Drone strikes on americans 'legal'

#28
#28
Talk about broad authority

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
Click to expand...

According to this Iraq posed an imminent threat as does Iran currently. Guess a "high level person" can authorize some attacks on Iran.
 
#30
#30
Interesting too that John Kerry indicated we can't attack anyone without UN authority (Congressional authority not needed). I guess if it's our own citizens then we are free from the UN burden.
 
#31
#31
So the vibe I'm getting from everyone in this thread is collectively the feeling is we can't attack AQ unless we know they are actively planning their next attack. That isn't the way the authorization for the use of force reads. Congress approved the use of force against AQ or their affiliates anywhere we find them because they declared war on us and struck the first blow. If an American joins them then he is subject to attack. To me that is fairly simple and easy to understand.

I have issues with the use of drones when there is a distinct risk of collateral damage with innocents liable to being hurt or killed. However, I also know the enemy has tactics that directly play on our fear of collateral damage. I witnessed Taliban fighters respond to a drone attack by killing 7 women and children and dragging their bodies among the rubble so it would appear we had killed them. So, we have to follow specific, detailed targeting processes and be relatively assured that we can hit the intended target while minimizing collateral damage. But we should not base that targeting decision on whether or not an American citizen may be among the group targeted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
I'm objecting to the specific targeting of an American citizen abroad just because they are aligned with AQ or an AQ style org.

Particularly when this is done with judicial review or any semblance of due process.

On a tangent I don't see how anyone can object to waterboarding a non-citizen but is okay with this policy.
 
#34
#34
How would you have treated an American who left the US and joined the German Army in WWII?
 
#35
#35
actively fighting and killed in battle is one thing. Sending a missile thru their house during family dinner for something they might do in the future is quite another.

there are no uniforms and all we have is the word of a "high-ranking official" to verify they are even AQ. Sorry if my trust in the govt is all used up
 
#36
#36
Here's the problem as I see it:

The Executive Branch has "found" legal authority to kill citizens when they deem them a pseudo-imminent threat (even if there is no specific threat). There is no judicial review prior or post. All they have to do is claim the conditions were met (though until now we weren't told the conditions) and that is that. We have to take their word that the conditions were met. Where is the protection?

Look at all the protections we have for death row inmates even after due process has found them guilty - some of it is over kill but most is there for a reason. There are zero protections and no check on power with this policy. One person can decide the conditions are met and boom. No recourse.

As to the Germans in WWII example I think PJ summed it up pretty good.

Let's say said citizen traveled back to the US and was visiting his family - this authority says we could bomb the house to get him rather than arrest him.
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
I'm objecting to the specific targeting of an American citizen abroad just because they are aligned with AQ or an AQ style org.

Particularly when this is done with judicial review or any semblance of due process.

On a tangent I don't see how anyone can object to waterboarding a non-citizen but is okay with this policy.
Click to expand...

I have to think about the last sentence. I'm against torture, which in my view includes waterboarding. But I'm more against it for pragmatic reasons rather than moral. I have an issue with how it affects those involved emotionally and psychologically, which may place it in the realm of a moral objection, but mostly I'm against it because it is ineffective.

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles to hit targets that are beyond the reach of conventional forces, are well defended and fleeting is an effective tactic. The analytical techniques and targeting processes are very detailed and precise. To me the only remaining question would be whether those involved meet the targeting criteria. Prior to this legal finding, placing an American at the target site would negate any ability to strike it in this manner. For that matter it would have negated any means of attacking that did not involve boots on the ground with federal law enforcement support. This gives the enemy an easy solution to their own defense--surround yourselves with Americans and you can move around the world with impunity. Is that what we really want?
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
Here's the problem as I see it:

The Executive Branch has "found" legal authority to kill citizens when they deem them a pseudo-imminent threat (even if there is no specific threat). There is no judicial review prior or post. All they have to do is claim the conditions were met (though until now we weren't told the conditions) and that is that. We have to take their word that the conditions were met. Where is the protection?

Look at all the protections we have for death row inmates even after due process has found them guilty - some of it is over kill but most is there for a reason. There are zero protections and no check on power with this policy. One person can decide the conditions are met and boom. No recourse.

As to the Germans in WWII example I think PJ summed it up pretty good.

Let's say said citizen traveled back to the US and was visiting his family - this authority says we could bomb the house to get him rather than arrest him.
Click to expand...

Definitely a steep and slippery slope
 
#39
#39
YorkVol said:
I have to think about the last sentence. I'm against torture, which in my view includes waterboarding. But I'm more against it for pragmatic reasons rather than moral. I have an issue with how it affects those involved emotionally and psychologically, which may place it in the realm of a moral objection, but mostly I'm against it because it is ineffective.

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles to hit targets that are beyond the reach of conventional forces, are well defended and fleeting is an effective tactic. The analytical techniques and targeting processes are very detailed and precise. To me the only remaining question would be whether those involved meet the targeting criteria. Prior to this legal finding, placing an American at the target site would negate any ability to strike it in this manner. For that matter it would have negated any means of attacking that did not involve boots on the ground with federal law enforcement support. This gives the enemy an easy solution to their own defense--surround yourselves with Americans and you can move around the world with impunity. Is that what we really want?
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure but don't see how the bolded above is true. If a citizen is collateral damage that is different than a specific citizen being targeted for assassination by the state.

This policy is specifically about targeting citizens due to activities they've under taken - what's worse is that only one person has to determine they are a valid target. There is no judicial review prior or post.

Would people be comfortable with Nixon having this authority?

How is it limited to AQ involvement (legally speaking)?
 
#40
#40
How about that closing of Gitmo, Mr. Obama.. :whistling:

Drone strikes on foreigners are often unethical, imprecise, and based on shady evidence. Drone strikes on american citizens are straight up deplorabe.
 
#41
#41
utvolpj said:
actively fighting and killed in battle is one thing. Sending a missile thru their house during family dinner for something they might do in the future is quite another.

there are no uniforms and all we have is the word of a "high-ranking official" to verify they are even AQ. Sorry if my trust in the govt is all used up
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not 100% trusting either, please don't misunderstand. But, I'm more trusting in those in this particular line of work and understand many of the restrictions in place. It is a dark and shady world, no doubt, but there are more good people involved than most might think.

volinbham said:
Here's the problem as I see it:

The Executive Branch has "found" legal authority to kill citizens when they deem them a pseudo-imminent threat (even if there is no specific threat). There is no judicial review prior or post. All they have to do is claim the conditions were met (though until now we weren't told the conditions) and that is that. We have to take their word that the conditions were met. Where is the protection?

Look at all the protections we have for death row inmates even after due process has found them guilty - some of it is over kill but most is there for a reason. There are zero protections and no check on power with this policy. One person can decide the conditions are met and boom. No recourse.

As to the Germans in WWII example I think PJ summed it up pretty good.

Let's say said citizen traveled back to the US and was visiting his family - this authority says we could bomb the house to get him rather than arrest him.
Click to expand...

On the last part, I don't see that authority in the paper linked in the article. Not saying someone wouldn't test that authority, but it isn't explicitly stated.

There are judicial review steps in the process. They aren't always public, but they are there and often stop the targeting while birds are in the air.

The Germans were in uniform so you would assume that an American who joined them would also be in uniform. Our current enemies are not in uniform, which makes things all the more complicated. But it doesn't negate the fact they still want to attack us and need to be stopped.

How would you sort this out?
 
#42
#42
MercyPercy said:
How about that closing of Gitmo, Mr. Obama.. :whistling:

Drone strikes on foreigners are often unethical, imprecise, and based on shady evidence. Drone strikes on american citizens are straight up deplorabe.
Click to expand...

Yes but its easier for him to keep secret. Taking out a target with precision and minimal risk of collateral damage takes men on the ground and the risks that go with it. Soldiers in body bags certainly makes the nightly news. He doesn't really care how many innocents he kills as long as his hands appear to be clean.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
I don't know for sure but don't see how the bolded above is true. If a citizen is collateral damage that is different than a specific citizen being targeted for assassination by the state.

This policy is specifically about targeting citizens due to activities they've under taken - what's worse is that only one person has to determine they are a valid target. There is no judicial review prior or post.

Would people be comfortable with Nixon having this authority?

