Obama Drone Attacks Legal/Moral?...

[RetiredGySgt]

Is your argument that they only have rights under the Constitution if they are captured and we are free to otherwise kill them? How can that be the desired outcome? How can only one class of Enemy Combatants, those captured, have rights as US citizens?

The ones that we killed are denied their rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments!!

Do you see the rather large inconsistency in the Librul logic of granting Enemy Combatants rights as a citizen under the US Constitution?

Yes. Assuming we're talking about them being in a foreign country on foreign soil, the Constitution and its protections only apply to them once we capture them. If they're currently engaged in active hostilities against us, we have every right to kill them. If they are not currently engaged in active hostilities against us, it is the right thing to do to take them in, but killing them would not be illegal.

The reason only people captured by the U.S. have Constitutional rights (again, read my post you quoted that quotes the Constitution and demonstrates it is unquestionably not reserved for U.S. citizens, as the Supreme Court has always found and as is plain in the text, so they're not getting rights as U.S. citizens, they're getting Constitutional rights) is because the Constitution only applies to people who fall under U.S. jurisdiction. An Afghani is subject to Afghan law, but if we place him under U.S. custody, he is now subject to American law as well. This is because the Constitution decrees it.

It has nothing to do with "liberal logic," it's the logic of the framers of the Constitution. Laws are not outcome based but principle based. Sometimes laws have negative outcomes, for instance a guilty person is found innocent, because the laws are designed to protect more significant, inalienable rights and principles of justice than any one court case could effect. And of course, again, as has been made quite clear and is frankly incontrovertible, the Constitution does not only apply to U.S. citizens so they're not being given "rights as a citizen under the US Constitution," but rather given the Constitutional rights the Constitution protects and assures for all persons.

Why anyone would have a problem with the Constitution granting rights to anyone under its custody and following the law on that remains to be seen. There are numerous laws against all forms of terrorism or support for terrorism that make it extremely easy to convict anyone actually involved in any way with terrorism to a life sentence in Supermax (from which no one has ever escaped). Between 9/11 and 2008, we convicted 195 people of terrorism charges (a 91% conviction rate) in federal court, they're now in prison and no longer pose a threat. Terrorists aren't X-Men, there's no reason we have to break the law or establish a needlessly complex new system just to try them. Terrorists are criminals and have been tried successfully as such for decades. Why would we even need to violate the Constitution and repudiate our justice system to stop them? It works just fine, and it also affords us the opportunity to prove that open democracy works and is preferable to radical Islam, it provides justice and keeps us secure, unlike radical lawlessness.

Imagine two terrorists walking down a street in Durkadurakstan, a Marine sniper kills one but the second is captured and brought to trial in an American criminal court with imaginary rights as a US Citizen.

When did he obtain these rights? Did he always have them? What about his friends who was sniped? What happened to his rights?

He wouldn't be given imaginary rights as a U.S. citizen, he'd be given Constitutional rights as someone in U.S. custody.

He obtained the rights when he was captured and detained by agents of the U.S. His friend never had those rights because he was never under U.S. jurisdiction. The rights are universal to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not all persons everywhere.

So, since we no longer have the concept of Enemy Combatant, don't we have to Mirandize the newly minted US Citizen?

Wait. It is illegal for the Military to arrest American citizens except in VERY limited places and fashions. So I guess we should just pull our troops out and send in brigades of Cops.

There is a REASON this is called a WAR and not a POLICE action.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way dumb shit, the Supreme Court ALSO ruled that every enemy Combatant we capture can be tried by Military Tribunal. Not required to send any of them to Federal Court, in fact it is a bad idea all round. They did not receive the safe guards a person would receive in the Civilian sector and so any competent Judge would have to throw the charges out for violating numerous of their supposed rights. No right to an attorney before questioning, no speedy trial, no right to hear the charges, no right to face their accusers, No 5th amendment protection. No right to a bail hearing. And the BIGGEST of them all is the fact that the US Attorney General ANNOUNCED on National TV they are not Innocent till proven guilty. He stated that if a Federal Court does not convict them he will turn them back over to the military for indefinite detention or a Military Tribunal.

