Be a Supporter!

Drones Killing US citizens!

  • 2,410 Views
  • 90 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 11:22:01 Reply

At 2/6/13 01:27 AM, Saen wrote: Still need to name at least one viable example (not going to be easy).

Nazi Germany, China, 30s fascist Italy

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 11:31:30 Reply

At 2/6/13 12:42 AM, Feoric wrote: Any procedure which aims to bypass the Bill of Rights is clearly unacceptable. This is just indefensible.

Which Amendment protects enemy soldiers?

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 11:57:34 Reply

It astounds me to see how many people are so willing to demonize even the slightest glimpse of executive power when given the opportunity. Please recognize the context and circumstances under which a lethal operation would be deemed necessary. (reference)

1) An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the target individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.

I believe it is abundantly clear that these questionable attacks would not be authorized for "passive" threats. In other words, simply being a member of a major terrorist organization would not justify this action. A specific individual - American or otherwise - must be presenting a threat that demands an immediate, effective response. A common argument is that terrorism is simply a form of criminal activity and can not be treated as a war entity. To this I say, law enforcement has been taking immediate, decisive actions in order to save lives for decades. I rarely ever hear complaints about SWAT operations or sharpshooters taking action after exhausting all other resources - especially when a criminal (American citizen, by the way) has taken hostages. The white paper is clearly specifying situations such as these, but on a national level. The target member of Al Qaeda must be an active threat.

2) Capture is unfeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible.

Continuing from my previous statements and analogy, the threat presented by the target must be similar to having a finger on a trigger with the barrel aimed at the head of a hostage. If plans to rescue the hostage by killing the criminal are underway, the procedure can and should be aborted if the target exhibits a vulnerability that does not require lethal force. This is a basic synopsis of the "who" and "when" of targeted killing. An operation of this nature would only be considered as a last resort.

3 ) The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

While the military has seen less than complimentary press about missed airstrikes and high collateral damages, it should be reasonable to assume that the United States would carry out this procedure intending to use the absolute minimum required force to successfully nullify the immediate threat. What we must understand is that war will never be fair - innocent lives will always be lost, and mistakes will be made by humans. There has been and will always be cases where operators receive incomplete or incorrect intelligence; however, while the possibility of misjudgment should be diminished by the best of our ability, the fear of it should certainly not prevent us from taking action.

I would also like to draw your attention to the first paragraph on page 3 of the pdf:

"Any operation of the sort discussed here would be conducted in a foreign country against a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces .... The Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy forces."


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 12:47:10 Reply

At 2/6/13 11:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Which Amendment protects enemy soldiers?

None. However, there is one that gives US citizens the inalienable right to due process. There's also military tribunals as well.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 13:50:57 Reply

At 2/6/13 12:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/6/13 11:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Which Amendment protects enemy soldiers?
None. However, there is one that gives US citizens the inalienable right to due process. There's also military tribunals as well.

As shown by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the United States must (and would) recognize due process rights of hostile detainees. However, the Department of Justice affirms that the controversial actions described in the form would only be considered under a circumstance preventing any possibility of the capture and detainment through which due process could be applied. The window of opportunity in a situation demanding a consideration of targeted killing is a prime factor in determining the authorization of such an executive action. In other words, this option would not be on the table were we able to offer due process rights.

"Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self-defense. Nor would it violate otherwise applicable federal law barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban in Executive Order No. 12333."


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 14:27:21 Reply

"Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self-defense. Nor would it violate otherwise applicable federal law barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban in Executive Order No. 12333."

Isn't it clear how easily that kind of judgement can be abused?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 14:49:59 Reply

At 2/6/13 12:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote: None. However, there is one that gives US citizens the inalienable right to due process. There's also military tribunals as well.

Again, so you're saying in the midst of combat if an enemy soldier shouts "I am an American citizen" the US soldiers must immediately cease their assault, stop and attempt to capture the citizen at great cost to American lives?

So, in your eyes, the life of an openly traitorous and enemy US citien is more important than 10, 20, 50, 100 honest Americans? Good to know where your priorities lie.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 15:02:17 Reply

At 2/6/13 02:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Again, so you're saying in the midst of combat if an enemy soldier shouts "I am an American citizen" the US soldiers must immediately cease their assault, stop and attempt to capture the citizen at great cost to American lives?

No, I'm saying kill them if the situation calls for it. HUNTING them, like we did with Bin Laden was wrong and stupid.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 16:18:45 Reply

At 2/6/13 11:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/6/13 12:42 AM, Feoric wrote: Any procedure which aims to bypass the Bill of Rights is clearly unacceptable. This is just indefensible.
Which Amendment protects enemy soldiers?

