15 replies to this topic

[and then]

http://usnews.nbcnew...drone-memo?lite

I agreed with the killing of Anwar al Awlaki.  He was a killer of Americans and had plans to continue such acts.  He was in a place where he would have probably not been taken alive even by JSOC forces and he was a definite threat.   Having said that, his case is being used as a smoke screen for Obama and future presidents to basically become judge, jury and execution without even judicial action being possible after the fact.  
What do you think?

[Uncle Sam]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

http://usnews.nbcnew...drone-memo?lite

I agreed with the killing of Anwar al Awlaki.  He was a killer of Americans and had plans to continue such acts.  He was in a place where he would have probably not been taken alive even by JSOC forces and he was a definite threat.   Having said that, his case is being used as a smoke screen for Obama and future presidents to basically become judge, jury and execution without even judicial action being possible after the fact.  
What do you think?

That is what we get with the vagueness of the limitations, right now he can declare war on any militia he sees is a threat to the government. That includes the citizens of United States, because we are considered a militia.

[questionmark]

To me this has two aspects, the one is that, no matter your nationality, if you declare war on the US you can be taken out by military means. The other is that he was taken out in a place that had nothing to do with any wars, and that makes it questionable.

[Corp]

I believe we have a few threads on this topic now

Kind of see this two ways. On the one hand some of the wording seems rather vague and this could lead to abuse. So either it needs to be complete reworked or there needs to be some solid guidelines on just who is a target.

On the other hand this is saying that the nationality of an enemy combatant doesn't matter, if he's an enemy of the US, is an active threat, and can't be captured then he's going to get dead. That part frankly makes sense to me.

Edited by Corp, 06 February 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[and then]

Corp, on 06 February 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

I believe we have a few threads on this topic now

Kind of see this two ways. On the one hand some of the wording seems rather vague and this could lead to abuse. So either it needs to be complete reworked or there needs to be some solid guidelines on just who is a target.

On the other hand this is saying that the nationality of an enemy combatant doesn't matter, if he's an enemy of the US, is an active threat, and can't be captured then he's going to get dead. That part frankly makes sense to me.

I wanted a fresh look considering the memo is new information but if the thread needs to be merged no problem mods
I agree with your take on this.  My biggest problem with the policy is that it is too vague.  It can basically be morphed and tortured to mean anything a president wants it to, then after the fact it doesn't allow for legal review apparently.

[Purifier]

Seems like a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy to me. If that's the case and you simply say the wrong thing that is anti-government, well...I guess your life insurance is gonna come in handy one day.

[Corp]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

I wanted a fresh look considering the memo is new information but if the thread needs to be merged no problem mods
I agree with your take on this.  My biggest problem with the policy is that it is too vague.  It can basically be morphed and tortured to mean anything a president wants it to, then after the fact it doesn't allow for legal review apparently.

Well it says the kill order can only be given if the person is part of a group that's an active threat to the US and can't be easily captured. So there are guidelines that in theory would only include Americans who have joined terrorist groups who are actively fighting the US. There just needs to be more guildelines about the guidelines.

One point I raised elsewhere was the question of location. I think the purpose of the memo is directed towards foreign combat zones but I wonder if it could be used within the US. Say a terrorist plot is discovered but has reached a point where it can't be stopped using conventual means. Would drones then be allowed to be used?

[Babe Ruth]

Assuming that ours is a country under the rule of law, and that the Supreme Law of the Land is the US Constitution, and that the federal government is created by and bound by the Constitution, this action represents a usurpation of power, an illegal act.

By deliberately breaking the USC, the guilty parties have acted in a treasonous manner.  They have defied the law and completely ignored their oath of office.

If we were really a country governed by the rule of law, those offenders would be prosecuted.

It's not happening, and the reasons are obvious.

[Uncle Sam]

Babe Ruth, on 06 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Assuming that ours is a country under the rule of law, and that the Supreme Law of the Land is the US Constitution, and that the federal government is created by and bound by the Constitution, this action represents a usurpation of power, an illegal act.

By deliberately breaking the USC, the guilty parties have acted in a treasonous manner.  They have defied the law and completely ignored their oath of office.

If we were really a country governed by the rule of law, those offenders would be prosecuted.

It's not happening, and the reasons are obvious.

Exactly. The government and this admen has infringed upon 8 of those amendments in the past 5 years.

[Babe Ruth]

I thought the Unpatriot Act marked the end of constitutional government.  I guess it rather marked the Beginning of the End.

This action, and the NDAA amendment are still more signs of the end of constitutional government.

[Rafterman]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

http://usnews.nbcnew...drone-memo?lite

I agreed with the killing of Anwar al Awlaki.  He was a killer of Americans and had plans to continue such acts.  He was in a place where he would have probably not been taken alive even by JSOC forces and he was a definite threat.   Having said that, his case is being used as a smoke screen for Obama and future presidents to basically become judge, jury and execution without even judicial action being possible after the fact.  
What do you think?

I agree to an extent, but I have a big problem with the vagueness of the directive.

I'm also concerned about the precedent that is being set.  Case in point:  I've read articles about a Jihadist training camp in Sullivan County, NY, that had been infiltrated by the FBI.  Well now, why bother.  Just Predator the place into the ground.  No justification offered and no questions asked.

[AsteroidX]

The way I read it it can be used on US soil and on US citizens that are not part of the War on Terror but are deemed to be threats. Thats a vast change in policy on the use of drones or just a leak of a long existing policy. Not sure which.

They would never attempt to use this on a non-alqueda sponsored terrorist cell first setting precedent that then would further erode its ultimate purpose. Being able to use drones against common objectors of US policy. Which are often deemed to be "pseudo terrorists at this point in time". Call it the slippery slope.

Ultimately the "kill order" no longer has to come directly from the President and within the US will be controlled by parts by parts of DHS which may not have the same discretion *cough* that the POTUS would have regarding the use of drones on US citizens used on US soil.

Long story short unless Al-Queda is trying to pull off something big its unlikely they will get the chance to pull something as a drone strike on US soil.

IMO

[AsteroidX]

http://www.washingto...es-legislation/

current legislation in process to limit drones in US by States. Mostly non military.

[Rafterman]

AsteroidX, on 07 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

http://www.washingto...es-legislation/

current legislation in process to limit drones in US by States. Mostly non military.

I would think any use of military drones would fall under PC would it not?

Of course, how easy is it to take an Air Force drone and repaint it with DHS markings?

Bombs away!

[AsteroidX]

Already happened. Our tax dollars hard at work.

http://www.thenewame...buy-more-drones