Obama Drone Attacks Legal/Moral?...

[QUENTIN]

It's certainly immoral, as are all assaults launched with the knowledge that innocent civilians will be killed. This is why war is immoral, and the way we wage it particularly so. The rationale that "To kill this bad guy, we're going to have to kill 50 good guys, but we're still the good guys" is beyond idiotic, it's monstrous.

Illegal? I don't know. Probably not its use in Afghanistan, but using them in Pakistan and Yemen and in any other nation with which we're engaged in an undeclared war, occupation, or bombing campaign, certainly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Christ Frankie... Do you even try to not look ignorant? Are there any jihadist U S citizens?

Constitutional rights are only provided to criminals in our custody. That is only if we intend to prosecute them under our laws.

I think it is up to any Al Kaida operative responsibility to protect his loved ones by not trying to hide among them. If Ossama was standing behind a child and I had a rifle I would shoot him anyway. His head would be at least a foot and a half higher than any child. But what if it was a very tall woman? She gonna die.

So when do these imaginary Constitutional right begin?

It is enlightening that you view the Constitution of The United States as "imaginary"...very telling.

No answer?

When do Jihadists get their imaginary rights?

When did SCOTUS say these rights start to vest?

 

[QUENTIN]

Detainees the government claims to be terrorists are afforded Constitutional rights when the U.S. government takes them into custody, whether this is practiced or not, it's what the Constitution explicitly demands. The Constitution does not only apply to citizens, and it's a retardmeme that that's the case.

To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").

The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are "persons." Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not "persons," then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen?

There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens -- such as the right to vote or to hold elective office -- but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . . . ."). Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between "citizens" (which only includes "Americans") and "persons" (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a subset of the latter:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article II, Section 1 -- in defining eligibility to be President -- makes the same distinction:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

"Persons" and "citizens" have entirely different meanings in the Constitution. There are a handful of instances in which the Constitution applies only to American citizens. When that is the case, the Constitution explicitly uses the word "citizens." In all other instances, it simply restricts what the Government is permitted to do generally or uses the much broader term "persons" to describe who holds the rights it guarantees. That's the obvious point the Yick Wo Court made in 1886 in holding "these provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction," and it ought to prevent the most minimally honest individuals among us from claiming otherwise.

The standard rhetorical formulation being used -- "extending rights to foreign Terrorists which the Constitution reserves for U.S. citizens" -- suggests that Constitutional rights are for American citizens only. That is blatantly false, and anyone making that claim is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.

 

[HUGGY]

It's certainly immoral, as are all assaults launched with the knowledge that innocent civilians will be killed. This is why war is immoral, and the way we wage it particularly so. The rationale that "To kill this bad guy, we're going to have to kill 50 good guys, but we're still the good guys" is beyond idiotic, it's monstrous.

Illegal? I don't know. Probably not its use in Afghanistan, but using them in Pakistan and Yemen and in any other nation with which we're engaged in an undeclared war, occupation, or bombing campaign, certainly.

I don't care a damn about the Taliban...but Al Quaida and those that support them...feed them...hide them....are all fair game for annialation. I would rather see Ossamas children and grandchildren dead than have them walking and plotting in thier fathers footsteps. We do not have to make excuses for erradicating the real perpetrators of 9/11....EVER.

 

[QUENTIN]

When do Jihadists get their imaginary rights?

When did SCOTUS say these rights start to vest?

When any person is taken into custody by the U.S. or held under U.S. jurisdiction (for instance, in the U.S., on a U.S. military base on a foreign country, at Guantanamo Bay, etc.).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What's more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim. Instead, they argued, unsuccessfully, that Guantanamo should not be considered U.S. territory that necessarily falls under U.S. jurisdiction. The high court ruled, of course, that U.S. custody was U.S. jurisdiction and anyone in it is afforded the Constitutional rights bestowed on all persons within its jurisdiction, as the Constitution clearly states it is intended.

It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Not even the Bush DOJ -- not even Antonin Scalia -- believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S. -- not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.

The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court -- all the way back in 1886 -- explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what many others claim about the Constitution. Just read what the Court said back then, as it should settle this matter forever:

The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

Could that possibly be any clearer? Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the rights of the Constitution extend to citizens and foreigners alike. The Court has repeatedly applied that principle over and over. Only extreme ignorance or a true desire to deceive would lead someone to claim that such rights are protections our Constitution guarantees American citizens but not foreigners of any stripe held by the American government.

