Be a Supporter!

Drones Killing US citizens!

  • 2,297 Views
  • 90 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 8th, 2013 @ 10:09 PM Reply

Fixed the quote from the Scott v. Harris case in order for it to be read more smoothly:

At 2/8/13 10:02 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

(i) Garner did not establish a magical on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officer's actions constitute "deadly force" The Court there simply applied the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" 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 Scott's actions constituted "deadly force," what matters is whether those actions were reasonable.


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

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! Feb. 8th, 2013 @ 10:31 PM Reply

At 2/8/13 09:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: 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 ?

Nazi rhetoric?

So wanting what is essentially a robot do the job of a flesh and blood, thousands of feet above the sky, and minimize casualties of our soldiers is fascist?

Look I hate this whole idea that the US is some how an aggressor in these conflicts.

We have 3000 innocent lives killed in one day by a terrorist organization, what should we do, sit back and expect the governments of the countries to hand them over to us, so they can be tried in a due process?

Afghanistan was justified, the Taliban (a ruthless organization mind you, to even try to defend them, you must simply lack any morals, or sense) was a gang of thugs, albeit a large one, who terrorized the country and held their people by a leash.

They were not the recognized government of Afghanistan, that belonged to the Northern Alliance under Massoud, though I'm sure you lack any real knowledge about the subject.

And if some one even begins to feel sympathetic to such vile and despicable men that are willing to fight against their own people, and that that life is more valuable than the life of a true American, one willing to give his or her life to his country (which is an honorable thing, but according to you it's somehow cowardly and facist, some balls you got there behind your screen) then there's a clear disconnect between you and most sensible people.

So before you say another stupid thing, explain to me what right or moral ground you stand on that you can say what you say?

Should we let 3000 people die for nothing? But we've killed millions for over seas in the Middle East, 63% of the deaths were caused not by Coalition forces, but by terrorist activity and other related problems. So we've killed around 20 (out of 110) thousand during the Iraq war, 8 of those being during the invasion phase. At a time were Iraq, in it's entirety, is an enemy, that's called total war.

And in Afghanistan it's around 69% of the deaths were caused by anti-government forces.

Compared to a more 'just' war as ww2 when we invaded Germany we caused upwards of a hundred thousand deaths.

So to say we've simply been slaughtering innocents left and right as if we're the reincarnation of the Mongols is wrong, most of these deaths occurs when we drop a bomb on a terrorist's home who has 10-12 members of his family with him.

Look there's a level of responsibility on the family members, now I'm not condemning the children as they'd be to young to understand, and it's an unfortunate reality when they die, but is no blame to be placed on the parents?

They should realize the dangers whether or not they're for or against the United States isn't the question. Any man, especially one against the US can't be so ignorant that he thinks he won't be found in such a populous area as a city, village or town.

To stay around his family, he's only endangering them, and the smart sensible thing to do is to abandon them to fight the US on your own in the mountains somewhere, but instead he put's his family's life at risk.

Are we responsible for the family, as a military at war the enemy is our prime concern, we are to kill him at all costs, if he keeps his family with him, the blood on his hands.

But these are irrational people we are dealing with, who endanger their own people and children's lives for some belief in 'paradise' through bloodshed.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 11:27 AM Reply

At 2/8/13 10:31 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: We have 3000 innocent lives killed in one day by a terrorist organization, what should we do, sit back and expect the governments of the countries to hand them over to us, so they can be tried in a due process?

;;;
I love how 9/11 is held up by Americans as being such a huge terrible thing.
YEt they all totally deny the fact that your country LIED
Invaded Iraq, to take their oil
HAve murdered over 100,000 of their citizens doin git
&
Killed their leader
Because he dared to refuse American Dollars for oil & accepted Euro's .

THat's the truth, try & spin it, deny it rail against me about it...but that's the truth.
The American Petro dollar was endangered by his actions & Georgie & his oil baron buddies couldn't have that !


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

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 12:12 PM Reply

At 2/9/13 11:27 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I love how 9/11 is held up by Americans as being such a huge terrible thing.

You are right about one thing. 9/11 has been used far beyond its last gasp. It was proper justification for Afghanistan and the beginning of the war on Terror, but no more. The current justification for the war on terror is the current and quite active terror acts and attempts that Al Qaeda et al have committed over the past decade and change.

