Crowdsourcing on AQ and Analysis (new title)

[jmm99]

Hi Ray,

Nice to see that you have resumed posting - providing us with content shaped by your Indian Army career.

As to your comment:

from Ray
Hence, maybe the focus of the WOT should not only focus on the AQ, but also on the various other factions that are operating and the synergy that they created in tandem with the AQ operating in the background.

you are in good company. Our domestic legal mandate to use armed force against AQ is flexible enough to cover associated groups - as well as nations and persons.

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, provides in most pertinent part:

...That the President is authorized 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.

Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001).

At times, our focus has strayed from the AUMF.

We also have some times overemphased aspects of the ideology involved (Islam), and other times have underemphased that ideology. One might also question whether we have overemphasized some AQ associates (or alleged AQ associates) at the cost of underemphasing other groups.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Judge Silberman's brief comment in Esmail v Obama (see Another brick in the wall for the entire court's findings) reinforces the suggestions made above by Ray and me;

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:
......
First, to note that the government at oral argument agreed that even if petitioner could show he resolutely declined to “join” al Qaeda or the Taliban, and thus could not be said to be a part of either, so long as evidence showed he fought along side of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or with associated forces he would be covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. District courts, in that sort of case, need not strain to find a petitioner is “a part of al Qaeda.” See Hatim v. Gates, --- F.3d ---, 2011 WL 553273, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 9 n.1 (D.C Cir. 2010); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 871-72 (D.C. Cir. 2010). [1]

[1] Of course, “the purely independent conduct of a freelancer” – one who does not fight alongside of, or actively support, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or an associated force – “is not enough” to justify detention. Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

While this is "dicta" in this particular case, it does provide guidance for a plausible argument in a case where a loosely associated group is involved.

Regards

Mike

[CWOT]

Folks, thanks for the feedback on this initial thread.
I've used it to help set up a crowdsourcing experiment on AQ's future strategy and just started a new thread on that concept in this folder called.

"Crowdsourcing AQ's Strategy 2011-2012"

Would like to get your feedback and thanks in advance for any and all thoughts.