 

[QUENTIN]

I don't care a damn about the Taliban...but Al Quaida and those that support them...feed them...hide them....are all fair game for annialation. I would rather see Ossamas children and grandchildren dead than have them walking and plotting in thier fathers footsteps. We do not have to make excuses for erradicating the real perpetrators of 9/11....EVER.

Most of the more than one million people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan had not given any material support to Al Qaeda. There are less than 100 Al Qaeda affiliated fighters left in all of Afghanistan, yet we send drone attacks that kill scores of civilians daily. The vast majority of the people who continue to fight against the U.S. occupation are, according to the U.S.'s own military and intelligence analysis, not ideologically driven or extremist terrorists, but rather people defending their land against a foreign army's occupation (as you would no doubt do if Chinese bombers and soldiers attacked your neighborhood).

Beyond that, we often bomb targets in the vicinity of homes and buildings that are completely unrelated and house completely unrelated, uninvolved, innocent people. It is a fallacy to argue that most of the innocent people we've murdered in these occupations were family members of or providing support to Al Qaeda.

 

[Gadawg73]

The absurdity level of this is rising higher than steam from BS.
These freaks set up their HQ, command and control, intelligence and operations in schools, churches, residential areas and homes AS PART OF THEIR TACTICS.
This ain't tiddly winks or some dam video game. This is war, killing, blood and horror. Sorry but WAKE UP AMERICA.
You fight AND KILL your enemies WHERE THEY FRIGGIN ARE.
Monday morning QBing is rampant these days. If you have never crossed the line and entered the field of battle then do some research into the facts of the ONGOING WAR before you post and make a fool of yourself. It is not pretty folks but some of us have had to do it and some are doing it now.
Because it NEEDS to be done.

 

[HUGGY]

I don't care a damn about the Taliban...but Al Quaida and those that support them...feed them...hide them....are all fair game for annialation. I would rather see Ossamas children and grandchildren dead than have them walking and plotting in thier fathers footsteps. We do not have to make excuses for erradicating the real perpetrators of 9/11....EVER.

Most of the more than one million people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan had not given any material support to Al Qaeda. There are less than 100 Al Qaeda affiliated fighters left in all of Afghanistan, yet we send drone attacks that kill scores of civilians daily. The vast majority of the people who continue to fight against the U.S. occupation are, according to the U.S.'s own military and intelligence analysis, not ideologically driven or extremist terrorists, but rather people defending their land against a foreign army's occupation (as you would no doubt do if Chinese bombers and soldiers attacked your neighborhood).

Beyond that, we often bomb targets in the vicinity of homes and buildings that are completely unrelated and house completely unrelated, uninvolved, innocent people. It is a fallacy to argue that most of the innocent people we've murdered in these occupations were family members of or providing support to Al Qaeda.

After what transpired in the mountains of Tora Bora our involvement in Afgahnistan was indeed obscene. Iraq was a flat out war crime.

 

[rightwinger]

Killing terrorists = Legal

Killing terrorists= Moral

How many more right wing terrorist lovers don't understand?

Good thing we have a President who knows where the terrorists are and is willing to go after them

 

[QUENTIN]

Killing terrorists = Legal

Killing terrorists= Moral

How many more right wing terrorist lovers don't understand?

Good thing we have a President who knows where the terrorists are and is willing to go after them

The problem is that the majority of people being killed in these drone attacks are not terrorists, making it immoral. Many of the attacks also happen in countries which Congress has not authorized the use of military force for and are clandestinely operated, making it very possibly illegal.

That has next to nothing to do with right/wing left wing divide, and should not be a partisan issue no matter how much USMB tries to warp every debate into one.

 

[gautama]

It's certainly immoral, as are all assaults launched with the knowledge that innocent civilians will be killed. This is why war is immoral, and the way we wage it particularly so. The rationale that "To kill this bad guy, we're going to have to kill 50 good guys, but we're still the good guys" is beyond idiotic, it's monstrous.

Illegal? I don't know. Probably not its use in Afghanistan, but using them in Pakistan and Yemen and in any other nation with which we're engaged in an undeclared war, occupation, or bombing campaign, certainly.

If Americans were like this LIEberal San Quentin: a weeping willow with a bleeding heart ..... after WWII we would be a province of Nazi Germany.

As it is, we will have Sharia Law.......and forced to wave our arse in the air 5 times a day after some maniacal howls, yowls and shrieks something akin to melodious tones a call to do so from a needle-like structure called a minaret.

Allah hu Akbar !!!

 

[beowolfe]

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.

It's the ACLU being the ACLU!! This is what they do. Hold the government's feet to the fire.

 

[beowolfe]

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

And just who said that? Obama is just following precedent established by the all administrations since the OKC bombing. Legal precedent set a very long time ago starting with the very first arrest of klan members. All terrorists captured on US soil have been tried in federal court along with their rights. So, nothing has changed.

 

[beowolfe]

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?

As was so pointed declared during the last administration, our people in Afghanistan are not cops. They are soldiers seeking to wipe out AQ. AQ is not jus the leaders, it all of their foot soldiers and supporters who happen to be in the way. IMO, killing a Talliban leader in his home with his family is not the same as bad intellligence leading us to attack someone who has nothing to do with AQ as was so prominent during the last administration. At least this administration is taking some effort to be a bit more careful.

But why am I even bothering to respond. You guys are talking out of you azzes anyway and you know it. If you were in charge wouldn't be an Afghanistan left.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[ihopehefails]

Killing terrorists = Legal

Killing terrorists= Moral

How many more right wing terrorist lovers don't understand?

Good thing we have a President who knows where the terrorists are and is willing to go after them

The problem is that the majority of people being killed in these drone attacks are not terrorists, making it immoral. Many of the attacks also happen in countries which Congress has not authorized the use of military force for and are clandestinely operated, making it very possibly illegal.

That has next to nothing to do with right/wing left wing divide, and should not be a partisan issue no matter how much USMB tries to warp every debate into one.

I do think that there should be some moral restraints on war because you don't want to come up with asinine things liking killing the first born of every village.

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American forces in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, while also killing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. That's a 2% success rate, with 49 civilian deaths for every suspected terrorist killed in the region before Obama escalated their use.

In 2009, 39 of the 44 Predator drone attacks in Pakistan killed only civilians, seemingly an 11% success rate for the year. Except that for every alleged terrorist killed via drones, 140 additional innocent civilians were killed, totaling more than 700 civilians killed just last year, or a .7% success rate.

So far in 2010, drone strikes have killed 123 civilians and 3 men alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. That's 41 civilians for every alleged terrorist, a 2% success rate.

What you're arguing is basically that 10-150 innocent civilian lives in Pakistan are worth less than the risk of one American soldier, who at least signed up to put their life on the line. Morally, that's certainly repugnant.

Indiscriminately killing large numbers of civilians in countries we have not declared war on or had military force authorized for is something we also did in Cambodia and Laos. Then, as now, those actions are war crimes. I can't imagine how a remotely humane or reasonable person could support them.

 

[Annie]

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.

Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American forces in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, while also killing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. That's a 2% success rate, with 49 civilian deaths for every suspected terrorist killed in the region before Obama escalated their use.

In 2009, 39 of the 44 Predator drone attacks in Pakistan killed only civilians, seemingly an 11% success rate for the year. Except that for every alleged terrorist killed via drones, 140 additional innocent civilians were killed, totaling more than 700 civilians killed just last year, or a .7% success rate.

So far in 2010, drone strikes have killed 123 civilians and 3 men alleged to have links to Al Qaeda. That's 41 civilians for every alleged terrorist, a 2% success rate.

What you're arguing is basically that 10-150 innocent civilian lives in Pakistan are worth less than the risk of one American soldier, who at least signed up to put their life on the line. Morally, that's certainly repugnant.

Indiscriminately killing large numbers of civilians in countries we have not declared war on or had military force authorized for is something we also did in Cambodia and Laos. Then, as now, those actions are war crimes. I can't imagine how a remotely humane or reasonable person could support them.

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.

 

[Si modo]

I have no issue with Obama's support of drone use across an international border at all.

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

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.

(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.
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.

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.