July 13, 2020, 08:24:39 AM

Author Topic: Drones Thread  (Read 5200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11620
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Drones Thread
« on: February 08, 2013, 10:48:32 PM »
Don't know if there is a thread for this topic did not search.


What's y'all take on this technique/tactic/strategy?

With the new focus on targeting "Americans" who are Al Qaeda leaders and many saying that this is wrong, how do you think the government should proceed? Is there merit in apprehending "American" terrorists in foreign land and bringing them to justice in a court of law is it feasible of even probable?

Should such people not be treated as other terrorists? If they are considered "Americans" and are still granted protection under the law, how should the government react to a another country who may target and kills these "American" terrorists?




Drone Strikes Under Scrutiny

In more than a decade at war since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has relied increasingly on drones to kill people away from the battlefield. It has faced few constraints. Now an overdue push for greater accountability and transparency is gathering steam, propelled by growing unease that America’s drones hit targets in countries with whom it is not formally at war, that there are no publicly understood rules for picking targets, and that the strikes may kill innocent civilians and harm, not help, American interests.
Related

Stanley McChrystal, the retired general, has warned that drone strikes are so resented abroad that their overuse could jeopardize America’s broader objectives. The secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke at his confirmation hearing of the need to make sure that “American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone.”

Read More...
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2013, 12:19:46 AM »
I have no problems with the use of drones/drone strikes in principle... if a manned aircraft would take out the target without objections then I have no issue using unmanned aircrafts.  I know the issue is less the un/manned aspect than the errant strikes... which in fairness has been on the decline since 2008 when Obama came into power and issued several directives aimed at minimizing civilian casualties.

The problem with drone strikes however is that it's an extra-judicial killing... a decision being made to execute someone without the benefit of a trial, with the government, in the form of the military, acting as judge jury and executioner.  Most people were happy to turn the other way until all of a sudden "American citizens" (I put it in quote because though citizens in name, their actions bespeak loyalties to other states/entities, even those hostile to the U.S... aka treason.  But even so, traitors deserve their day in court.

The particular problem this raises is that if we say it's okay for the government to kill American citizens without the benefit of trial, then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.  It starts us down a very slippery slope.  An ancillary question it raises is that if the US asserts the right to act in this manner, can it then complain if others do the same?  Can the US complain if China starts using drones (they've already started using them for recon)?  Can the US really complain if insurgents capture and kill American civilians?  American servicement?

A reasonable pushback would be to say that these killings occur within the context and theater of warfare and as such exempt from the need for trial.  If you pose an imminent threat then it is reasonable to negate that threat with deadly force.  I could order you to disarm and 'arrest' you, but that's not how war works... you actively shooting at me means I'm at liberty to shoot back... or to even shoot preemptively given the assumptions on the battlefield.  This "imminent threat" doctrine is currently being offered as a rationale for the targeting of American citizens, meant to address concerns the zero sum possibilities contemplated by critics.  I think it's a reasonable compromise... American citizen or not, if you pose an imminent threat (as we are presently seeing in LA with the ex-cop) then to a certain extent you forego the right to due process.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2013, 02:14:50 AM »
I have real issues with assissination by remote control.  American citizens, even the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.

If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.

Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes. 

I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.

Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.

Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?

I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN" people.  Much was made of it.  Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.

Where do we draw the line.

Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution.  (something you acknowledged)

« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 02:21:10 AM by truetrini SC »

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2013, 07:44:56 AM »
"American citizens" (I put it in quote because though citizens in name, their actions bespeak loyalties to other states/entities, even those hostile to the U.S...
Good post Bakes and Very, Very good post TT - I didn't expect that to come from you.
But Bakes I take issue with the line above b/c I don't think there is any likely 'american citizen' victim of a drone strike who would pledge loyalty to any other current state over the US. So I think you put state in there to hedge what you really mean which is 'entity'...lemme go further and guess (i know this is the point where I am opening myself up for the bashing from you) that you have in mind Islamist.. or somebody who puts far higher weight on her doctrine or belief than she does to 'america'. Does being american mean that america 1st, God and everything else second? Are you more loyal to anything than america? some people are, but that doesn't mean that they should be executed on the whims of mostly white dudes :) in the pentagon or wherever.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2013, 08:29:20 AM »
Good post Bakes and Very, Very good post TT - I didn't expect that to come from you.
But Bakes I take issue with the line above b/c I don't think there is any likely 'american citizen' victim of a drone strike who would pledge loyalty to any other current state over the US. So I think you put state in there to hedge what you really mean which is 'entity'...lemme go further and guess (i know this is the point where I am opening myself up for the bashing from you) that you have in mind Islamist.. or somebody who puts far higher weight on her doctrine or belief than she does to 'america'. Does being american mean that america 1st, God and everything else second? Are you more loyal to anything than america? some people are, but that doesn't mean that they should be executed on the whims of mostly white dudes :) in the pentagon or wherever.

Don't assume.  I put "states" because that is the typical basis for the 'treason' charge I later mentioned.  Of course the US has been at war over the course of the past decade, more against an ideology than any traditional "state" hence the need to speak of "entities" as well.  As for the rest... I honestly don't care much for the theological basis for waging war against the US.  If your god tells you to take up arms against the US then I'm sure he's given you assurances that he'll protect you as well.  If that "protection" fails to prevent a drone strike, well then that's between you and your god to sort out.  The injection of race into the discussion is an pointless distraction.

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2013, 08:47:17 AM »
Wait till you see whats coming in the near future

PBS Nova Rise of the Drones

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/4OKluZFZoHs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/4OKluZFZoHs</a>
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2013, 09:01:07 AM »
ok. from a us policy position as we move into the future where this clearly isn't a state vs state traditional war. how are you defining 'waging war'? is the taxi driver driving the dude who wish america and all its citizens burn in hell is she in material support and worthy of execution (by drone)? why have there been so many prisoners of war in the past? (why were they not all executed as they were in a war)?

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2013, 09:58:49 AM »
I have real issues with assissination by remote control.  American citizens, even the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.

If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.

Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes. 

I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.

Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.

Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?

I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN" people.  Much was made of it.  Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.

Where do we draw the line.

Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution.  (something you acknowledged)



I have "acknowledged" 90% of what you state... you just choose to convenient "acknowledge" that which I have already stated.

1. [E]ven the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.

There is no such "entitlement" when it comes to warfare. Article 24 of the UN Charter in fact provides just such a distinction for when the use of force is in self-defense, in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and where the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action.  All of these factors exist in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the current sphere of drone operations.  It is by no means hard and fast, and very much dictated by the individual circumstances.

2. If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.

Utter nonsense.  Drone strikes didn't begin with Obama... in fact under Bush, as few as 45 and as many as 52 strikes were conducted (see, page 12).  Nobody was "screaming about constitutional rights" then.  Of course US citizens were included on the target list back then, but US citizens weren't then known to be among target operatives either.  Being unconventional warfare the circumstances are changing on the fly, as are the methods employed to counter them.

And before anybody thinks any of this is new... targeted killings have been going on forever, just look up Isoroku Yamamoto.

3. Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes. 


One is based on quantifiable, vetted and reliable information, the other was entirely pretextual.

Anything else?

4. I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.

Well there's nothing "clandestine" at all about the decision-making process... the CIA and Special Operations Command independently draw up their lists.  Where there is no 'certainty' as to the incriminating activities of the person in question, Obama has insisted on being the one to personally sign off on the strike.  As for harboring concerns, that is entirely fair, we SHOULD harbor such concerns, the challenge lies in arriving at a feasible compromise, which is being worked on as we speak.

5. Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.

Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?


Every drone strike is made based on "credible plot(s) to kill Americans"... who else yuh thing Al Qaeda trying to kill?  You don't think those plots are credible... or that the US just firing missile every time they hear some name whispered down the pipeline?

As for China and North Korea targeting civilians... the US isn't currently targeting civilians so that's a strawman argument.  Besides, China done using drones long time they just doh have nobody to shoot them at.

6. I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN" people.  Much was made of it.  Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.

Where do we draw the line.


No.  The justification was that he possessed WMDs and the predilection for using them as exemplified by the attack on the Kurds.  That it was against his "own" people was part of the analysis to show just how ruthless he could be and therefore be treated as the threat he was.  There was no talk about him striking "preemptively", whether his actions were responsive or preemptive mattered little, the discussion focused on his use of chemical agents... had he used bombs no one would have given one frig about the attack on the Kurds.  There is ample precedence for preemptive strikes where war is concerned... one party always starts the conflict (Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, anyone?)... that by nature is preemptive.

The line is drawn at a credible threat that otherwise cannot be negated.

7. Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution.  (something you acknowledged)

I never said it was illegal... I said critics argue that it violates due process.  My own position is that it's not that hard and fast but rather driven by the facts and totality of each circumstance.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2013, 10:01:46 AM »
ok. from a us policy position as we move into the future where this clearly isn't a state vs state traditional war. how are you defining 'waging war'? is the taxi driver driving the dude who wish america and all its citizens burn in hell is she in material support and worthy of execution (by drone)? why have there been so many prisoners of war in the past? (why were they not all executed as they were in a war)?

See my comments above regarding Article 24 of the UN Charter and the use of force to negate threats of imminent danger.  There is ample precedence and justification for these acts... even if the public is only now belatedly getting apprised of the situation.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2013, 10:11:33 AM »
Quote
The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial.
 
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.

Shit like this is the reason why people does cyah take de ACLU serious at times.  If I can use a simple Google search to find out that there is a process by which targets are identified, who the decision-makers are and what criteria are used; that the justifications are derived from existing law and precedence... then what is the ACLU's excuse for putting out this biased piece of trash?

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2013, 12:28:31 PM »
Quote
The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial.
 
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.

Shit like this is the reason why people does cyah take de ACLU serious at times.  If I can use a simple Google search to find out that there is a process by which targets are identified, who the decision-makers are and what criteria are used; that the justifications are derived from existing law and precedence... then what is the ACLU's excuse for putting out this biased piece of trash?
Here bakes. Here is the first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
Please tell me based on your open source research bakes. FOR CERTAIN. The IMMINENT threat posed by this dude and all of the process, criteria, everything you highlighted.  Let me know which americans are on the list right now. Should I be surprised if somebody not on your list is executed?

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2013, 12:36:36 PM »
Don't fear the Reaper... like Eugene Robinson put it, "Barrack the Assassin"!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2013, 12:49:08 PM »
Here bakes. Here is the first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi
Please tell me based on your open source research bakes. FOR CERTAIN. The IMMINENT threat posed by this dude and all of the process, criteria, everything you highlighted.  Let me know which americans are on the list right now. Should I be surprised if somebody not on your list is executed?

I don't have any list so I really don't know what it is you asking me for.  How am I supposed to know who's on the list?

As for Aulaqi... you just looking for talk if it is you're arguing whether this fella was involved in terrorist activities or whether the threat he posed was imminent or certain.  He don't have to have a gun in his hand himself in order to pose an imminent threat... if that is the criteria yuh trying to argue then what crime was Bin Laden guilty of?

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2013, 01:47:55 PM »
Quote
I have "acknowledged" 90% of what you state... you just choose to convenient "acknowledge" that which I have already stated.

1. [E]ven the treasonous ones as you rightly pointed out, are entitled to their in court.

There is no such "entitlement" when it comes to warfare. Article 24 of the UN Charter in fact provides just such a distinction for when the use of force is in self-defense, in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat, and where the host state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action.  All of these factors exist in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the current sphere of drone operations.  It is by no means hard and fast, and very much dictated by the individual circumstances.

We are not talking about just any enemy combatant.  Yuh playing smart with foolishness here…we are specifically addressing the extra-judicial murder of US citizens..something you RIGHTLY acknowledged  [/b]“then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.”   That doh mean entitled to yuh day in court?[/b]

 
Quote
2. If this was Bush ordering these kiilings most of us would be screaming about constitutional rights.

Utter nonsense.  Drone strikes didn't begin with Obama... in fact under Bush, as few as 45 and as many as 52 strikes were conducted (see, page 12).  Nobody was "screaming about constitutional rights" then.  Of course US citizens were included on the target list back then, but US citizens weren't then known to be among target operatives either.  Being unconventional warfare the circumstances are changing on the fly, as are the methods employed to counter them.

And before anybody thinks any of this is new... targeted killings have been going on forever, just look up Isoroku Yamamoto.
Again we are not addressing drone strikes alone..we are discussing drone strikes against US CITIZENS….!  And while I have always known of CIA sponsored executions, the killing of US citizens without their day in court is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and “against everything the constitution stands for.” 

Explain what the hell you mean when you say “US citizens were included on the target list back then, but they weren’t known to be among the target operatives either?”   You trying to tell me that the US intelligence operatives made a list with names and did not know US citizens were among those targeted?”  I find that highly incredulous!