 

[Rudy]

By the way dumb shit, the Supreme Court ALSO ruled that every enemy Combatant we capture can be tried by Military Tribunal. Not required to send any of them to Federal Court, in fact it is a bad idea all round. They did not receive the safe guards a person would receive in the Civilian sector and so any competent Judge would have to throw the charges out for violating numerous of their supposed rights. No right to an attorney before questioning, no speedy trial, no right to hear the charges, no right to face their accusers, No 5th amendment protection. No right to a bail hearing. And the BIGGEST of them all is the fact that the US Attorney General ANNOUNCED on National TV they are not Innocent till proven guilty. He stated that if a Federal Court does not convict them he will turn them back over to the military for indefinite detention or a Military Tribunal.

What Supreme Court case was that? Please fill us all in

 

[ba1614]

The ACLU just announced this week that they will now be requesting undisclosed information on this Administration's use of Drone attacks by way of the 'Freedom of Information Act.' They say they will now challenge the Legality of such attacks which are known to have killed thousands of civilians around the World. This week this Administration announced the killing of a prominent Taliban leader in Pakistan but what they didn't announce was that this Drone attack also killed his entire family. So while the ACLU is questioning the Legality of Drone attacks,others are beginning to question the morality or immorality of such attacks as well. I would be very interested in hearing what others think on this topic. Thanks.

He was a legit target, anyone dumb enough to be living with him is collateral damage. The ACLU can go pound sand up their collective asses.

This is, I believe, the only thing I agree with the obama about, and think they should bomb the fuckers relentlessly and collateral damage be damned. They know who the criminals are and if they choose to hide, and/or support these assholes then they should be sent to meet Allah as well.

 

[Dr Gregg]

There are some real scummy people on here. I guess instead of accepting the fact that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is killing so many innocent civiilians, its just easier to turn a blind eye and believe that they really are harboring the terrorists.

Getting the bad guys is a good thing, but killing all these innocent civilians is going to do one thing, anger the people that lose loved ones, maybe making them join the bad guys out of that anger. Many of you would do that same if someone blew up your family. ANd lead to ill will towards this country and american troops.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way dumb shit, the Supreme Court ALSO ruled that every enemy Combatant we capture can be tried by Military Tribunal. Not required to send any of them to Federal Court, in fact it is a bad idea all round. They did not receive the safe guards a person would receive in the Civilian sector and so any competent Judge would have to throw the charges out for violating numerous of their supposed rights. No right to an attorney before questioning, no speedy trial, no right to hear the charges, no right to face their accusers, No 5th amendment protection. No right to a bail hearing. And the BIGGEST of them all is the fact that the US Attorney General ANNOUNCED on National TV they are not Innocent till proven guilty. He stated that if a Federal Court does not convict them he will turn them back over to the military for indefinite detention or a Military Tribunal.

What Supreme Court case was that? Please fill us all in

You are a dumb fuck. The one that finally allowed the Tribunals that were going on when Obama stopped them to claim he wanted a Federal Court setting.

The one forced by the idiot liberals all trying to protect known terrorists

Tell me you are like 18 and just started watching the news?

 

[Dr Gregg]

If cops were going after a bad guy in an apartment or house next to you and they dropped a missile blowing up that house (and yours) and killing loved one of yours, would you find that acceptable? So why should it be ok to kill innocents to go after bad guys, just because they are foreigners?

You've inadvertently I think, hit upon the problem. Too many see the military as police, they're not. Just as police are trained to use a great deal of restraint, even when under fire, the military is not trained for the same tasks, nor should they be.

The use of drones is the one foreign policy measure I applaud Obama for escalating. It saves American and allied soldiers lives. That's putting our interests first and should be the way we go.

Drones are less discriminating than smart bombs, but less expensive and less risky to our soldiers' lives.

that's the problem, they should be, as now that they are trying to get a gov't in place and to be stable, tehy have to act like cops.THey are occupiers now, its not regular warfare. Killing innocent people now it just going to create more enemies, more animosity, fuel the insurgents fire even more.

Our troops overthrew the gov't in place, so now its their job to keep the peace, not keep blowing up buildings and being OK with collateral damage.

I guess the way some of you are thinking, the victims of 9/11 were just collateral damage of Al qaida's war on American government and its financial institutes. Does sound so acceptable now.

Talk about talking our your asses trying to excuse the killing of innocent people. unreal

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess Obama did not get the memo that Tribunals were not allowed.

