Did Obama’s assassination of Awlaki violate the “War Powers Resolution?

Three questions:
Did Obama’s assassination of Awlaki violate the “War Powers Resolution?

Link to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

“The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Wikipedia

Is the term “armed forces” defined and does it include drones?

If not the “War Powers Resolution” then what was the justification?

We have a right to know. Same questions apply to Libya.

Don't get me wrong Awlaki was probably a bad guy and needed to go but the Federal government seems to be on a slippery slope these days. They seem to openly skirt the constitution whenever it suits them.

Alwaki may have been a bad guy but for the grace of God there we go....how soon before they start tracking down message board posters and screwing up their credit or sicking the IRS on them.

Has the Federal Government become the weapon of the Military / Corporate / Wall Street / Industrial complex - to use as it wishes against enemies foriegn and domestic - percieved or real - citizen or institution?

I recommend reading the Patriot Act...and specifically about "enemy combatants" and US Citizens.

Once you commit an act against the government by force, the gloves come off and that also means no Geneva Convention for you because you weren't in uniform.

Plain and Simple.

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of Jihad and a basic grasp of Islamic culture, you would not entertain such dangerous questions.

Awlaki was a muslim engaged in violent Jihad in an effort to spread Islam. He is a traitor to America. The President, as flawed a man as he is, has a duty to defend the Constitution from enemies like the muslim Awlaki.

Any muslim who engages in Jihad, whether passively through the zakat or actively through violence against non-muslims, is an enemy of the United States of America, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights and deserves no quarter from any representative who has sworn to defend them.

Awlaki was an enemy and and got what he deserved.

well according to the world yes, but to america no
see america has no morals
just like they can own all the nukes they want but no one else can

osamas death was a violation as well
not to mention the many millions of innocent people the us has killed over the years

the american government are the real world terrorists..they are the authority behind which our corporate elite hide..

reply to post by beanandginger


Not only that.
It violated US laws, the constitution, the geneva convention And human rights.

And this coming from a peacenobel prize winning, constitutional lawyer who promised 'change'.
A very sad day for America.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
If you had even a rudimentary understanding of Jihad and a basic grasp of Islamic culture, you would not entertain such dangerous questions.

Awlaki was a muslim engaged in violent Jihad in an effort to spread Islam. He is a traitor to America. The President, as flawed a man as he is, has a duty to defend the Constitution from enemies like the muslim Awlaki.

Any muslim who engages in Jihad, whether passively through the zakat or actively through violence against non-muslims, is an enemy of the United States of America, the Constitution, and our Bill of Rights and deserves no quarter from any representative who has sworn to defend them.

Awlaki was an enemy and and got what he deserved.

Defend the constitution? For the US, attacking someone in another country cannot be done, according to the constitution, without a declaration of war to the country in question. The entire war on terror scam is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
If you had even a rudimentary understanding of Jihad and a basic grasp of Islamic culture, you would not entertain such dangerous questions.

It speaks volumes about how eroded the American ideal of freedom and free speech has become when mere questions are perceived as being 'dangerous'. It makes me kinda sad.

Your President may have been correct in his actions as he is sworn to defend the United States from its enemies. But it makes the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize a complete contradiction imho.

www.nobelprize.org...

True men of peace do not crave power nor stain their hands with blood.

Originally posted by svetlana84
Not only that.
It violated US laws, the constitution, the geneva convention And human rights.

And this coming from a peacenobel prize winning, constitutional lawyer who promised 'change'.
A very sad day for America.

Damn! I thought that this was one of the very few things that Obama got right.

What US laws were violated?
What part of the Constitution was violated?
Geneva Convention doesn't apply.
Human rights violations seems to only count when they can be used to bash the US.

Got to love the Hellfire missile. I knew that there was a reason I own stock in Lockheed Martin.

reply to post by JIMC5499


What US Laws have been violated:

- The law that every criminal case should be treated in front of a Jury
- the accused has a right for a fair trial
- the accused has a right do defend himself
- the accused is innocent until proven guilty



About the constitution:
Constitution, The Bill of Rights

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



And the Geneva Convention:
"Grave breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

- willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
- willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
- willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.


Further you note: "Human rights violations seems to only count when they can be used to bash the US." So hwat about US invading Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia to "fight against Human rights violation" ??

Let's debunk this shall we?

Dude became a threat the second he swore his allegiance to the enemy. American or not you get dealt with the same way dude got his. We get a little touchy feelly and emotional when it comes to allegiance. Swear it to the USA above all others and you're good, wish for her destruction and watch what happens.

He declared himself an enemy of America and swore on it's destruction. Does this not matter? Does the fact he was involved in terror attacks not mean a thing. His actions led to the death of our servicemen directly.

How's that for nearly $10 Million in saved money for food, housing, healthcare, electricity for what would've been the rest of his life?

There would've been a massive firefight that would've gotten friendly's killed if we'd attempted to storm the compound from the ground. In situations of ground base near impenetrable exterior the preferred strategy and game plan is an assault by air. Far more effective and less costly plus an added advantage is as long as they don't have long range spotters, radar, sonar, thermal-graphic imagery or microwave surveillance equipment positioned at increments of like 10mi, 50mi, and 100 mi out from base you ain't seeing it coming and the potential of a successful counterstrike from the ground be nil.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


so let's debunk that. Do youbhave any proof or evidence that this guy was involved in any of the things you accuse him of ?
Since even obama does not want to give us information on it, i somehow doubt the story and think we have just another scapegoat / triple letter double agent at work here.

reply to post by svetlana84


The fact he swore on the destruction of the US not matter? Nah! This is what legitimatized the order.

To the OP:

No. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution constitutes specific statutory authorization and satisfies War Powers Resolution requirements.

www.gpo.gov...

Is the term “armed forces” defined and does it include drones?

The US Armed Forces are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. That's defined in 10 USC 101, if I remember correctly. If a UAV belongs to one of those branches, it's included.

Originally posted by svetlana84
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

What US Laws have been violated:

- The law that every criminal case should be treated in front of a Jury
- the accused has a right for a fair trial
- the accused has a right do defend himself
- the accused is innocent until proven guilty

1. A military action is not a criminal case, so the absence of a jury is to be expected.
2. Military targets do not get trials, and never have.
3. In a judicial proceeding, yes. Military action is not a judicial proceeding.
4. Guilt and innocence are never adjudicated before striking a military target.

About the constitution:
Constitution, The Bill of Rights

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's not in the Bill of Rights, that's the Fourteenth Amendment, and it only applies to states. You're probably thinking of the Fifth Amendment. Anyway, the operative law in a military theater is the law of land warfare, and Awlaki got all the process due to him under that law.

And the Geneva Convention:
"Grave breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

- willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
- willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
- willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.

Awlaki was not a protected person under the Geneva Conventions, or under customary international humanitarian law. There was no grave breach in killing him.

Further you note: "Human rights violations seems to only count when they can be used to bash the US." So hwat about US invading Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia to "fight against Human rights violation" ??

We didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan to fight against human rights violations. We invaded them to defend ourselves against Al Qaeda and to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions, respectively.

Originally posted by NeoVain
Defend the constitution? For the US, attacking someone in another country cannot be done, according to the constitution, without a declaration of war to the country in question.

No, that isn't in the Constitution.

obama is the most lawless president we ever had. He's killing american citizens like awlaki without due process. He just says - the guys a terrorist so i can kill him if i want!!!! A couple months back he said he wasn't gonna enforce the law against the 30 million illegals living here!!!!

Why should anyone obey the law when the president won't.?

Awlaki belongs with the blue blood line ( Hybrid ), so I don't think he is dead at all, yes they killed his caracter just like Osama Binladen a script of Hollywood, just to make people believe something base on fear and terror.

Has nothing to do with war powers res.....If I remember correctly Glen Beck (I know a ton of people hate him but he's right on a lot of domestic stuff) said that it had something to do with a presidential directive signed by Obama

reply to post by NeoVain


WE do not have to declare war upon a nation just to get one high valued target. He swore upon the destruction of the fortress and wore the uniform of the enemy nullifies everything.

Example,

Tomorrow you join up with say, Hezbollah and plot and plan to kill Americans. The edict from 2001 allows the US to dispatch a sniper team to your locale and deal with you. The "Kill 1 to save 1,000" thinking more then applies here.