Invaded Iraq, to take their oil

Any person with half a brain knows Iraq had zero to do with 9/11 or the war on terror. Those who belive it did are stuid Toby Kieth fans, and, frankly, don't deserve to live in a country that takes such good care of them. Might as well dump truthers in with this trash as well (that means you LL).

Lumber-Jax12
Lumber-Jax12
  • Member since: Jan. 15, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 01:28 PM Reply

Look no one here is saying Iraq was justified, Afghanistan sure as hell was, but not Iraq.

That being said however, Saddam was a bastard responsible for the death of well over a million kurds, and several thousand or more. He had an arsenal of WMD's. A nuclear weapon, despite being the strongest of the three, is not the only one. He still had chemical and biological weapons, which he used, again mostly on the Kurds.

Was Iraq a threat to the US, yes, but not to the point we should have invaded them. It was a mistake and should have been done through sanctions, and through the UN.

But once we invaded them (and won in a matter of weeks), then what? We crippled their military, government, infrastructure, pretty much devastated the country.

Would it better to simply pack up or bags and leave the Iraqis to the rubble we left behind?

Was it not the better action to at least try to help them rebuild their country? And as I've said before IBC has a current list of 110,000 civilians dead with only 30% of those deaths attributed to us, 7000+ of those during the opening invasion.

We have not gone over there and simply dominated them as if they were our slaves or subjects. Because believe me, if that was the case we would not have had the extra 4000 soldiers killed over there during our 10 year occupation.

And the retarded thing about IBC is it's based on a quote from Tommy Franks about not body counts FOR ENEMY casualties.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 02:21 PM Reply

At 2/9/13 01:28 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: That being said however, Saddam was a bastard responsible for the death of well over a million kurds, and several thousand or more. He had an arsenal of WMD's. A nuclear weapon, despite being the strongest of the three, is not the only one. He still had chemical and biological weapons, which he used, again mostly on the Kurds.

Not to mention all of that could have been avoided had the US not supported Saddam's party first the first place and given out names for his party to assassinate in the first place.

Just another item on the laundry list of the US putting it's nose in the middle east, and fucking everyone in process.

Was it not the better action to at least try to help them rebuild their country? And as I've said before IBC has a current list of 110,000 civilians dead with only 30% of those deaths attributed to us, 7000+ of those during the opening invasion.

We didn't need to have the war in the first place...and if, for some reason, you do feel the need to actually have a war, you do not rebuild your enemies.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 03:09 PM Reply

At 2/9/13 02:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: and if, for some reason, you do feel the need to actually have a war, you do not rebuild your enemies.

Yes you do.

Two of our biggest allies were created in no small part by post WWII aid. They are Germany and Japan. When you get an enemy to capitulate, rebuilding them in your image is a very strategically intelligent thing to do.

On the other hand, look at Afghanistan. When you go into a coun try destroy its structure and leave it in shambles, what arises? A major mess. The Taliban and Al Qaeda all exist today in no small part because the Soviets cut and ran in Afghanistan leaving the most ruthless and vicious warlords to claim the remnants.

Iraq did not capitulate in the manner Japan and Germany did, so building a new ally is highly unlikely. However, ook at the mess that was created while we were still there. Made post Soviet-invasion Afghanistan look like a children's play place. Had we left right after toppling Saddam the power vacuum would have sucked in Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, and other hostile forces to all vie (if not ally) for the region. Worst case scenario would have brought Israel into a large scale conventional war, dragging us in (as a result of our expensive and largely worthless) alliance with Israel. That conflict would have been far worse than our semi-occupation force's skirmishes.

Lumber-Jax12
Lumber-Jax12
  • Member since: Jan. 15, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 05:16 PM Reply

Since I've been frequenting another topic, the ex- LAPD cop rampage (which for some reason beyond me, 75% of the people there actually support the pyscho) would a drone be justified in it's use in such a case?

We could take him out, without collateral damage, since he is in the mountains, and it would reduce the risk of fatalities on the officers pursuing him.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 05:37 PM Reply

I am more concerned with Heart disease, Cigarets, Alcohol, and Obesity killing Americans than I am drones LOL.


BBS Signature
theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 11:26 PM 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.

Let's focus on two areas where the state (or an agent of the state) is permitted to kill a US citizen.

The first is when they have definitely committed a crime - and not just any crime, but a limited list of crimes deemed to be so reprehensible, so unacceptable that we can't be seen to encourage the behavior on any level. Murder and treason are on this list, and there are a few others, too similar in scale to the others I just listed. Now, we can have a whole debate on whether or not we should be doing this (the death penalty debate), but for now it is the law of the land.

The second is when an individual presents an 'imminent threat.' For instance, if police had gotten to Adam Lanza before he took his own life, the police would have been justified in firing on him (and killing him) in order to stop the carnage inside Sandy Hook. Events didn't work out that way, of course, but it gives you an example what I am talking about. This is also why, every so often, you hear of someone committing suicide via cop - they know that if they present a large enough threat, police will use lethal force to stop him.

Now, I'm not sure which post it was in but at some point I mentioned that, at minimum, US Citizens who could be subjected to drone strikes need to have their cases judicially reviewed before the strike can happen. These hearings can be held in confidence with the courts (because of the sensitive nature of what is discussed), but the case opinions should be released following the action subsequent to a judicial review. The reason I say this is because when US Citizens are deprived of their most fundamental rights by state action, the courts apply a standard of judicial review called 'strict scrutiny.' Some background on strict scrutiny for those who are not well versed:

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial to maintaining the balance between liberty and security in a free state.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. This part of strict scrutiny says that we must have a clear expectation of how the action will benefit the state.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately. Essentially, this part means that if there are any other options left on the table (capture & prosecution, etc...), those must be explored before the violation can be allowed.

I feel like I should state again, though - the way this administration is using drones is something I do not support. I would love to see this policy get taken to the Supreme Court, I would love to see what they have to say about it (and whether it would be permitted following a SCOTUS ruling).

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 9th, 2013 @ 11:37 PM Reply

At 2/9/13 05:16 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Since I've been frequenting another topic, the ex- LAPD cop rampage (which for some reason beyond me, 75% of the people there actually support the pyscho) would a drone be justified in it's use in such a case?

We could take him out, without collateral damage, since he is in the mountains, and it would reduce the risk of fatalities on the officers pursuing him.

Applying the judicial standard I mentioned:

- Compelling government interest - Considering this individual has already taken the lives of three innocent people and has made overtures referring to the potential future deaths of others, an argument could be made here that state action to deprive this individual of his life would be in protection of other citizens. I don't think any of us would have a problem with this guy getting killed by a police bullet, if it came to that. At this point, we aren't even talking about drones, we are just talking about whether it would be constitutionally justified to take this individual's life.

- Narrowly tailored - Again, still focused on the deprivation of life question - does the proposed action have a clear and direct benefit to the state? Yes. Depriving this guy of his life protects other citizens, which is a task we generally trust the state to ensure.

- Least restrictive - Here is where I think the court would have a problem with drones being used against this guy. For instance... if we ever do find this guy, a drone strike would not give him the chance to surrender. (I will touch on this again in a moment). If we send in police, at least the guy will have a chance to put down his weapon and give himself up. Drone strikes deprive him of that.

Now, while I haven't read the actual manifesto, I do know that he wrote one and that it was pretty clear about his intentions. Certainly, his actions since then have indicated his willingness to follow up on his threats. At some point. I would think even the court would argue that this guy has forfeited his right to due process (as happens when you present an imminent threat'). At that point, if we had reliable evidence about his position, I could maybe support a drone strike. Not so much if he is hiding in a populated area, but if he is hiding in the mountains and there is virtually no risk to innocent life? Send that dude to kingdom-come.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 09:28 AM Reply

At 2/9/13 11:26 PM, theburningliberal wrote: To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

;;;
Waht is interesting in your post on the 3 tests.
There is nothing to protect the innocents.
Sure there the protection of the State (which needs protecting ?why? )

But where's the protection to the innocent child or person who just happens to be nearby ?

IF for example, if a convicted deathrow inmate has appealed & lost, the sentence is being carried out & there is a very good possibility that when the people who are present (as there are at all US executions) will also die. Does that mean the sentence should still be carried out ?

Why is there no common sense, no decency on the rights to those innocent bystander/witnesses , why should they die, because the State says kill the condemned ?

THat's my main point (there are others) but the main one is death to not just the accused (& let us not forget they are only accused , not convicted) & the subsequent murders of those near them when the bombs explode.
IMO , a US drone strike, is no different than an extremist suicide bomber attack. THey are actually the same ... sure a drones a lot more high tech.
THe USA has decided ...we can beat the suicide bomber, Oh Yes !
We can beat them by specifically targeting just like a suicide bomber does
BUT ! ! ! ! !
we can do it without killing the bomber ~;p


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

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 10:28 AM Reply

At 2/10/13 09:28 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 2/9/13 11:26 PM, theburningliberal wrote: To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
;;;
Waht is interesting in your post on the 3 tests.
There is nothing to protect the innocents.
Sure there the protection of the State (which needs protecting ?why? )

The value the court applies is more protection of a free society, not the state itself. Whether or not the action serves a legitimate, compelling government interest is just a vehicle for testing this.


But where's the protection to the innocent child or person who just happens to be nearby ?

IF for example, if a convicted deathrow inmate has appealed & lost, the sentence is being carried out & there is a very good possibility that when the people who are present (as there are at all US executions) will also die. Does that mean the sentence should still be carried out ?

This would fall under the least restrictive standard. Targetting a convicted death row inmate for execution is one thing, but doing it in such a way that it involves others would be facially unconstitutional (I think).

Why is there no common sense, no decency on the rights to those innocent bystander/witnesses , why should they die, because the State says kill the condemned ?

THat's my main point (there are others) but the main one is death to not just the accused (& let us not forget they are only accused , not convicted) & the subsequent murders of those near them when the bombs explode.

This is where the constitution becomes a bit of a grey area. Sure, the constitution generally prohibits the state from taking action against its own citizens without due process of law (outside of the imminent threat standard, at which point through their own actions they are admitting guilt). But I don't know of any court cases that have specifically extended these protections to non citizens on foreign land. The closest I can think of is Boumediene v. Bush, but that involved claimants from Guantanamo which, as the court ruled, falls under US jurisdiction through de facto sovereignty. But given:
A) Boumediene extended constitutional protections (habeas corpus) to a non citizen
and
B) the extension was made outside of traditional US borders

the question then becomes where the reach of the constitution ends. Does the due process clause affect US policies towards non-citizens in foreign countries where the US has no sovereignty? Another question to consider for those who are killed in legitimate drone attacks - does the eighth amendment apply?

IMO , a US drone strike, is no different than an extremist suicide bomber attack. THey are actually the same ... sure a drones a lot more high tech.
THe USA has decided ...we can beat the suicide bomber, Oh Yes !
We can beat them by specifically targeting just like a suicide bomber does
BUT ! ! ! ! !
we can do it without killing the bomber ~;p

Eh, I dunno about all that, but I will say that if we really believe the principles of our government are so strong that they should be universally appealing on some level, we should also be willing to extend those principles to all, even if it is not convenient to do so. Current US drone policy does not do this.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 12:06 PM Reply

At 2/9/13 05:16 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Since I've been frequenting another topic, the ex- LAPD cop rampage (which for some reason beyond me, 75% of the people there actually support the pyscho) would a drone be justified in it's use in such a case?

We could take him out, without collateral damage, since he is in the mountains, and it would reduce the risk of fatalities on the officers pursuing him.

Actually, no, for multiple reasons.

First, Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the United States Military on US soil, with few exceptions. Drone strikes are NOT one fo the exceptions.

Second, the LAPD cop has not joined Al Qaeda or Allied himself with Al Qaeda and thus has not become and enemy combatant under an AUMF or a declaration of war.

At 2/9/13 11:26 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Let's focus on two areas where the state (or an agent of the state) is permitted to kill a US citizen.

Actually, there are three areas, and since this falls in the third area you failed to mention, your entire reasoning is moot.

The third is if the US citizen is a soldier in an open war, the soldier can be killed in a combat mission regardless of their citizenship.

