At 2/8/13 06:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 2/8/13 01:00 AM, theburningliberal wrote:
Outside of those areas, though, I do not support the targeting of US citizens.;;;
You've made some really good points.
But answer this.
Why is Manning (the guy charged & being tried for the wikileaks stuff) not just been stoof up against a wall & shot ?
That is what having planes bomb Americans Accused of crimes is, there is no difference in simply having Manning targeted in a courtyard & shot, without a conviction & sentence.
Yet a completely different standard is being used against American citizens & citizens of other countries often definatly not 'soldiers' but old men, women & children. Who are killed by these bombings where no crime has been proven to have taken place ...just cause "They might "
You show me anywhere a law book in a Democratic Country that says you can be killed arbitrarily because YOU MIGHT COMMIT A CRIME !
Thanks in advance , for findingit, because i cannot.
Have you read - or, at best, skimmed through the Justice Department's white paper regarding this issue? I would say it is fairly obvious that Bradley Manning cannot be shot without conviction. But, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Anyone targeted would be a confirmed, high-level leader of al-Qaeda or an associate organization actively involved in a program intending to harm Americans. What's more, they must pose an imminent danger in order for a "drone strike" to be authorized.
The DOJ reiterates that the threat presented by the target must be imminent; and, the circumstances must prevent any attempt at capturing the perpetrator(s) and/or inhibition of the plot. This type of military operation would not be legal if the target was passive - in other words, the United States cannot and will not "assassinate" suspected terrorists (even leaders) for simply being a member of a terrorist organization.
While I could hardly disagree with collateral damage being a horrible side-effect of warfare, especially when the victims are children, errors of this nature are issues regarding U.S. intelligence and the sophistication/utilization of military weaponry. The former should be mostly discounted due to the fact that the targeting of an al-Qaeda operative would be carried out under the assumption that the CIA has enough information to deduce that the suspect is an immediate threat to American lives.
Lastly, although the language to your final question would be illogical to answer, the Supreme Court has ruled on issues similar to this.
Tennessee v. Garner in which it held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Scott v. Harris in which it held:
Because the car chase respondent initiated posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others, ScottâEUTMs attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, and Scott is entitled to summary judgment.
(c) Viewing the facts in the light depicted by the videotape, it is clear that Deputy Scott did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
(i) Garner did not establish a magical on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officerâEUTMs actions constitute âEUoedeadly force.âEU The Court there simply applied the Fourth AmendmentâEUTMs âEUoereasonablenessâEU test to the use of a particular type of force in a particular situation. That case has scant applicability to this one, which has vastly different facts. Whether or not ScottâEUTMs actions constituted âEUoedeadly force,âEU what matters is whether those actions were reasonable.
These cases both address the prime factor in determining the legality of the executive branch's power to target immediate threats present in al-Qaeda. The Court acknowledges that deadly force can be used if an officer has induced that the suspect is a immediate threat to innocent lives - including his own.
Both the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice reiterate that the danger must be imminent. Thus, the United States can take action in order to protect innocent lives without involving the judicial system provided the target in question is not a passive threat - although, wouldn't "passive threat" be an oxymoron? As stated in the white paper, an act of this nature is justified in the interest of national self-defense. It is a reaction to imminent peril.
(By the way, due process does not apply to active enemy combatants who are not detained).