President Obama to Reinstate Revamped Military Tribunals - Political Punch

 

[Rudy]

By the way dumb shit, the Supreme Court ALSO ruled that every enemy Combatant we capture can be tried by Military Tribunal. Not required to send any of them to Federal Court, in fact it is a bad idea all round. They did not receive the safe guards a person would receive in the Civilian sector and so any competent Judge would have to throw the charges out for violating numerous of their supposed rights. No right to an attorney before questioning, no speedy trial, no right to hear the charges, no right to face their accusers, No 5th amendment protection. No right to a bail hearing. And the BIGGEST of them all is the fact that the US Attorney General ANNOUNCED on National TV they are not Innocent till proven guilty. He stated that if a Federal Court does not convict them he will turn them back over to the military for indefinite detention or a Military Tribunal.

What Supreme Court case was that? Please fill us all in

You are a dumb fuck. The one that finally allowed the Tribunals that were going on when Obama stopped them to claim he wanted a Federal Court setting.

The one forced by the idiot liberals all trying to protect known terrorists

Tell me you are like 18 and just started watching the news?

And I'm asking you to cite your source. Its very simple.

 

[rightwinger]

Drones terrorize the terrorists. They are afraid to show their faces because of the silent death.

They are in greater fear than we are

 

[Rudy]

I guess Obama did not get the memo that Tribunals were not allowed.

President Obama to Reinstate Revamped Military Tribunals - Political Punch

Did you even read the article?

Fucking dumbass.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Drones terrorize the terrorists. They are afraid to show their faces because of the silent death.

They are in greater fear than we are

Don't forget according to Papa Obama, they kill innocents too (no need to thank me)


"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a91VZUi1IN4]YouTube - Obama: We Are "Air Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians"[/ame]

 

[CMike]

so anyone in the military is committing cold blooded murder if there is ''collateral damage'', civilians killed????

Well since the Jihadist DO have Constitutional rights the answer is "yes" and their estates can sue in Civil court too

 

[CMike]

I bet before the drone attacks, the terrorists aren't even read their miranda rights.

What an outrage.

Obama is obviously a war criminals and should be tried in an international court for serial murder.

 

[CMike]

Drones terrorize the terrorists. They are afraid to show their faces because of the silent death.

They are in greater fear than we are

And you see this just promotes terrorism.

I am sure the drones attacks upset the terrorists and it's used for Al Qaida recruiting.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I bet before the drone attacks, the terrorists aren't even read their miranda rights.

What an outrage.

Obama is obviously a war criminals and should be tried in an international court for serial murder.

I agree- just terrible

Where is Cindy Sheehan and the MSM on this ?

Where is Cindy Sheehan or MSM silent on Anti-war crowd- left, hypocrisy is thy name

 

[CMike]

I admit readily that I've read no further than the first few words of the OP, so forgive me if this has been said but fuck the ACLU.

 

[CMike]

I bet some of these attacks occurred even at night, and woke up some of the locals.

Okay everyone sing along.

OBAMA LIED PEOPLE DIED OBAMA LIED PEOPLE DIED OBAMA LIED PEOPLE DIED.

 

[skookerasbil]

There are some real scummy people on here. I guess instead of accepting the fact that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan is killing so many innocent civiilians, its just easier to turn a blind eye and believe that they really are harboring the terrorists.

Getting the bad guys is a good thing, but killing all these innocent civilians is going to do one thing, anger the people that lose loved ones, maybe making them join the bad guys out of that anger. Many of you would do that same if someone blew up your family. ANd lead to ill will towards this country and american troops.

s0n........well then, perhaps the drones are killing more bad guys then we think

The "scummy" people the k00ks refer to are called realists!! They see the world differently than the k00ks..........they see it for what it is: a choice between "suck" and "suckier". In civilized societies, all people's turn against the radicals no matter the cost. In this culture however, the people are largely ball-less!!! Yes.......ball-less!! It is not the fault of civilized societies that they are centuries behind. These "moderate" people choose to sit on the sidelines and be intimidated by the radicals. Unfortunately for them, that's their problem..............not to mention that the k00ks are awesome for indicting the manner in which war is conducted but offer ZERO..............ZERO pratical solutions as to how we should otherwise confront the problem.

 

[Annie]

I'm going to sound callous, but here goes. We used literally tons of smart bombs early on in Afghanistan and Iraq, all the while being criticized by homefront and abroad for any civilian casualties. In order to send those 'smartbombs' through windows and caves, intelligence had to be gathered, which included humans at risk-our humans. Sometimes they were killed.

Drones don't require the same, they are not so precise and timing isn't a big factor. So yes, considering the case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, I prefer that our soldiers live. It's not like people in Pakistan/Afghanistan are unaware of the drones or bad guys, probably smart to avoid proximity with the bad guys.

You do indeed sound incredibly callous. Predator drones in Pakistan have killed 1,510 civilians and 22 suspected Al Qaeda operatives since 2006, or 69 innocent people a pop. I caught that the first time. I'm sounding callous, not illiterate.

Why should those 69 innocent civilians die in exchange for the potential harm of one soldier? Beyond that, why is it worth killing 69 innocent civilians to kill one terrorist? How do you conclude that the death of one terrorist at the specific time and place of the attack is worth also killing such an incredibly disproportionate amount of civilians? In fact, how is deciding that it's okay to kill 69 innocent civilians in order to kill one potentially legitimate target not itself terrorism? We are aware of how indiscriminate and imprecise predator drones are, we are aware of how many civilians they kill, which means when we decide to use them anyway we do it with the understanding that we're intentionally killing civilians because we believe their lives are less important than snuffing out one target.For the same reason that continuous bombing of Germany was acceptable, but brutal during WWII. For the same reason that dropping the bombs on Japan was acceptable. It was war, which is something to get over as soon as possible, with as few casualties on your side, then make peace.

The US would inflict far fewer casualties on the enemy and itself if it followed that basic tenet, 'Punish in war, make a lasting peace afterwards. Leave no doubt of which side won.' It would be much less costly in loss of life and recurring wars.

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate

As for the innocent people you callously describe, what options do you suggest they have? Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was forced into their country when America invaded and occupied their neighbor. Now they live not only with the threat from terrorists, but also the constant threat of assault from indiscriminate unmanned killing machines responsible for the death of over a thousand of their countrymen. You won't get a fight for me on this. Last I remember from history, once overrun, you fight with the conqueror or die. Thus we need to conquer the conquerors there. Yes, the innocent or no longer innocents will also be caught in that.
Terrorists, by nature, hide among civilian populations so as to be undetected and become hard to target. So no, most people killed are likely unaware they are around the "bad guys." Even if they know someone in the area may be involved with Al Qaeda, what do you suggest they do, immediately pack up their things and leave their homes and businesses and churches and hope that the next town they make it to doesn't have any other alleged terrorists hiding in their midst? Is that really reasonable?

More to the point, 39 out of 44 predator drone attacks in 2009 and 50 out of 60 attacks between 2006-2009 didn't even hit their targets, i.e. they didn't strike where the bad guys were they accidentally struck where they weren't - where only innocent people were. So the problem there is taking aggressive action on faulty intelligence, not poor civilians being in proximity of "the bad guys" who should by any standard have known better or who are in any way at fault. See above.

Knowing this, it's really the height of immorality to suggest that this is a good and worthwhile policy. Do you have no compassionate for all the innocent people killed, and can you not imagine how you would feel if your neighborhood, friends, family were killed because the military of another nation thought there might be a couple "bad guys" within it? And wouldn't the pain be even worse if it turned out they were wrong and the attack killed only innocent people, as is usually the case with predators?

It's also worth nothing that the use of predator drones, for this reason, are so unpopular in Pakistan that they are radicalizing many former civilians and substantially adding to the ranks of those who intend to do Americans harm. So not only are they incredibly inefficient and ineffective, hundreds of strikes killing only 22 suspected Al Qaeda operatives, not only do they have an incredibly poor record of killing several dozen more civilians than enemies, but they are also creating enemies out of otherwise uninvolved and peaceful people. There is really no justification for their use from either a pragmatic, legal, or moral standpoint.

Allowing the aggressors, whether al Queda, the Taliban, or jihadis to continue to terrorize the innocents in Afghanistan/Pakistan is what would be the height of immorality. To hunt them down, kill them, is what war is about. Ending the conflict with victory would allow for helping the true innocents, not just allowing them to live a few more months under the tyranny of the armed.