Tinnuhana
05-26-2013, 05:10 AM
This was posted on FB to show a response to an anti-drone letter to Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). My question is this: Is this form response of her own making or is this the same response others get on that topic from their state's senators/reps in DC? It would be interesting to see the correlation. You could post the topic (drones, NDAA, Syria, etc.) as title, and we can see who's a clone, so to speak.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs or "drones") in counterterrorism operations. I appreciate hearing from you.
Al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups continue to threaten the United States, and our country remains in a state of armed conflict with them. An essential component of our national security effort is to target those terrorists who remain dedicated to bringing harm to our nation and its citizens. Since the United States can use UASs to deliver targeted force against threats promptly and with minimal risk to U.S. personnel, drones should continue to be tools in our warfighters' arsenal.
All three branches of the federal government have recognized the president's authority to use military force in order to carry out the conflict against al Qaeda and its associated forces. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF; Public Law 107-40) explicitly authorizes the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have repeatedly recognized that the United States can use military force in our armed conflict with al Qaeda. The use of force against al Qaeda and its associated forces is also consistent with international law and the inherent right of national self-defense.
Not only is the use of force against members of al Qaeda and associated groups legally justified, the use of UASs to carry out these attacks rests on a solid legal foundation. Using a drone as opposed to some other weapon does not change the legality of the action.
As the Department of Defense Acting General Counsel, Mr. Robert Taylor, testified in May 2013, "from a legal standpoint, the use of remotely piloted aircraft for lethal operations against identified individuals presents the same issues as similar operations using manned aircraft. However, advanced precision technology gives us a greater ability to observe and wait until the enemy is away from innocent civilians before launching a strike, and thus minimize the risk to innocent civilians."
Additionally, when U.S. citizens turn against our country and join al Qaeda or an associated group and work to kill Americans, they, like other members of al Qaeda, are subject to the AUMF. The Supreme Court has rejected arguments that enemy combatants who happen to be U.S. citizens are immune from military engagement. In Ex Parte Quirin (317 U.S. 1 (1942)), the Supreme Court found that "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war."
On September 30, 2011, an Obama administration-approved drone strike killed Islamist terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki-a U.S. citizen who was a leader and propagandist in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)-played an influential role in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting that resulted in the deaths of 13 Americans, the Christmas 2009 attempted airline bombing, and the May 2010 plot to explode a car bomb in Times Square.
Not only was it legal to target al-Awlaki, it does not pass the commonsense test to say that the administration should be required to obtain additional judicial approval prior to targeting an enemy combatant who is a member of al Qaeda or an affiliated group and who is actively trying to murder American civilians. That legal approval already exists under the AUMF and longstanding domestic and international law. It would also not make sense to arbitrarily rule that the federal government could not use a drone to target al-Awlaki and instead must put the lives of our service members at risk in order to kill him using different means.
As the former Attorney General of New Hampshire and as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees, I believe we must aggressively protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. I also believe Congress must conduct more rigorous oversight of the administration's drone program. At the same time, consistent with domestic and international law, I will continue to support the use of UASs by our warfighters as they seek to protect our nation from terrorist threats.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting New Hampshire and our nation. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kelly A. Ayotte
U. S. Senator
Thank you for contacting me regarding the use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs or "drones") in counterterrorism operations. I appreciate hearing from you.
Al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups continue to threaten the United States, and our country remains in a state of armed conflict with them. An essential component of our national security effort is to target those terrorists who remain dedicated to bringing harm to our nation and its citizens. Since the United States can use UASs to deliver targeted force against threats promptly and with minimal risk to U.S. personnel, drones should continue to be tools in our warfighters' arsenal.
All three branches of the federal government have recognized the president's authority to use military force in order to carry out the conflict against al Qaeda and its associated forces. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF; Public Law 107-40) explicitly authorizes the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have repeatedly recognized that the United States can use military force in our armed conflict with al Qaeda. The use of force against al Qaeda and its associated forces is also consistent with international law and the inherent right of national self-defense.
Not only is the use of force against members of al Qaeda and associated groups legally justified, the use of UASs to carry out these attacks rests on a solid legal foundation. Using a drone as opposed to some other weapon does not change the legality of the action.
As the Department of Defense Acting General Counsel, Mr. Robert Taylor, testified in May 2013, "from a legal standpoint, the use of remotely piloted aircraft for lethal operations against identified individuals presents the same issues as similar operations using manned aircraft. However, advanced precision technology gives us a greater ability to observe and wait until the enemy is away from innocent civilians before launching a strike, and thus minimize the risk to innocent civilians."
Additionally, when U.S. citizens turn against our country and join al Qaeda or an associated group and work to kill Americans, they, like other members of al Qaeda, are subject to the AUMF. The Supreme Court has rejected arguments that enemy combatants who happen to be U.S. citizens are immune from military engagement. In Ex Parte Quirin (317 U.S. 1 (1942)), the Supreme Court found that "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war."
On September 30, 2011, an Obama administration-approved drone strike killed Islamist terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki-a U.S. citizen who was a leader and propagandist in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)-played an influential role in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting that resulted in the deaths of 13 Americans, the Christmas 2009 attempted airline bombing, and the May 2010 plot to explode a car bomb in Times Square.
Not only was it legal to target al-Awlaki, it does not pass the commonsense test to say that the administration should be required to obtain additional judicial approval prior to targeting an enemy combatant who is a member of al Qaeda or an affiliated group and who is actively trying to murder American civilians. That legal approval already exists under the AUMF and longstanding domestic and international law. It would also not make sense to arbitrarily rule that the federal government could not use a drone to target al-Awlaki and instead must put the lives of our service members at risk in order to kill him using different means.
As the former Attorney General of New Hampshire and as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees, I believe we must aggressively protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. I also believe Congress must conduct more rigorous oversight of the administration's drone program. At the same time, consistent with domestic and international law, I will continue to support the use of UASs by our warfighters as they seek to protect our nation from terrorist threats.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting New Hampshire and our nation. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kelly A. Ayotte
U. S. Senator