Drone Strikes Are Act of Self-Defense...?!

[Freewill]

And when the following happens in Furgeson violance is called for against police. But when the CIA and Obama murder an innocent 16 year, it's because he has bad parents. Yes, Jake their is NO international law that allows for the killing of innocent people.

Grandfather Of 16-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Killed By Drone Says Faith In Due Process 'Shattered'

 

[Wry Catcher]

Reacting to the news that Britain's own 'Jihad John' might be alive after a drone strike several months ago:

British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the strike on a British citizen as an 'act of self-defense. Jeremy Corbyn, 'Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition', however, declared 'John' should have been arrested instead.

President Obama has argued that Terrorists...no, 'enemy combatants'...no 'UNlawful enemy combatants...NO - "unprivileged belligerents" (As of Jun 21, 2015) should have their 'due process' (day in court) rather than being incarcerated in GITMO .... WHILE simultaneously running his own personal Assassination Program in which he decides who is added to the list and HE decides who is to be killed...very violently denying them of their 'due process' he says they should all have....

Should terrorists have their 'due process', as Obama says...or be killed, as Obama says?
Is killing terrorists through drone strikes ok?
Is killing American citizens via drone strikes OK based solely on Obama's say-so?
Is it 'Self-Defense'?

War is hell, and war on terrorism was declared by Bush and Cheney; weren't the "evil doers" all brought to justice by the time President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" years ago.

Thus President Obama has no duty nor is he obliged to prosecute a war on terrorists, he should simply adopt our nations new credo, "let the innocents beware".

Did Nero really fiddle while Rome burned? Or, did Bush clear Brush while terrorists planned the attack on the WTC, which killed 3,000 human beings and was used as a reason to invade and occupy Iraq.

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The drone strike gives good Americans thanksgiving knowing that 'Jihadi whatever' is dead.

The real reason for the far right whining here is they know that if they ever rise up in arms the drones will find them.

 

[BlindBoo]

Join the enemy and declare war on the US, become a target. Simple really.

Who decides?

It is the duty of the Commander in Chief.

 

[easyt65]

The attacks are lawful acts of defense in the confines of the military situation.

Obama declares 'The war in Iraq is over'. He then declares, 'The War on Terror' is over'. To my knowledge, the United States has not officially declared war on ISIS. The President never went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war against ISIS...or Assad'; yet, our military is militarily striking targets / individuals in Iraq, Syria, the Turkish Border....without officially being 'at war' we have a President calling for the assassinations of foreign nationals - in some countries where we have no jurisdiction / approval to be in (like Pakistan recently)....

...so you want to tell me EXACTLY how this is 'completely legal, lawful, and within the confines of the 'military situation' (whatever the hell that is...is that LIKE being officially at war, are we in a 'secret official war'...?)....

Again, don't get me wrong...while I don't mind killing terrorists at all, zapping terrorist individuals with drone strikes is NOT 'officially being at war' and is a 'tactic', NOT a 'foreign policy', which Obama absolutely and completely LACKS right now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

easyt argues wrongly, yet again, out of personal pique toward the Commander in Chief, not because of the law.

 

[easyt65]

The drone strike gives good Americans thanksgiving knowing that 'Jihadi whatever' is dead. The real reason for the far right whining here is they know that if they ever rise up in arms the drones will find them.

LOL! I love liberal B$! It's funny.

There is no 'whining'. There never WAS 'whining'. I ought to know, I am the OP. My point was, has always been, and still remains...

Is a drone strike when NOT in an 'official' war legal?
Is it hypocritical to claim everyone has a right to a fair trial when you are trying to close a prison but simultaneously are ordering strikes to kill individuals?

They're straight up questions. If your opinions is 'Good to go', cool! If you have or don't have a problem with it, I just wanted to know. THAT'S ALL....no whining. Understand?


IF we wanted to expand this conversation A 'SPIN-OFF', if you will, I would ask 'WHAT IS OUR FOREIGN POLICY IN REGARDS TO ISIS?'

What is the foreign policy driving the strategy, and WHAT is that strategy? Drone strikes are a strategy, perhaps no the best strategy, but they are not a 'foreign policy'....


if those questions are too 'deep' / 'complex' to delve into without launching into childish personal attacks just let me know.

 

[Freewill]

Covert Drone War Archives - The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

 

[BlindBoo]

As CiC the President doesn't need Congress to launch a military strike anywhere in the world.

 

[g5000]

Drone strikes are the same as bombing a nest of Nazis in WWII, except the pilot is thousands of miles away from the plane.

No more, no less.

 

[easyt65]

easyt argues wrongly, yet again, out of personal pique toward the Commander in Chief, not because of the law.

You should really stick to speaking for yourself because you SUCK at trying to speak for ME...

It is all about 'legal'. I don't give a rat's arse who is in the Oval Office, I was wondering about foreign policy, strategy, and the law.

If we are NOT legally at war (Any Congressional declaration of war approved?), then what are military drone strikes against 'civilians'? They aren't any formal members of any nation's formal military

The 1st question, I guess that has to be answered, is 'Is the United States OFFICIALLY 'at war' right now? Did the President go to Congress and ask for military use against ....ISIS?

I thought the 'war on terror' was over - is there a new formal war going on?

Next...against WHO? We are drone striking ISIS - a group of civilians without borders or representing a formal nation. Simultaneously we are fighting a 'proxy' war against Syria...again, not an 'official war'.

 

[g5000]

If we are NOT legally at war (Any Congressional declaration of war approved?), then what are military drone strikes against 'civilians'?

Jihadi John is not a civilian.

 

[easyt65]

As CiC the President doesn't need Congress to launch a military strike anywhere in the world.

The President has the authority to use military power for a certain length of time according to the War Powers Act; however, after that certain amount of time is up the Constitution makes it clear the President must go before Congress and officially request permission to continue to use the military in a campaign....

 

[g5000]

Did the President go to Congress and ask for military use against ....ISIS?

Yes, he did. And the GOP turned him down.

Have you been in a coma?

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="g5000, post: 12799905, member: 34052
Jihadi John is not a civilian.[/QUOTE]

He is a formal member of what recognized nation's military?

Technically, 'John' is not a member of any recognized military but is instead a member of a terrorist group. You can get enough people going around all day arguing about this. A member of the US armed forces is a military member. If 'bubba' from the 'Georgia Good Ol' Boy's Brigade' attacks a 7-11 as part of their 'declared war' he is still a 'civilian', domestic terrorist or not. As I said, people WILL argue this point...understandably.... Questions like this are what drives the JAG and military crazy....

 

[g5000]

Jihadi John is not a civilian.

He is a formal member of what recognized nation's military?

Funny how the Right didn't seem troubled by that under Bush, eh? They had to invent the term "detainee" and not use "POW" so they could violate the Geneva conventions and torture them.

Have you been in a coma?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Jihad Johnny went to see Allah....good riddance and I could care less how it was done, I only hope he heard it coming

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="g5000, post: 12799924, member: 34052
Yes, he did. And the GOP turned him down. [/QUOTE]

A President can ONLY wage his own 'war' through the use of the War Powers Act, which grants him use of the military without Congressional approval but ONLY for a certain mount of time before having to go back before Congress and ask for authority to continue to do so. No President can wage his own war indefinitely.

 

[g5000]

Yes, he did. And the GOP turned him down.

A President can ONLY wage his own 'war' through the use of the War Powers Act, which grants him use of the military without Congressional approval but ONLY for a certain mount of time before having to go back before Congress and ask for authority to continue to do so. No President can wage his own war indefinitely.

I would say a drone strike is definitely within the time limit. It only takes a few hours.

And for God's sake learn how to use the quote function.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bitch that the president isn't doing enough. Bitch that the president is doing too much.

Textbook symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome.