-productive to American interests, whatever the short-term advantages might be
The Moonie Times, however, is not motivated by principled opposition to warfare, nor is it motivated by concern about eventual blowback from drone attacks. It is motivated by the prospect of uniting conservatives against administration, as is Rand Paul. The giveaway is the alleged concern for al-Awlaki's rights
as an American citizen and the associated claim, made repeatedly by Paul and others, that the administration has claimed some general power to assassinate any American anywhere, a power which (in fact) the administration has never claimed. Opposition to military operations, on the grounds that persons may unfairly die, makes perfect sense. But opposition to military operations, appropriately authorized by Congress, on the grounds that it may violate the constitutional rights of Americans fighting on the opposite side, is an incoherent position, here intended only to provide rightwing ultra-nationalists with a huff-n-puff talking point associated with their dishonest efforts to portray the current President as a dangerous and dictatorial tyrant who claims he has the right and power to assassinate any American anywhere. Similarly, there are principled arguments against the use of drones in foreign warfare, but there is no coherent argument that drones are inappropriate simply because may violate the constitutional rights of Americans fighting on the opposite side
Rand Paul's behavior is shameful demagoguery, and the Moonie Times has been the outlet for such demagoguery from the day of its first appearance. There is really no reason ever to link to the Moonie Times
= new reply since forum marked as read