;;;
CamaroH ...the US Gov threough your President is using drones to kill Americans.
Americans who ARE NOT SOLDIERS.
Americans who have not been charged with any crime & have simply been deemed a threat.
SInce any man woamn or child can pick up a gun & shoot someone with it, get in a car & drive into a crowd. Use an accelerant & start say a house or apartment building on fire ... all these peopel are possibly a threat ! So using the rules that have been twisted so far everyone pretty much in the USA & Every where else is 'fair game' !

You cannot have 'your cake & eat it too ! '
If the USA is a democratic country with a Constitution, a bill of rights for citizens & a process of Laws to be followed.
Then JUST CAUSE ITS EASY ...is not a reason for the Presdient to declare CamorH & Morefngdbs enemy combatants & that allows us to be murdered without charge & without even actually even doing a crime (or at least not me, I haven't commited any crimes)

But how it is now that is exactly what the USA is/has been doing

Not only that, the amount of innocents killed in these drone strikes ( aka collateral damage , isn't that nice & clean & easy way to say "murdered innocents" )

IF you were actually at war, instead of simply trying to rid yourselves of a small group of terrorists many of them fractured & completely incapable of striking American Interests EXCEPT WHEN YOU ARE IN THEIR TERRITORY. That's not war & you can twist & spin & do whatever you want it doesn't change the fact there is no war of terror. There is only a misuse of power by the elite of the USA & other NATO nations, being disguised through Media manipulation & outright lies to put fear into the hearts of the gullible.

Open your eyes, man
Iran was destroyed, Saddam Hussein was murdered for oil & to protect the USA petro dollar & to give the USA access to the second largest proven reserves in the Arabian Gulf States .
Terrorism & weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with it.

&

If you were honest you'd admit it, because we all know that there is a terrorist controled Country hijacking ships & ransoming people in Somalia ...ye tthe USA has done little to nothing there. Why is that in all honesty CamaroH ??? because they got no oil or anything else the USA wants !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 16:37:45 Reply

At 2/6/13 02:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
"Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self-defense. Nor would it violate otherwise applicable federal law barring unlawful killings in Title 18 or the assassination ban in Executive Order No. 12333."
Isn't it clear how easily that kind of judgement can be abused?

All power can be abused. Fortunately, any scenario where the United States authorized a kill would be one wherein all alternative options have been thoroughly considered and/or exhausted. I do not, however, see how this prerogative can be so controversial. Targets would only be designated outside of the United States, would have relatively high status as a member of (or part of a terrorist organization working with) Al Qaeda, would pose an immediate threat of violence to American citizens, and would place the US military in a circumstance preventing a more optimal course of action such as capture.

I, like anyone, could come up with hypothetical scenarios depicting an Orwellian takeover via executive overreach; but, it would certainly not be plausible without ludicrous, slippery-slope arguments. Thus, we have no credible reason to prevent the military from taking quick, decisive action in critical times demanding it.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 18:55:11 Reply

At 2/6/13 11:22 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Nazi Germany, China, 30s fascist Italy

WRONG. Nazi's in Germany became the biggest party in parliament only because they had a militant wing which would intimidate people at the polls. After they lost the Presidential election they decided to keep anything in Parliment from being done, so the President (a political independent) appointed Hitler as chancellor. The President subsequently died in a plane crash, and the chancellor succeeds the president then. They were not elected the majority party in Parliament, they did not win an election to the Presidency fairly (or any election for that matter) and they weren't peaceful about it either. The German people did not hand them the power they got.

Italy was the same thing, the Fascist party gathered its militants and overthrew the government.

In China there was no Democracy, the Communist party did not participate in any election. They merely fought a war against the Nationalists and won support for their policies from peasants.

Now please find an actual example.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-06 21:15:37 Reply

At 2/6/13 02:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Again, so you're saying in the midst of combat if an enemy soldier shouts "I am an American citizen" the US soldiers must immediately cease their assault, stop and attempt to capture the citizen at great cost to American lives?

well if they throw down weapons and yell do you think its right to shoot? the same applies to drones no violence is being done and they are being attacked via drone and inciting collateral damage including american citizens.

So, in your eyes, the life of an openly traitorous and enemy US citien is more important than 10, 20, 50, 100 honest Americans? Good to know where your priorities lie.

in collateral damage? no its better to send in a specialized team for capture instead of using drones and risking american lives. I could be reading wrong (hitting and missing) due to alot of pain and back pain.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 13:02:28 Reply

At 2/6/13 09:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well if they throw down weapons and yell do you think its right to shoot? the same applies to drones no violence is being done and they are being attacked via drone and inciting collateral damage including american citizens.

Much less collateral damage than the Iraq or Afghanistan wars create. Much less collateral damage than the capture attempt in Somalia created.

There's a big difference between an enemeny soldier who has surrendered and one who is merely not actively engaged in battle at the moment. The surrenerer has given themselves up to the enemy. The inactive enemy soldier is merely not active at the moment.

The drone strikes are no different than striking a military base, or a military encampment. Well, there is one big difference: (D).

in collateral damage? no its better to send in a specialized team for capture instead of using drones and risking american lives. I could be reading wrong (hitting and missing) due to alot of pain and back pain.

Sending in a specialized team ISN'T risking American lives?! WHAT?! It doesn;t take much for an operation like this to go wrong when you have boots on the ground. We lost a billion dollar helicopter getting Osama and were damn (read: really really eally really really) lucky to not lose anyone. In Somalia we had 18 killed, 80 wounded, and one captured, and DIDN'T even get the target! These are only ones that we know about. Don't forget how many civilians were killed in either attack, because there likely some, even though they won't tell us.

Let's also not forget Algeria's recent contribution to this debate.

If a drone strike goes wrong only the drone could be lost. If a drone strike goes wrong, you won;t end up having more casualities (on both sides) trying to fix the mess. Sure there is collateral damage, as there always is in warfare, especially warfare with heavy use of explosive ordinance. Even more so when the enemy intentionally hides among civilians to ensure civilians are brought down with them.

One final point, nobody seems to even be considering, is whether the "civilians" are truly civilians? If we sent a strike team to get the target wh has intentioanlly surrounded himself with civilians, what is the likelihood that those civilians would take up arms against the team? High? There is even a very high possibility that those 'civilians' aren't civilians by any sense of the word, and intentionally just want to appear as civilians so when they get attacked those around them believe it (even though I get the feeling those around them know more than they let off, and just use it as an excuse).

Drone strikes are better than extraction teams in EVERY way.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 14:36:43 Reply

well anyways the idiot who is in charge of Obama's Drone Kill List is in front of the Senate Intelligence committee is about to get his ass grilled for assassinations and how Americans are being targeted without being charged and americans dying in collateral.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 16:04:40 Reply

At 2/7/13 01:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Drone strikes are better than extraction teams in EVERY way.

;;;;
Murdering people & calling it a birthday party .....
Doesn't
Change
The
Fact
IT IS MURDER.

Calling me
An
Enemy
Combatant

Even though I have never built a bomb , never killed (aka murdered) anyone & could be still considered a threat ....JUST BECAUSE I COULD DO THESE THINGS & killing me

DOes not make it right & the leaders & people in your country doing & allowing this should be charged under the laws in your country for these crimes they are commiting.

Even murderers in the USA, convicted, admitted murderers in the USA have a right to appeal.
The USA doesn't have the right to convict & then kill a convicted murderer.

Yet they are killing unconvicted ...HELL .... NEVER EVEN BEEN CHARGED people !

& the innocents around them as well & That is Wrong.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 16:24:21 Reply

At 2/6/13 11:22 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/6/13 01:27 AM, Saen wrote: Still need to name at least one viable example (not going to be easy).
Nazi Germany, China, 30s fascist Italy

Lol try again..

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 17:57:08 Reply

At 2/7/13 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IT IS MURDER.

IT is not murder. It is warfare.

Calling me an enemy combatant

Actually they called themselves soldiers of Al Qaeda and thus became enemy combatants on their own volition.

NEVER EVEN BEEN CHARGED

Never in history has it ever been required for an enemy soldier to be charged and convicted before being killed in a military operation.

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 22:07:25 Reply

slipperiest of slopes is being climbed and rationalization takes place on every step

have fun... once you're at the top its a long way down

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-07 23:53:44 Reply

At 2/7/13 10:07 PM, Kel-chan wrote: slipperiest of slopes is being climbed and rationalization takes place on every step

have fun... once you're at the top its a long way down

People have been arguing this for everything. When the Civil Rights Legislation was coming up people were protesting that it's going to establish a dictatorship, when the government tried expanding the military it was seen by some as a way of establishing a dictatorship etc. etc.. Truth is that the executive is too frequently rotated that it's nearly impossible for any one group to establish a dictatorship, especially considering how weak parties are today. The only area where the Executive can do anything significant aside from Supreme Court nominations is foreign policy, and people would rather not get in the way of that.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 00:09:08 Reply

At 2/7/13 02:36 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well anyways the idiot who is in charge of Obama's Drone Kill List is in front of the Senate Intelligence committee is about to get his ass grilled for assassinations and how Americans are being targeted without being charged and americans dying in collateral.

Six is one half dozen the other. There is no difference between innocent casualties some are human and some are not but why must you guy's always make it into some Nationalistic fervor on every topic. Innocents are innocents race, creed, "nationality", Religion, language, sex, skin color etc need not apply.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 00:16:02 Reply

At 2/7/13 05:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/7/13 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IT IS MURDER.
IT is not murder. It is warfare.

You can try and justify as you say "warfare" in any way you choose but one things for dam sure and that is War includes Homicide which by rights should be considered Murder and it is unmoral so let's not try and sugar coat the critical gravity of unmoral killing buy hiding behind a corrupt gangster system of collusion and lies to benefit the few and not the many.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 00:44:18 Reply

At 2/8/13 12:16 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: corrupt gangster system of collusion and lies to benefit the few and not the many.

So says the one who sits on his computer spouting crazy ideas and can do so safely and comfortably tahnks solely to that corrupt gangster system. You trash the system so hard you fail to see how it has built a comfy and safe lifestyle for you. You're lucky it doesn't give a shit whether you like it or not, or else you would be feeling the pain of looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 01:00:52 Reply

At 2/8/13 12:16 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 2/7/13 05:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/7/13 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IT IS MURDER.
IT is not murder. It is warfare.
You can try and justify as you say "warfare" in any way you choose but one things for dam sure and that is War includes Homicide which by rights should be considered Murder and it is unmoral so let's not try and sugar coat the critical gravity of unmoral killing buy hiding behind a corrupt gangster system of collusion and lies to benefit the few and not the many.

I've stayed out of this topic long enough. I want to talk about my position on drone strikes in general first.

In 2001, following 9/11 especially, we sought a new foreign policy in response to the attacks. We announced a war on terror, and soon after invaded Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq. Drone strikes in a military theater I believe are perfectly justified. The fact that the plane dropping the bombs doesn't have a live pilot doesn't make a difference to me, it's still US aircraft dropping bombs in a military theater. I think this is reasonable and something we can all agree with. It's not pretty but it is what it is.

Under President Obama, the use of unmanned drones to strike at "key leaders of al-qaida" has increased something like 350%. I am torn on this. On one hand, these are targets who, given the opportunity, would attack American interests and kill American citizens. They need to be stopped. On the other hand, how accurate are these attacks? Do we risk endangering the lives of ordinary citizens of these countries if we use drone strikes? I don't think that's right.
As far as drones killing US Citizens, we should be informed about when it happens and why. But to say that the US government never has a right to kill a citizen is a statement ignorant of what the law allows. There are some crimes in this country punishable by death, right? Isn't treason one of them? I read over this al-Awaki's bio and this was one messed up dude. His preaching may have helped inspire the 9/11 hijackers, and, ultimately, people on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford. al-Awaki was a legitimate target. I am sure the same exists with many other legitimate cases of killings via drone strike.

So, ultimately, I do think it should be permissible for the government to target US citizens. Even now, such an act must still be approved by the National Security Council. Personally, I would like to see a judicial review of US citizens placed on these kill lists. I think that would probably be the best way to figure out who is and is not a military enemy of the state.

Outside of those areas, though, I do not support the targeting of US citizens.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 01:05:40 Reply

At 2/8/13 12:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/8/13 12:16 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: corrupt gangster system of collusion and lies to benefit the few and not the many.
So says the one who sits on his computer spouting crazy ideas and can do so safely and comfortably tahnks solely to that corrupt gangster system. You trash the system so hard you fail to see how it has built a comfy and safe lifestyle for you. You're lucky it doesn't give a shit whether you like it or not, or else you would be feeling the pain of looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

First off you failed to get away from the use of ad hominem attacking so your argument is moot to begin with but lets just ignore that fact for now. Second I lucked and was born in a safe country and community so it's not the corrupt Governmental systems keeping me safe it is myself and the people around me in my community that males it safe because i choose to move to and live in a n ultra low crime low risk community and town. You are lucky you were not born int in the Middle East or else you would be feeling the pain of looking at your family, friends and nabours being physically blown apart. It's time to drop the Bureaucratic BS act and start to learn to love your fellow Human being.


BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 01:40:31 Reply

At 2/8/13 01:00 AM, theburningliberal wrote:
At 2/8/13 12:16 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 2/7/13 05:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/7/13 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote: IT IS MURDER.
IT is not murder. It is warfare.
You can try and justify as you say "warfare" in any way you choose but one things for dam sure and that is War includes Homicide which by rights should be considered Murder and it is unmoral so let's not try and sugar coat the critical gravity of unmoral killing buy hiding behind a corrupt gangster system of collusion and lies to benefit the few and not the many.
I've stayed out of this topic long enough. I want to talk about my position on drone strikes in general first.

In 2001, following 9/11 especially, we sought a new foreign policy in response to the attacks.

Attacks with many questions that went unanswered.

We announced a war on terror, and soon after invaded Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq. Drone strikes in a military theater I believe are perfectly justified.

Says the propaganda Media machine that is owned by the same money and interests as is Wall Street and Washington. Still your country never tried anyone for the accused crimes that took place on 9/11. Your country broke it's own rules and rewrote the book under the guise of a false pretense which is how War works and this is regardless of weather or not "Taliban" or alquada did or did not commit said crimes on that fateful day 9/11 as the States did not bring anything to the court system and NOTHING was investigated pertaining to the events that transpired that day 9/11.

Under President Obama, the use of unmanned drones to strike at "key leaders of al-qaida" has increased something like 350%. I am torn on this. On one hand, these are targets who, given the opportunity, would attack American interests and kill American citizens.

They would not even make it into the country LOL I guess you are unaware that America is now a Police State thanks to 9/11. War has historically been used by the power elite to impose more laws, litigation, taxation and subjugation on it's people. I don't see how this war is any different just because the "Media" told the people that the enemy flavor of the decade would be Arabs. The Media told the people but the Courts did not prove it to them because there is no real hard evidence against the alleged convicts being the Taliban, Alquada in the case of 9/11.

They need to be stopped. On the other hand, how accurate are these attacks? Do we risk endangering the lives of ordinary citizens of these countries if we use drone strikes? I don't think that's right.

Knowingly killing innocents is what evil people do and it needs to be stopped before it becomes accepted and snow balls.

As far as drones killing US Citizens, we should be informed about when it happens and why. But to say that the US government never has a right to kill a citizen is a statement ignorant of what the law allows.

This is where I agree with religion in that Humans are not the ones to call the shot on whom lives and whom dies and lets just leave it at that for simplicities sake.

So, ultimately, I do think it should be permissible for the government to target US citizens.

The line must be drawn. If you give the Government absolute power you will never get it back and somehow I think it is unfortunately to late. What if Americans are next on the shit list ? How would you like you home blown up and your family murder by the police ? think of how those poor people in the Middle east feel cause they are just the same as you and I.

Personally, I would like to see a judicial review of US citizens placed on these kill lists. I think that would probably be the best way to figure out who is and is not a military enemy of the state.
That's an extremely Fascistic sentiment of exalting the nation over the individual. America is the people not the Government or Military you are losing what it means to be a true American.


BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 18:53:08 Reply

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.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 19:01:40 Reply

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.

Where does "might commit a crime" come into the picture cause in that case we all are equally capable to creating crime and in the US there id far more crime than in the middle east. Those innocent people where casualties of a false War not casulaty because as you stated "They might" commit crime. Those innocent humans were killed by the US Government and so the US Government needs to be held accountable and charged and convicted of Homicide and we all know they are more than guilty of at leased that much.


BBS Signature
Lumber-Jax12
Lumber-Jax12
  • Member since: Jan. 15, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 21:08:34 Reply

At 2/7/13 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 2/7/13 01:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Drone strikes are better than extraction teams in EVERY way.
retarded liberal shit

shut the fuck up

I'll agree with husky, to even allow one US soldier death for one traitorous american terrorist, when we can simply bomb them from the sky, is the true crime

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 21:15:40 Reply

At 2/8/13 09:08 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:
At 2/7/13 04:04 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 2/7/13 01:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Drone strikes are better than extraction teams in EVERY way.
retarded liberal shit
shut the fuck up

I'll agree with husky, to even allow one US soldier death for one traitorous american terrorist, when we can simply bomb them from the sky, is the true crime

Tone it down with the Fascist/Nationalist rhetoric as you would not make it in the battlegrounds or the Military you would die hating it and you would death for choosing to destroy people as a career. Grow up and have some compassion as it could be your country next and then you will be the victim how would you like that ?


BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! 2013-02-08 22:02:37 Reply

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 unless 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).


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature