Drone strikes on Americans

[carlfense]

IMO, this is far more concerning than any of the proposed gun legislation. This is Obama's Justice Department . . . and this is wrong.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

 

http://openchannel.n...cid=msnhp&pos=1

[knapplc]

They've already VERY loosely defined "enemy combatant" or "insurgent." This isn't much of a departure from that doctrine. The only difference is that they're not allowing the "enemy" to hide behind the cloak of American citizenship.

 

I'm troubled by this because what's to prevent this from happening here in America? Even if it doesn't happen under Obama, future presidents could interpret this authority very differently.

[rawhide]

To me it's the whole "extrajudicial" part that is chilling. "It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.” Why is there even a discussion. And the FBI director said he would consult with his superiors when asked if it was "addressed" whether the memo meant targeting Americans just overseas or within the borders of the USA. WTF.

On the other hand, people are literally screaming for the rights of illegal aliens.

 

Please do not try to adjust the picture on your TV set. We are in control.

[Undone]

I'll throw out a fairly bold statement on this. For me, this is almost in the same ball park as abortion, or capital punishment when proper legal representation for the defendant isn't provided. This is entirely terrible, and it's not getting much press. People are being killed without any defense of their own lives. And my understanding, which I believe to be accurate, is that there's a considerable amount of collateral damage in these drone strikes as well. Innocents being killed along with potentially innocents.

 

I don't blame Obama alone. I blame also the Bush admin and our congress who pushed the Patriot Act through. Those were all precursors to this type of "anti-terrorism" initiatives.

[knapplc]

I don't have a problem with "people" being killed by drones, I just have a problem with launching hellfire missiles at villages with women and children, then later classifying them as "enemy combatants." They're villagers, not the enemy. They no more deserve to die than any random person in a neighborhood in America.

 

If Americans are in some foreign land consorting with the enemy, and a missile hits... sorry. I feel the same lack of empathy for them as I feel for mountain climbers who die falling off the rock. You know the risks, you took them, that's on you.

[Undone]

If Americans are in some foreign land consorting with the enemy, and a missile hits... sorry. I feel the same lack of empathy for them as I feel for mountain climbers who die falling off the rock. You know the risks, you took them, that's on you.

That's a good way to look at it.

 

The collateral damage is horrendous. And I agree with the above comments that there's a bigger concept at large with regards to where the limitations are (aren't). It's pretty scary. And people should be aware of it.

[walksalone]

I don't have a problem with "people" being killed by drones, I just have a problem with launching hellfire missiles at villages with women and children, then later classifying them as "enemy combatants." They're villagers, not the enemy. They no more deserve to die than any random person in a neighborhood in America.

 

If Americans are in some foreign land consorting with the enemy, and a missile hits... sorry. I feel the same lack of empathy for them as I feel for mountain climbers who die falling off the rock. You know the risks, you took them, that's on you.

 

I concur, and this is where the "ELINT" isn't as good as good old fashioned boots on the ground intel. Granted, you can get a pretty good idea of whats going on with a birdseye view, but there's going to be a possibility that you'll miss something...

[Junior]

I don't have a problem with "people" being killed by drones, I just have a problem with launching hellfire missiles at villages with women and children, then later classifying them as "enemy combatants." They're villagers, not the enemy. They no more deserve to die than any random person in a neighborhood in America.

 

If Americans are in some foreign land consorting with the enemy, and a missile hits... sorry. I feel the same lack of empathy for them as I feel for mountain climbers who die falling off the rock. You know the risks, you took them, that's on you.

 

Agreed. 100% Agreed.

[carlfense]

If Americans are in some foreign land consorting with the enemy, and a missile hits... sorry.

My problem is the somewhat shaky concept of proof of consorting with the enemy. Not to mention the . . . creative? . . . interpretation of "imminent."

 

 

Citizens of the United States are being killed by the United States government without due process and the usual suspects who cry "tyranny!" "fascism!" "extremist!" are strangely silent. IMO this is a more important issue than limiting magazine capacity . . . but apparently it doesn't push the right buttons.

[knapplc]

Those citizens of the United States aren't over there on vacation. They aren't archeologists and they aren't humanitarians. They're over there in regions known to be populated by people who have sworn enmity to America/Americans. This is not a place to go if you don't want to be targeted by a drone strike.

 

It's an entirely different situation if they're on the Jersey Turnpike and suddenly their Honda Civic is reduced to flaming wreckage as they commute home from work. At that point the hue and cry would be deafening. But overseas, in known enemy territory... I'm having a hard time mustering sympathy for them.

[Undone]

But the thing is knapp, there are again two different facets to this issue. There's the issue of what's warranted "warfare," and there's a the concept of executing someone without the literal due process of law.

 

Then there's "part b" of that second point that exposes the potential of our government to greatly abuse that power.

[carlfense]

Those citizens of the United States aren't over there on vacation. They aren't archeologists and they aren't humanitarians. They're over there in regions known to be populated by people who have sworn enmity to America/Americans. This is not a place to go if you don't want to be targeted by a drone strike.

 

It's an entirely different situation if they're on the Jersey Turnpike and suddenly their Honda Civic is reduced to flaming wreckage as they commute home from work. At that point the hue and cry would be deafening. But overseas, in known enemy territory... I'm having a hard time mustering sympathy for them.

I agree with what you're saying in general . . . but that's an awful lot of power to essentially delegate to the president.

 

"Meh. I trust that they're only killing without due process the bad American citizens." That's dangerous thinking in my opinion. It might be true right now. It still makes me queasy.

[carlfense]

But the thing is knapp, there are again two different facets to this issue. There's the issue of what's warranted "warfare," and there's a the concept of executing someone without the literal due process of law.

 

Then there's "part b" of that second point that exposes the potential of our government to greatly abuse that power.

[knapplc]

But the thing is knapp, there are again two different facets to this issue. There's the issue of what's warranted "warfare," and there's a the concept of executing someone without the literal due process of law.

 

Then there's "part b" of that second point that exposes the potential of our government to greatly abuse that power.

 

I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that we've stomped all over the line that separates the two for centuries. The drones are simply the latest tool they're using to do this. That doesn't make it any better, it's just... new.

[strigori]

The future possibility of manipulation is a concern. But I have no issue with Americans who have joined terrorist organizations getting killed.

 

And maybe I'm a callous bastard, but I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the collateral damage either. Its too much of a post WWII way of thinking that only the uniformed soldiers are subject to hostilities. That method doesn't ultimately win anything if history is any indicator. Many who do end up as 'collateral damage' are at least sympathetic to the cause of the targets, if not outright supporting them through living accommodations, food or other supplies.