Drone executions

144 democrats spoke out against bush's enhanced interrogation program, while only 8 hav expressed concerns about the leaked DOJ memo justifying the summary execution of american citizens abroad via drone strike. I have a feeling this wud be a much bigger story were a republican in the white house.

Yes and no. I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, those killed have been great threats to the lives of Americans both here and abroad, and it was often not reasonably possible to apprehend them. As such their end was both necessary and pragmatic. On the other hand, these people are still American citizens, and while they may be guilty of treason, they should be tried for such.

I think the problem i have is that the president alone can order such strikes on americans at his dicretion essentially without any kind of legal review or oversight. Every time a president, any president, exerts extraconstitutional powers and we let them get away with it, it sets a precedence for future presidents, just as is the case with the legal system and judiciary. And weve been letting them do it for decades now, was highly questionable at tomes with bush, but obama has shown he's willing to exert whatever kind of e e utive actions he feels like he can get awY with.

Bryant wrote: On the other hand, these people are still American citizens, and while they may be guilty of treason, they should be tried for such.

So it's OK to have drone strikes on random foreigners but not on american citizens? Therefore "All are equal before the law" only applies if the "all" were born in the US?

Our military is not supposed to be hitting random people, as you suggest. I dont think thats a fair characterization of the drone program. We have the ability and are supposed to be hitting specific targets.

It's rare that I say this, but in this case I fully support the Drone program because we are at war. drones have saved countless lives and have enabled us to conduct war and make strikes without endangering our own troops. The technology advantage we have should be used. Whenever possible, I'd much rather use Drones than risk sending our sons and daughters into harm's way. I feel pretty sure most military moms and dads and spouses and children feel this way too.

People forget that sometimes I think because wartime hasnt really forced us to make huge sacrifices (other than our economy). But we are at war and the targets are our enemies...even if a few may be American citizens. And the President (whom I didnt vote for and really dont care for) is our Commander-in-Chief. So he has the right to conduct war on our behalf. Thats his job.

But here's the important bit. If the president acts dishonorably or breaks the law in conducting war...we have the option to impeach the man if we want. So we do have a form of oversight through Congress.

Miles1 wrote:

Bryant wrote: On the other hand, these people are still American citizens, and while they may be guilty of treason, they should be tried for such.

So it's OK to have drone strikes on random foreigners but not on american citizens? Therefore "All are equal before the law" only applies if the "all" were born in the US?

Well Miles, you know that drone targets, are just like any other military target. They are not selected at random even though I do know what you mean. Basically you cannot compare collateral damage to the subject of the actual target.

I know that sounds cold and callous, but really......try to name one country.....just one.....that spends as much time, effort, and money on weapons that will minimize collateral damage. At least we aren't carpet bombing the crap outta them.

Collateral damage will always occur during times of conflict. The problem is the actual targeting of US citizens for perceived treasonous acts. They are not part of the enemy's hierarchy. The guy that comes up the most is Anwar al-Awlaki. This guy was in Yemen when the strike occurred. That is most assuredly not a conflict zone. He was targeted because he sympathized and financed Al Qaeda, but not because he was an important member of the organization. Because of all of this, he deserved a trial....no, he was guaranteed one by the document that sets the "Law of the Land". Two other US citizens were targeted that day. Al-Awaki's 16 year old son, Abdulrahman and Samir Khan.

Of course all that being said, we didn't bring charges against or assassinate Henry Ford or Charles Lindhberg for doing the exact same thing in regards to the Nazis, so I fail to see why al-Awlaki was such a threat.

Now comes the question:
"Well does that guarantee of rights also belong to other citizens and not just US citizens???"

While I would love to say it does, I do not believe I can. Yes we all have the right to a trial regardless of where we were born and regardless of what our respective country's laws say(even if the Irish Constitution does not guarantee a fair trial, you still have the right to one......it is whether Ireland accepts to recognize that right or not.....if the government does not, then it is the fault of the people in Ireland). But once war is declared and we enter into a state of conflict, there is no trial. This of course only applies to the area of conflict. So IMHO, any and all family members of those killed in the al-Awlaki attack should try to bring President Obama up on charges of war crimes or just plain murder. The planned assassination of US citizens in a non-combat role as well as a non-combat zone IS a very big deal. Since he openly admitted to making the call, he has no plausible deniability(unlike GWB and the waterboarding).

I would also question why the uproar over waterboarding yet not much of a peep for this. Let's be honest with ourselves, if this were a Rep to do the very same thing, you would be all over him. That is not debatable. It is also not debatable that this is a much, much bigger deal than waterboarding.

