Drones - its a method - who cares?

[Freewill]

As long as they're used within the field of war. I don't have any problem with them. They make sure we don't have to send teams of special forces or manned jets into harms way.

I think they're a good idea.

I guess the field of war needs defined. Bush went to war with Iraq after a vote of congress, that was easy. Same with Afghanistan. But Pakistan? Yemen?

 

[JoeB131]

When a known terrorist is targeted to be killed by drone because he cannot be neutralized by any other means before he kills or harms Americans, whose rights are being violated when he is killed by drone-strike?

Mine.

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

We already have a remedy for that sort of abuse.

It's called "Impeachment".

If you guys really think that Obama was in the wrong for blowing up that guy in Yemen, introduce articles of impeachment. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as they're used within the field of war. I don't have any problem with them. They make sure we don't have to send teams of special forces or manned jets into harms way.

I think they're a good idea.

I guess the field of war needs defined. Bush went to war with Iraq after a vote of congress, that was easy. Same with Afghanistan. But Pakistan? Yemen?

Where was the 'battlefield' in WWII, against Japan? Wasn't the battlefield then anywhere you found the enemy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When a known terrorist is targeted to be killed by drone because he cannot be neutralized by any other means before he kills or harms Americans, whose rights are being violated when he is killed by drone-strike?

Mine.

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

When did this administration ever say that there are no more terrorists left?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

Once again "due process" is not involved, and, no, a president cannot assassinate anyone s/he wants.

 

[dblack]

Mine.

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

When did this administration ever say that there are no more terrorists left?

I think you may be misconstruing the point. Indeed, there will always be terrorists. Which is why the 'War on Terror' is a permanent condition. And why any power we grant the government in the name of fighting it is a permanent change.

We're accepting, and asking the world to accept, a government that can conduct ad hoc assassinations of anyone in the world it decides is a terrorist. i think that's insane, and again I have to ask - are you willing to grant other nations the same power?

 

[NYcarbineer]

As long as dimwits don't think their rights are being violated, then I guess it is all okay. They seem to forget the government doesn't care who is being targeted, the government doesn't care if US citizens, or anyone else is killed. They only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist.

No one seems to realize, they can easily target us in the name of terrorism.

Sad how we are so easily will give up our rights without even realizing that we gave them away.

When did this administration ever say that there are no more terrorists left?

I think you may be misconstruing the point. Indeed, there will always be terrorists. Which is why the 'War on Terror' is a permanent condition. And why any power we grant the government in the name of fighting it is a permanent change.

We're accepting, and asking the world to accept, a government that can conduct ad hoc assassinations of anyone in the world it decides is a terrorist. i think that's insane, and again I have to ask - are you willing to grant other nations the same power?

I don't get to decide what other nations do. Let the UN or some other international organization take action against the US if they think we're violating international law.

btw, when a poster says this:

"they only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist."

there is no 'misconstruing' going on if I interpret that as a claim that the administration is telling us there are no more terrorists.

 

[dblack]

When did this administration ever say that there are no more terrorists left?

I think you may be misconstruing the point. Indeed, there will always be terrorists. Which is why the 'War on Terror' is a permanent condition. And why any power we grant the government in the name of fighting it is a permanent change.

We're accepting, and asking the world to accept, a government that can conduct ad hoc assassinations of anyone in the world it decides is a terrorist. i think that's insane, and again I have to ask - are you willing to grant other nations the same power?

I don't get to decide what other nations do. Let the UN or some other international organization take action against the US if they think we're violating international law.

btw, when a poster says this:

"they only care about targeting terrorist, who this administrations tells us doesn't exist."

there is no 'misconstruing' going on if I interpret that as a claim that the administration is telling us there are no more terrorists.

Huh... you're right. Clearly I'm the one who misread. My apologies. Now I'm wondering what Papageorgio meant by that comment. I've certainly never heard the Obama administration claim there are no more terrorists.

 

[dblack]

We're accepting, and asking the world to accept, a government that can conduct ad hoc assassinations of anyone in the world it decides is a terrorist. i think that's insane, and again I have to ask - are you willing to grant other nations the same power?

I don't get to decide what other nations do. Let the UN or some other international organization take action against the US if they think we're violating international law.

I'm not concerned with international law. I'm asking you to consider whether you would be willing to grant foreign nations the power to assassinate their enemies in your country. If another nation did claim that kind of power, and your government was powerless to stop them - how would you react?

Do we really think imposing this kind of threat on the rest of the world will make us safer??

 

[Kondor3]

kondor and NYcarbineer have the right of it, and dblack is hopelessly confused about the constitution.

No due process exists for identified terrorists overseas who cannot be captured.

To insist there is reveals a mind swiss cheesed by inconsistencies.

Jake comes to the aid of his Progressive brothers

And here I was being hammered as a Conservative just yesterday in another thread...

How cool is that?

It's what happens when you're a Centrist...

Holding Left-leaning positions on some things, Right-leaning positions on others, and Middle-of-the-Road positions on still others...

Meets all USDA minimum recommended dosages for a healthy political diet...

Nevertheless, Jake's observation is correct...

We both have a serviceable layman's grasp of the realities of the situation and the practicalities of the legal setting...

Why? Were you interested in challenging Jake's observation, concerning either NY's or my own grasp of such things? After all, nobody's perfect, and maybe you're right about that, after all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank operates at the level of personality, nothing more.

He will attack me (which is his right) because he can't attack my proposition that no "due process exists for identified terrorists overseas who cannot be captured."

 

[Kondor3]

"...First would be; are the Americans civilians or armed forces who have invaded another country..."

What 'Americans', Fred?

Are you referring to...

1. the Shooters...

...or...

2. the Target(s)...

Whenever you get the chance...

 

[Kondor3]

Gee, a US President is now able to assassinate anyone he doesn't like (US citizens included) without that pesky thing called "due process" getting in his way. What's there not to like?

You DO understand that our military is not obliged to provide due process to Enemy Combatants or Leaders whom it is trying to kill, as part of legitimate war operations, yes?

This has certainly been the case for non-US citizens since the dawn of our Republic, regardless of the technology being employed. If we are at-war with you, we can kill you.

 

[Contumacious]

You DO understand that our military is not obliged to provide due process to Enemy Combatants or Leaders whom it is trying to kill, as part of legitimate war operations, yes?.

Yes, i do understand.

Hitler had the same policy ....once he declared the Jews enemies of the state he incinerated and gassed them without having to be concerned about due process violations.

I gets your drift.

.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Simple concepts to complicated for you?..."

Let's turn the tables a bit and have some fun and put you to the test, in this very context.

1. You are the Drone Firing Authorization Person (President, General, whatever).

2. A known terrorist surfaces who has killed your countrymen and who is going to kill more.

3. He is overseas and out of your reach and the reach of the host-country police, except for your Drone technology.

4. This is the first time he's surfaced since he last killed Americans.

5. If you do not hit him now he will surely kill more Americans - many more - and soon.

6. If you do not hit him now he will go-to-ground and may never be accessible again.

7. Your Drone-Operating Command is asking you for permission to fire.

8. What is your decision? (a) "Fire", or (b) "Hold Fire"?

Need to add, ...

No, I disagree. We really do not 'need to add'. We are establishing a baseline.

The 8-point scenario is designed to establish a baseline which gauges who is willing to Fire and who is not, with past and future American civilian casualties in the balance.

We can add qualifiers and caveats all the live-long day to play-out a wide array of variations and permutations...

But it is pointless to pursue such scenarios in-depth and exhaustively unless we first separate those not willing to Fire under any circumstances from those who are willing to Fire under a variety of circumstances.

A baseline provides that preliminary separation, so that we may proceed, profitably, with the subset who are willing to Fire under various circumstances.

"...9. He is in a ally country to which we are not at war..."

(9)(a)... what about countries that give us permission to operate drones in their airspace?

(9)(b)... what about countries that cannot (or will not) control a region where terrorists have bases?

"...10. If he were such a bad guy then a trial or at least a grand jury was formed indicating the person..."

If we are talking about a non-US citizen, then this is incorrect. We are engaged in war-operations and we are talking about Enemy Combatants or Leadership. We kill such persons under the aegis of legitimate military operations. Nothing more is required.

If we are talking about a US citizen overseas, collaborating with our enemies, things get a little murkier, but under circumstances wherein (5) and (6) [above] are operative, there is no time to convene a grand jury, etc. - he may surface and disappear again within the space of a single hour or even less, and the choice then becomes letting him go or taking him out during this narrow and rapidly-closing window of opportunity. Again, we are talking about a US citizen that has 'gone over to the enemy' - not some innocent lamb. That's a tricky one.

"...The decision was not made by the CIA alone who has made lots of bad decisions...."

You and I are in complete agreement here, From what little I understand of our control and command structures and what is required to issue a Kill Order, I think our decision-making and authorization and accountability processes suck... big time... and need one helluva lot of work... at least insofar as the occasional and rare US citizen kill overseas is concerned.

"...11. The man is targeted by a known and well trusted informant, not just anyone who places a targeting chip for money..."

You and I are in complete agreement here, as well. Our intelligence sucks sometimes and our targeting-assist assets on the scene are oftentimes entirely unreliable.

"...12. He is not an American."

My own opinion on this is reflected above, for whatever little it's worth.

 

[Kondor3]

You DO understand that our military is not obliged to provide due process to Enemy Combatants or Leaders whom it is trying to kill, as part of legitimate war operations, yes?.

Yes, i do understand.

Hitler had the same policy ....once he declared the Jews enemies of the state he incinerated and gassed them without having to be concerned about due process violations.

I gets your drift.

.

Whatever-in-the-world does Hitler and Nazism and the Holocaust have to do with this?

In our Revolutionary War, if you were a British Redcoat or Hessian mercenary, on the battlefield or not, if you came within the targeting-sights of a Continental Army trooper or Colonial Militiaman, you were not given 'due process'... you were killed.

In the War of 1812...

In the Mexican War...

In the Civil War...

In the Indian Wars...

In the Spanish American War...

In WWI

In WWII

In the Korean War...

In the Vietnam War...

In the Gulf War...

In the Iraq War...

In the Afghanistan War...

In the ongoing War on Terror, overseas...

If you are an Enemy Combatant or Enemy Leader, you are not given due process...

You are killed, as a legitimate act, in the course of war operations...

This is not a difficult concept, and it has 230+ years of jurisprudence standing behind it.

The technology du jour is mere detail.

Are you actually going to attempt to dispute such a statement?

Really?

Or was this just a misunderstanding?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We're accepting, and asking the world to accept, a government that can conduct ad hoc assassinations of anyone in the world it decides is a terrorist. i think that's insane, and again I have to ask - are you willing to grant other nations the same power?

I don't get to decide what other nations do. Let the UN or some other international organization take action against the US if they think we're violating international law.

I'm not concerned with international law. I'm asking you to consider whether you would be willing to grant foreign nations the power to assassinate their enemies in your country. If another nation did claim that kind of power, and your government was powerless to stop them - how would you react?

Do we really think imposing this kind of threat on the rest of the world will make us safer??

Your alternative is to de facto grant Al Qaeda what amounts to safe haven in certain places in the world where they can rebuild, retrain, and ultimately, if they choose, plan another 9/11 and carry it out,

AFTER which we would certainly authorize whoever is President to go after them, with all necessary force.

 

[Contumacious]

You DO understand that our military is not obliged to provide due process to Enemy Combatants or Leaders whom it is trying to kill, as part of legitimate war operations, yes?.

Yes, i do understand.

Hitler had the same policy ....once he declared the Jews enemies of the state he incinerated and gassed them without having to be concerned about due process violations.

I gets your drift.

.

Whatever-in-the-world does Hitler and Nazism and the Holocaust have to do with this?
Or was this just a misunderstanding?

Ohhh, I see ......

) Our rulers are not a law unto themselves.

Our warmakers believe they are exempt from normal moral rules. Because they are at war, they get to suspend all decency, all the norms that govern the conduct and interaction of human beings in all other circumstances. The anodyne term "collateral damage," along with perfunctory and meaningless words of regret, are employed when innocent civilians, including children, are maimed and butchered. A private individual behaving this way would be called a sociopath. Give him a fancy title and a nice suit, and he becomes a statesman.

Let us pursue the subversive mission of applying the same moral rules against theft, kidnapping, and murder to our rulers that we apply to everyone else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You DO understand that our military is not obliged to provide due process to Enemy Combatants or Leaders whom it is trying to kill, as part of legitimate war operations, yes?.

Yes, i do understand.

Hitler had the same policy ....once he declared the Jews enemies of the state he incinerated and gassed them without having to be concerned about due process violations.

I gets your drift.

.

You need to amend the Constitution to take away the government's power to declare war.

I don't see that happening.

 

[Kondor3]

"..."

I'm apologize for being so dense, but I cannot make heads-nor-tails of what you are trying to say here.

Are you attempting to dispute that we are within our rights to kill Enemy Combatants and Leaders when we are at-war?