Quote
3. Please address the difference between W "s premeptive war in Iraq and premptive drone strikes. 


One is based on quantifiable, vetted and reliable information, the other was entirely pretextual.

Anything else?

Yes there is something else…You have access to Saddamn’s intelligence?  How do you know one is pretextual and one is based on quantifiable intelligence..I remember Colin Powell making that same argument, that he had quantifiable, vetted and reliable information about Iraq's possession of WMD's before the UN to JUSTIFY an illegal invasion of Iraq.  I also remember our current President being very vocally opposed to that self same invasion!

Quote
4. I shed no tears for most of the US Targets but I am wary of a President or any clandestine group making a decision on extra-judicial killings without oversight.

Well there's nothing "clandestine" at all about the decision-making process... the CIA and Special Operations Command independently draw up their lists.  Where there is no 'certainty' as to the incriminating activities of the person in question, Obama has insisted on being the one to personally sign off on the strike.  As for harboring concerns, that is entirely fair, we SHOULD harbor such concerns, the challenge lies in arriving at a feasible compromise, which is being worked on as we speak.
There should be no compromise.  The targeting of US citizens without the input of a court using any means should not even be a consideration.   Where do we draw the line?  What is stop them attacking US citizens right here at home?  And how can you asy it is not clandestine?  Special groups approved by the president deciding to execute US citizens with a trial is surely clandestine as we are not made privy to the 'facts" of innocence or guilt.  You already satted that the government is acting as judge, jury and executioner.  I would rather not have such a circumstance.

Quote
5. Now if Obama were to become aware of a credible plot to kill Americans or target America and he failed to act to stop such attacks he would be derelict.

Using drones may be less risky than say an invasion or a raid, but as you rightly pointed out, what will we say if China or North korea starts building a fleet of drones to target civilians?

Every drone strike is made based on "credible plot(s) to kill Americans"... who else yuh thing Al Qaeda trying to kill?  You don't think those plots are credible... or that the US just firing missile every time they hear some name whispered down the pipeline?

As for China and North Korea targeting civilians... the US isn't currently targeting civilians so that's a strawman argument.  Besides, China done using drones long time they just doh have nobody to shoot them at.

Again we are not just discussing drone strikes, but drone strikes against US citizens, as President his oath was to uphold the Constitution. ““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Quote
6. I rememerb one justification used to invade Iraq was the fatc Saddam used gas against his "OWN"people.  Much was made of it.  Saddam was in fact using the gas premeptively to stop rebellion.

Where do we draw the line.

No.  The justification was that he possessed WMDs and the predilection for using them as exemplified by the attack on the Kurds.  That it was against his "own" people was part of the analysis to show just how ruthless he could be and therefore be treated as the threat he was.  There was no talk about him striking "preemptively", whether his actions were responsive or preemptive mattered little, the discussion focused onhis use of chemical agents... had he used bombs no one would have given one frig about the attack on the Kurds.  There is ample precedence for preemptive strikes where war is concerned... one party always starts the conflict (Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, anyone?)... that by nature is preemptive.

The line is drawn at a credible threat that otherwise cannot be negated.

Absolutely, the entire justification for that invasion of Iraq was that we were acting preemptively!  Had he ever attacked or threatened the USA?



Quote
7. Killing enemy combatants is one thing, killing US citizens is another and frankly it appears illegal to me and my understanding of the US Constitution.  (something you acknowledged)

I never said it was illegal... I said critics argue that it violates due process.  My own position is that it's not that hard and fast but rather driven by the facts and totality of each circumstance.

If it is against everything the Constitution stands for then how de hell it is not illegal?  Is the Constitution not the highest law of the Land?

It is either against the Constitution or it is not! 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 02:24:02 PM by truetrini SC »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2013, 02:14:00 PM »
Quote
then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.  It starts us down a very slippery slope. 

And it is clandestine if no courts are involved. just a small group.

steups.

As I said, I merely presented the argument of critics so as to set up the response, which I later did... this is happening within the context of warfare.  If no courts are involved it's extra-judicial.  Clandestine means it's happening under cover, meaning secretive... basically the same bullshit the ACLU was stating in that blog post.  There's nothing clandestine about it, while not 100% transparent (and it needs not be, in the interest of national security), we know who the decision-makers are, and what the criteria is for putting individuals on the list.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2013, 02:36:23 PM »
Quote
then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.  It starts us down a very slippery slope. 