How is it limited to AQ involvement (legally speaking)?
Click to expand...

When the CIA and SOF guys found out that John Walker Lindh was an American they immediately stopped what they were doing and got him evacuated before proceeding.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
 
#44
#44
Hopvol said:
Yes but its easier for him to keep secret. Taking out a target with precision and minimal risk of collateral damage takes men on the ground and the risks that go with it. Soldiers in body bags certainly makes the nightly news. He doesn't really care how many innocents he kills as long as his hands appear to be clean.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I'm not so naive to believe that any other president wouldn't be utilizing drones in this way. It's a product of the time we live in and the technology we have. Drones are simply tools that make it easier to get away with your illegal and unethical business.

Not that I'm excusing Barack for anything here, as the President, he is ultimately responsible(in the court of public opinion, at least- Obama has his own men to answer to) for the actions of these drones. I'm just saying that most if not all other potential candidates would be using the same strategies.
 
#45
#45
YorkVol said:
On the last part, I don't see that authority in the paper linked in the article. Not saying someone wouldn't test that authority, but it isn't explicitly stated.

There are judicial review steps in the process. They aren't always public, but they are there and often stop the targeting while birds are in the air.

The Germans were in uniform so you would assume that an American who joined them would also be in uniform. Our current enemies are not in uniform, which makes things all the more complicated. But it doesn't negate the fact they still want to attack us and need to be stopped.

How would you sort this out?
Click to expand...

What is the judicial review? The memo clearly suggests that none is needed - it is an executive decision.

As for sorting it out I would require some other branch of the government to oversee the evidence and authorize action - I assume that would need to be judicial.

I'd like to see a policy spelled out and subject to judicial scrutiny to endorse this power.

Given that "imminent" doesn't mean imminent presumably there is time to receive judicial approval prior to undertaking these strikes.
 
#46
#46
MercyPercy said:
I agree, though I'm not so naive to believe that any other president wouldn't be utilizing drones in this way. It's a product of the time we live in and the technology we have. Drones are simply tools that make it easier to get away with your illegal and unethical business.

Not that I'm excusing Barack for anything here, as the President, he is ultimately responsible(in the court of public opinion, at least- Obama has his own men to answer to) for the actions of these drones. I'm just saying that most if not all other potential candidates would be using the same strategies.
Click to expand...

I agree they would be used and they should be but I think they are being overused now.
 
#47
#47
MercyPercy said:
I agree, though I'm not so naive to believe that any other president wouldn't be utilizing drones in this way. It's a product of the time we live in and the technology we have. Drones are simply tools that make it easier to get away with your illegal and unethical business.

Not that I'm excusing Barack for anything here, as the President, he is ultimately responsible(in the court of public opinion, at least- Obama has his own men to answer to) for the actions of these drones. I'm just saying that most if not all other potential candidates would be using the same strategies.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul would not. Not to start this again, but the claim that there are no other options is a cop-out by a partisan population.
 
#48
#48
They wouldn't use the drones at all? You serious?

They may be less inclined than Obama, but drones would still be used unethically.
 
#49
#49
Weezy said:
Gary Johnson and Ron Paul would not. Not to start this again, but the claim that there are no other options is a cop-out by a partisan population.
Click to expand...

Of course they would, maybe not as much but they would certainly be used. They would be foolish not to.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
What is the judicial review? The memo clearly suggests that none is needed - it is an executive decision.

As for sorting it out I would require some other branch of the government to oversee the evidence and authorize action - I assume that would need to be judicial.

I'd like to see a policy spelled out and subject to judicial scrutiny to endorse this power.

Given that "imminent" doesn't mean imminent presumably there is time to receive judicial approval prior to undertaking these strikes.
Click to expand...

When I was involved, every targeting decision required legal review with criteria for passing it up the chain for further review. We had criteria that allowed the local JAG attorney to state it was legal but other criteria that required review outside of military channels. For example, a clear target with low chance for collateral damage could be approved at the JTF level, but a target that was say, politically sensitive for some reason, might have to go to CENTCOM level or higher. I can't recall what point it would go over to the judicial branch but only recall that it did.

Of course when it did go over then it went to the secret court, which is its own can of worms...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top