Even if the third category required some amount of judicial review, you set the bar for proof far too high for the circumstances. The only proof needed would be a declaration of open war, or an AUMF, and proof that the citizen is allied with or a member of the opposing force. It would not need strict scrutiny either as there is no Constitutional guarantee to life.

theburningliberal
theburningliberal
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 01:39 PM Reply

At 2/8/13 01:40 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Attacks with many questions that went unanswered.

The questions that I presume you speak of were debunked in the 9/11 Commission Report. Many were based on misunderstandings of engineering principles and perceived "evidence" that didn't really exist.

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.

Yeah, we did. And not just us. Zacarias Moussaoui is serving a life sentence for his role in the 9/11 attacks (sentenced in the US). Mounir el-Motassadeq is serving 15 years in a German prison. Abu Dahdah is serving 12 years in a Spanish prison, along with 17 other al-Qaeda members in connection with the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is currently being detained at Guantanamo after admitting his involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

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.

9/11 Commission Report? We spent over a year investigating not only the attacks and attackers, but the weaknesses in US security which they exploited to be able to carry out the attacks. The rest of the above statement is just gibberish and doesn't make any real points.

They would not even make it into the country LOL

You do realize there are American citizens and American interests in places other than the US, right?

I guess you are unaware that America is now a Police State thanks to 9/11.

Not really. I still have my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (due process, no unreasonable search and seizure) and the NDAA is still being pushed through judicial review, with a strong possibility that it could be struck down again in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.

The Taliban were never accused of having perpetrated 9/11, at least not once the evidence starting coming out. What we did accuse them of was harboring al-Qaeda and giving substantial support to their terrorist operations. State sponsors of terrorism cannot be tolerated. And yes, courts all over the world have heard evidence relating to the 9/11 attacks.

The whole debate about whether war is necessary or not is a different issue for a different thread, but I am of the belief that you can never completely take the option off the table - but it should be the very last option on the table and only used if all other possible solutions have been explored with no success.

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

First off, considering public opinion is generally against the use of drone strikes in civilian settings (US or otherwise), I don't think these drone attacks will be generally palatable for much longer. I think we've had about enough, and a candidate who actually offers a more diplomatic foreign policy in re: war on terror is going to have a strong shot at the white house in 2016.

Secondly, good and evil are concepts that don't exist outside of theoretical discussions. The real world is in thousands of shades of grey. This is why FDR can still be regarded as one of the greatest presidents in our history even though he oversaw the development of the atom bomb. His policies in war research ended up creating a weapon that killed hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians.

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.

Tell that to the religious fanatics who hijacked airlines and smashed them into buildings on 9/11, killing three thousand people needlessly. Point is, they don't follow their own beliefs anyway. It's time to come out of this fantasy land you've built for yourself and join us in the sunshine. There's porn here, I promise, it's great.

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.

As I've previously stated, the requisite power needed to do this has already been given to the government by the people who argued the state should have the power to execute a person if their crimes are heinous enough that society can't find justice another way. At this point, we are just arguing over the how, which is a pretty semantic game to play. With that said, previous court history has shown that the how does matter (this is why most states use lethal injection now, as opposed to gas chambers or electric chairs). The rest of your argument is just emotional drivel aimed at trying to convince us to be on the side of an argument that we are not even having in this thread.

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.

Dumbass. Using your terminology, the only thing I'm exalting is the social consciousness expressed over the last 250 years of American law-making. There are some people - McVeigh, bin Laden, this Dorner guy all come to mind - who we all want to see put down because the crimes they have committed against the rest of us using the established methods of decision making that have existed since long before we were born. These channels of government operate on levels that the federal government has little impact on (this is why federalism is a good thing). Even at the federal level, you have a Supreme Court that is relatively insulated from the politics and power games in Washington. They can stand for the rights of individuals and minorities against the power of government when it is right to do so.

Moreover, I refer you to my post where I detailed the strict scrutiny requirement and how it's applied. Go read and learn yourself something.

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 07:22 PM Reply

Okay well apparently this may not be a hypothetical much longer

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-10/us-use-drones-chris -dorner-manhunt

Now, already using drones to find criminals on US Soil is nothing new- its happened before

Though in this manhunt so far police have shot up random trucks because they matched his vehicles description (without running license plates)

Will Dorner be the first citizen to be "droned" on US soil. An what about collateral damage.

Anybody that advocates using drones, i hope you don't live in an area where a criminal lives...they may have to "excersize justice on your neighboorhood" because...criminals are dangerous

Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 07:51 PM Reply

For whom teh bell tolls =D

Drones Killing US citizens!

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 08:34 PM Reply

At 2/10/13 07:22 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Anybody that advocates using drones, i hope you don't live in an area where a criminal lives...they may have to "excersize justice on your neighboorhood" because...criminals are dangerous

I sincerely hope you realize that the "drones" used in law enforcement have little difference with police helicopters. It is simply an alternative (in this case, more efficient) form of aerial surveillance. Nobody is advocating the use of military devices armed to take down suspected criminals inside the United States - despite it being legal should Chris Dorner present a lethal threat (immediate) to innocent life.

And once Dorner is found by remote-control, it will be again up to drones to secure his "elimination."

I'll admit, this part made me giggle.


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

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 10th, 2013 @ 09:58 PM Reply

At 2/10/13 07:22 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Okay well apparently this may not be a hypothetical much longer

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-10/us-use-drones-chris -dorner-manhunt

Now, already using drones to find criminals on US Soil is nothing new- its happened before

Though in this manhunt so far police have shot up random trucks because they matched his vehicles description (without running license plates)

It doesn't say that in the link.

Will Dorner be the first citizen to be "droned" on US soil. An what about collateral damage.

Again your link only says that they're using drones, not that they're using armed drones. It sounds more like what you know helicopters are used for.

Anybody that advocates using drones, i hope you don't live in an area where a criminal lives...they may have to "excersize justice on your neighboorhood" because...criminals are dangerous

Drones on their own statistically have less collateral damage than incursions by ground forces or by other aircraft, hence why they're such a success. In this case it appears to be used the same thing helicopters for the police are used for, to look at shit.


"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
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 10:39 AM Reply

Though in this manhunt so far police have shot up random trucks because they matched his vehicles description (without running license plates)
It doesn't say that in the link.

I heard it on the television actually, two occurrences of it?

Poniiboi
Poniiboi
  • Member since: Mar. 1, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Musician
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 10:54 AM Reply

At 2/5/13 08:30 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: WASHINGTON -- A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming cabinet.

The report, by Michael Isikoff of NBC News, reveals that the Obama administration believes that high-level administration officials -- not just the president -- may order the killing of âEUoesenior operational leadersâEU of al-Qaida or an associated force even without evidence they are actively plotting against the U.S.

so the all the government needs is "suspicion" and they can frag their own citizens

and this isn't tyranny at its finest? maybe we should ask our Overlord Obama for his opinion.

I wouldn't focus on Obama; I think that's a mistake. This systematic and constant taking of our rights has been going on for some time now. Don't make this partisan.

The people to focus on are the corporations and special interests that control government because they do not have to be re-elected.

What we can do: Go small business. Boycott big business. Support your local mom and pops.


no, really...DON'T CLICK THE PIC

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 11:07 AM Reply

The people to focus on are the corporations and special interests that control government because they do not have to be re-elected.

What we can do: Go small business. Boycott big business. Support your local mom and pops.

But who can afford to pay more for the same object in this economy?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 12:00 PM Reply

At 2/11/13 11:07 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But who can afford to pay more for the same object in this economy?

That's not the fault of the big corporations, but of the consumer. The consumer so drooled over WalMart style shit for nothing prices that they ended up lowering profit margins thus hastening the outsourcing push to keep profits up and thus kicking the US consumer ut of a job or making work harder for less, so much so that the US consumer can no longer afford to shop for US made goods and stop the bleeding.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 03:41 PM Reply

At 2/11/13 12:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/11/13 11:07 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But who can afford to pay more for the same object in this economy?
That's not the fault of the big corporations, but of the consumer. The consumer so drooled over WalMart style shit for nothing prices that they ended up lowering profit margins thus hastening the outsourcing push to keep profits up and thus kicking the US consumer ut of a job or making work harder for less, so much so that the US consumer can no longer afford to shop for US made goods and stop the bleeding.

The people do not like Walmart junk it's just that for some purchases they can get it cheaper. Nobody wants "Cheap" but for most that's all they can afford well with insane fuel costs and inflation soon the people will not even be abile to afford cheap shit and the Government will have to step in and subsides Walmart some more. Welcome to Wallmart the modern day soup kitchen and bread line where YOU have to pay for you own shitty soup. People are so dumb.


BBS Signature
Th-e
Th-e
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 11th, 2013 @ 09:37 PM Reply

Hey, I haven't looked at this topic in much detail, but I have heard about it.

And I also noticed this article.

http://adamhudson.org/2012/06/08/death-note-and-obamas-kill-
list/

Obama's Kill List. A real life Death Note. Only with drones, and innocent people around the targets die (the Death Note could only kill the person named and in the person's mind).

It does feel similar. Do you think Obama is the new Kira?


Feel no mercy for me. It will only cause you to suffer as well.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 12th, 2013 @ 12:37 AM Reply

At 2/11/13 09:37 PM, Th-e wrote: Do you think Obama is the new Kira?

No. The connection is just an attempt to make something serious appear absurd.

JudgeDredd
JudgeDredd
  • Member since: Aug. 18, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 13th, 2013 @ 12:33 AM Reply

At 2/9/13 03:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Taliban and Al Qaeda all exist today in no small part because the Soviets cut and ran in Afghanistan leaving the most ruthless and vicious warlords to claim the remnants.

10 myths about Afghanistan... #5. After the Soviets withdrew, the west walked away.

"Far from forgetting about Afghanistan in February 1989, the US showed no let-up in its close involvement with the mujahideen. Washingtonblocked the Soviet-installed President Mohammad Najibullah's offers of concessions and negotiations and continued to arm the rebels and jihadis in the hope they would quickly overthrow his Moscow-backed regime."

This was one of the most damaging periods in recent Afghan history when the west and Pakistan, along with mujahideen intransigence, undermined the best chance of ending the country's civil war. The overall effect of these policies was to prolong and deepen Afghanistan's destruction, as Charles Cogan, CIA director of operations for the Middle East and south Asia, 1979-1984, later recognised. "I question whether we should have continued on this momentum, this inertia of aiding the mujahideen after the Soviets had left. I think that was probably, in retrospect, a mistake," he said

.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 13th, 2013 @ 10:19 AM Reply

At 2/13/13 12:33 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: 10 myths about Afghanistan... #5. After the Soviets withdrew, the west walked away.

But the West wasn't there in a stability building capacity. Neither was the Soviet Union. The USSR has spent a great deal of effort toppling what structure Afghanistan had and did very little to build a new structure in its place. The West may have had its hands in post Soviet Afghanistan, but they were clearly not there to help rebuild, thus leaving the major power vacuum for the warlords to take over (with help from the West).

"Far from forgetting about Afghanistan in February 1989, the US showed no let-up in its close involvement with the mujahideen. Washingtonblocked the Soviet-installed President Mohammad Najibullah's offers of concessions and negotiations and continued to arm the rebels and jihadis in the hope they would quickly overthrow his Moscow-backed regime."

This is exactly what would happen in Iraq if we had left immediately. We would be the Soviets, and the Al Qaedas, Irans, and other hostile groups in the MIddle East would play the puppet topplers.

FightingSeraph
FightingSeraph
  • Member since: May. 25, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 60
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 20th, 2013 @ 05:22 PM Reply

Here's something even more startling:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/pelosi-obama -doesnt-have-confess-drone-kills/

It makes me wonder why there aren't more people on this site backing the Libertarian Party.


I'm not impressed with the way things are going here.
Old Music|Artistic Progress|Current Music
MSN & Trillian: Ask first.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Drones Killing US citizens! Feb. 20th, 2013 @ 06:53 PM Reply

At 2/20/13 05:22 PM, FightingSeraph wrote: Here's something even more startling:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/18/pelosi-obama -doesnt-have-confess-drone-kills/

Um ok? How is that startling?

It makes me wonder why there aren't more people on this site backing the Libertarian Party.

Believe it or not because they're just more of the same shit. I mean it was so depressing watching the 3rd party debates where they all repeated the same thing and had the same stance on nearly every issue aside from of course Virgil Goode.


"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