US 'approves killing' US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

[grumbler]

The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".

By law, an act of Congress.  Most presidents (at least after election), however, claim  the inherent power to engage in  military operations indefinitely without Congressional approval as "emergency measures."

[grumbler]

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

While the accused does not have to be a US citizen, they clearly are required to "owe[] allegiance to the United States."

Precisely my point. Citizenship not required, so the argument that it is isn't precisely correct, though the distinction doesn't matter in most circumstances,

[The Minsky Moment]

The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".

The answer used to be straightforward: a declaration of war by the Congress.

But that has long been considered an old-fashioned way about going about things, and the US sticks to fighting undeclared wars nowadays.  A fact that can create a certain zone of ambiguity about the boundaries between international law enforcement efforts, "intelligence" operations, and military conflicts.

[Martinus]

The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".

By law, an act of Congress.  Most presidents (at least after election), however, claim  the inherent power to engage in  military operations indefinitely without Congressional approval as "emergency measures."

This is not an answer to my question. I asked for a definition of a military action - not how it is ordered (unless anything that the President orders the military to do as "emergency measures" is a military action, which is extremely unlikely).

[Valmy]

Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.

So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens?  Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.

[Martinus]

The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".

The answer used to be straightforward: a declaration of war by the Congress.

But that has long been considered an old-fashioned way about going about things, and the US sticks to fighting undeclared wars nowadays.  A fact that can create a certain zone of ambiguity about the boundaries between international law enforcement efforts, "intelligence" operations, and military conflicts.

Can the US President order a military action in the US territory? The way grumbler defined a military action, the US President could, for example, decide that Glenn Beck is an enemy combatant and order the military to take him out.

[Martinus]

Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.

So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens?  Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.

So if your neighbor in Texas unilaterally declares a secession from the United States and proclaims a war on the US, and then sits on his ass on his front porch, you have no problem with the US military carrying out a "military action" against him, taking out the entire block (yourself included) as collateral damage?

[Zanza]

So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens?  Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.

Not sure what that has to do with the post of mine that you quoted, but no:

German Constitution, Article 87a

(4) In order to avert an imminent danger to the existence or free democratic basic order of the Federation or of a Land, the Federal Government, if the conditions referred to in paragraph (2) of Article 91 obtain and the police forces and the Federal Border Police prove inadequate, may employ the Armed Forces to support the police and the Federal Border Police in protecting civilian property and in combating organized armed insurgents. Any such employment of the Armed Forces shall be discontinued if the Bundestag or the Bundesrat so demands.

However, I guess you would have a very hard time to show that a cleric in Yemen is an imminent threat to the existence of Germany or its constitution.

[grumbler]

This is not an answer to my question. I asked for a definition of a military action - not how it is ordered (unless anything that the President orders the military to do as "emergency measures" is a military action, which is extremely unlikely).

Sorry, I didn't realize you were simply asking for the definition of a phrase.

Noun

    * S: (n) military action, action (a military engagement) "he saw action in Korea"

WordNet home page

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=military%20action

[grumbler]

Can the US President order a military action in the US territory? The way grumbler defined a military action, the US President could, for example, decide that Glenn Beck is an enemy combatant and order the military to take him out.

Yes, of course the president can order a military action on US territory!  It would make the country extremely difficult to defend, otherwise.

President Bush claimed the power to declare anyone (citizen or not) an enemy combatant.  Such a declaration about Beck would presumably allow a president use the military against Beck.  This is why I, and many others (JR, for instance), objected to Bush's unilateral interpretations of expansive Presidential war powers.

[grumbler]

So if your neighbor in Texas unilaterally declares a secession from the United States and proclaims a war on the US, and then sits on his ass on his front porch, you have no problem with the US military carrying out a "military action" against him, taking out the entire block (yourself included) as collateral damage?

I award you one Martinus Point for Excellence in Making Inane Analogies.

[Razgovory]

Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.

So if I get a German citizen to take up arms the Army is not allowed to kill them simply because they are citizens?  Sweet all I need to do is form a militia of Germans and I can conquer the Federal Republic opposed only by cops trying to arrest us.

So if your neighbor in Texas unilaterally declares a secession from the United States and proclaims a war on the US, and then sits on his ass on his front porch, you have no problem with the US military carrying out a "military action" against him, taking out the entire block (yourself included) as collateral damage?

I have no problem with this.

[Martinus]

Can the US President order a military action in the US territory? The way grumbler defined a military action, the US President could, for example, decide that Glenn Beck is an enemy combatant and order the military to take him out.

Yes, of course the president can order a military action on US territory!  It would make the country extremely difficult to defend, otherwise.

President Bush claimed the power to declare anyone (citizen or not) an enemy combatant.  Such a declaration about Beck would presumably allow a president use the military against Beck.  This is why I, and many others (JR, for instance), objected to Bush's unilateral interpretations of expansive Presidential war powers.

So what is according to you the limit of Presidential war powers? Common decency?

[grumbler]

So what is according to you the limit of Presidential war powers? Common decency?

The War Powers Resolution spells it out.

[The Minsky Moment]

So what is according to you the limit of Presidential war powers? Common decency?

First of all, the availability of a writ of habeas corpus domestically means that the government can't detain people without a valid basis for doing so.  The writ can only be suspended with specific Congressional authorization under conditions of rebellion or invasion (ie there must be a real national security emergency and concurrence of the two principal branches of government).  That explains why the Bush admin made such strenuous efforts to fight the applicability of the writ, efforts the Supreme Court rejected.

Second, Congress has some ability to restrict Presidential action.  The degree of that authority is contested but at the very minimum they can take the extreme action of cutting off all funding for a given "war."  Depending on one's reading of the constitution, Congressional authority may extend more broadly to regulating the exercise of war powers by the Executive.