Why do so many continue to protect the worst President in the history of tUSA......this is also not debatable.....his record speaks for itself....he is the very worst.

I think it just shows how cold and calculating obama can be. Whether than taking them to gitmo and getting whatever information we can, enhanced interrogation or not, because he knows he cant lawyer them up and put them on trial in manhattan or wherever back here in the states. Its easier to just off them. And i think all of you are failing to take into account the wording behind this memo. You dont even have to be a member of al qaeda, you can simply be SUSPECTED ,without legla burden, of being affiliated with any outside group. I mean this thing was so loosely worded as to essentially vindicate the president in targeting virtually anyone, without even being found of committing any crimes against the US, but simply being suspected of it by the imperial presidency.

Pun wrote:I think it just shows how cold and calculating obama can be. Whether than taking them to gitmo and getting whatever information we can, enhanced interrogation or not, because he knows he cant lawyer them up and put them on trial in manhattan or wherever back here in the states. Its easier to just off them. And i think all of you are failing to take into account the wording behind this memo. You dont even have to be a member of al qaeda, you can simply be SUSPECTED ,without legla burden, of being affiliated with any outside group. I mean this thing was so loosely worded as to essentially vindicate the president in targeting virtually anyone, without even being found of committing any crimes against the US, but simply being suspected of it by the imperial presidency.

I have been preaching the ramifications of things like NDAA for quite some time. With that one act our government can now commit these assinations on US soil.

And to think, people think I'm crazy for wanting to keep my AR-10.

Pun one has to be realistic though. In a time of war, certain things have to be done. I would never suggest using drones to kill people who do us no harm (like the UK). But what would you rather see us do? Send in troops to try to arrest someone like Anwar al Awlaki?

Sometimes its just better for all of us to just drop a bomb on his head and be done with him. (ie...nagasaki).

Dennis324 wrote:Pun one has to be realistic though. In a time of war, certain things have to be done. I would never suggest using drones to kill people who do us no harm (like the UK). But what would you rather see us do? Send in troops to try to arrest someone like Anwar al Awlaki?

Sometimes its just better for all of us to just drop a bomb on his head and be done with him. (ie...nagasaki).

I know you won't read this, but this post is proof positive that you are no conservative.

Yes we arrest him. It is his right and we cannot infringe upon it.......unless you think it is okeedokee to do the same to any US citizen(including you.......I know, I know......if you could read this, you would call it another threat).

from The Onion:


American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

WASHINGTON—Following the release of a secret Department of Justice memo this week that outlines the administration’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens, a new Pew Research Center poll has revealed that a majority of Americans are torn over whether they support the government’s right to kill them anywhere at any time without due process.

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil. “I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”

While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike.

Yeah i have to agree with marc on this one. Never trade security for liberty. I understand times of war, but i also understand were not supposedto let war change us as a people or what we stand for, even though weve done just that in the past. Morally, i have no problem with taking out jihadis, its just all the unintended side effects of things like this, and an overreach. There should at least be some kind of judicial review or trials in absentia. Not just the prerogative of one man.

No one worried about Bonnie and Clyde's rights.

Nor did the president order their assassination.

Dennis324 wrote:No one worried about Bonnie and Clyde's rights.

Once again you won't be able to read this, but not only is Pun right, but there were also attempts to capture Bonnie and Clyde prior to the ambush.

I would also point out that none of us here were even alive to worry about the rights of Bonnie qnd Clyde.

Pun wrote:Yeah i have to agree with marc on this one. Never trade security for liberty. I understand times of war, but i also understand were not supposedto let war change us as a people or what we stand for, even though weve done just that in the past. Morally, i have no problem with taking out jihadis, its just all the unintended side effects of things like this, and an overreach. There should at least be some kind of judicial review or trials in absentia. Not just the prerogative of one man.

I can agree with this.

Pun wrote:Nor did the president order their assassination.

Ok, forget Bonnie and Clyde then.

Take WW2. The President is our Commander in Chief. It is up to him to conduct the business of war. We used to carpet bomb in those days. There were hundreds of times more collateral damage back then. Thousand died. Whole cities were burned and we presumably were only targeting a munitions factory, or a train, or some single target. Yet allthose people died. At the president's order.

In Nagasaki and Hiroshima the same thing occurred but on a much more horrific scale.

Was our president a war criminal? Should he have been impeached for this?

The Allies tried umpteen times to literally assasinate Hitler back then. Does that make our president or the PM war crinminals?

I say no. Its war. Time people started understanding what war really is. It sux.