It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes, at least that’s the basis of the argument this and the previous administration used to justify the legality of the drone attacks. But it depends on who is being targeted.
Originally posted by jam321
or is the legality of drone attacks based on SJ Res 23?
The US government accuses al-Awlaki of being an al-Qaeda operative, that he had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and that he met and inspired some of the 9/11 hijackers.
However, SJ Res seem to say that we will go only after those involved on 9/11. What does Anwar al-Awlaki have to do with 9/11?
I’m of the opinion that the US government cannot kill al-Awlaki — unless he is participating directly in the hostilities in the battlefield, making him a legitimate military target — and must try to capture him first. If he is armed and resists apprehension then he can be killed.
If somebody is accused of committing a crime against the US, then why kill them before giving them a chance to prove their innocence?
Even accepting the administration’s argument, it doesn’t mean drone attacks are legal in relation to international law. I believe that using the CIA to conduct the drone attacks could be in violation of the laws of war.
What makes drone attacks legal?
Originally posted by The Old American
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power to direct troops.