And it is clandestine if no courts are involved. just a small group.

steups.

As I said, I merely presented the argument of critics so as to set up the response, which I later did... this is happening within the context of warfare.  If no courts are involved it's extra-judicial.  Clandestine means it's happening under cover, meaning secretive... basically the same bullshit the ACLU was stating in that blog post.  There's nothing clandestine about it, while not 100% transparent (and it needs not be, in the interest of national security), we know who the decision-makers are, and what the criteria is for putting individuals on the list.

The entire notion of executing US citizens extra-judicial makes me queasy.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2013, 02:46:01 PM »
The entire notion of executing US citizens extra-judicial makes me queasy.

As well it should, but I doh have a problem with it in the current context where man training and recruiting terrorists, who themselves targeting civilians.  If yuh want to play brave and turncoat on the US then just be sure to make yuh peace with yuh God.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2013, 04:38:06 PM »
Somehow I missed this...

We are not talking about just any enemy combatant.  Yuh playing smart with foolishness here…we are specifically addressing the extra-judicial murder of US citizens..something you RIGHTLY acknowledged  [/b]“then that goes against everything the Constitution ('due process' in particular) stands for.”   That doh mean entitled to yuh day in court?[/b]

 
Again we are not addressing drone strikes alone..we are discussing drone strikes against US CITIZENS….!  And while I have always known of CIA sponsored executions, the killing of US citizens without their day in court is HIGHLY ILLEGAL and “against everything the constitution stands for.”

You have comprehension issues or what?  I began by stating that this doesn't apply when the American citizen in question is at war with the US, what part of that so hard to understand?  More on this later.

Quote
Explain what the hell you mean when you say “US citizens were included on the target list back then, but they weren’t known to be among the target operatives either?”   You trying to tell me that the US intelligence operatives made a list with names and did not know US citizens were among those targeted?”  I find that highly incredulous!

That should read "US citizens were NOT included on the (Bush) target list back then, but they (US citizens) weren't known to be among the target operatives either."  In other words... no US citizen was targeted for execution under Bush because we didn't know of any US citizen enemy combatant then.

Quote
Yes there is something else…You have access to Saddamn’s intelligence?  How do you know one is pretextual and one is based on quantifiable intelligence..I remember Colin Powell making that same argument, that he had quantifiable, vetted and reliable information about Iraq's possession of WMD's before the UN to JUSTIFY an illegal invasion of Iraq.  I also remember our current President being very vocally opposed to that self same invasion!

You's ah kind ah imps or what?  You are trying to draw comparisons between Bush's 'preemptive' invasion of Iraq and what you're classifying as preemptive drone strikes.  There IS no comparison because we now know that the Bush administration lied in order to make the case for war against Iraq.  There was no "quantifiable, vetted and reliable" information there were lies.  Therefore the reasons proffered in making the case for war against Iraq were a ruse... we now know that, therefore they were pretextual.  I don't need to know what intelligence Saddam had... again the issue wasn't the nature of the strike against the Kurds, it was the means... chemical warfare.  As I said, which you evidently didn't understand... had he used bombs against the Kurds there would have been no outrage.

Quote
There should be no compromise.  The targeting of US citizens without the input of a court using any means should not even be a consideration.   Where do we draw the line?  What is stop them attacking US citizens right here at home?  And how can you asy it is not clandestine?  Special groups approved by the president deciding to execute US citizens with a trial is surely clandestine as we are not made privy to the 'facts" of innocence or guilt.  You already satted that the government is acting as judge, jury and executioner.  I would rather not have such a circumstance.

You sounding like them idiot Republicans speaking in absolute... 'bout there should be no compromise.  No law is hard and fast, there are always nuances. 

Quote
Again we are not just discussing drone strikes, but drone strikes against US citizens, as President his oath was to uphold the Constitution. ““I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Do I even have to mention (yet again) that the exigency of warfare renders moot the Constitutional considerations?

Quote
Absolutely, the entire justification for that invasion of Iraq was that we were acting preemptively!  Had he ever attacked or threatened the USA?

You make no sense... no one justified the war on the basis of preemptive action... the war AND preemptive action were both justified by the lies about WMDs.  Again... that whole "pretextual" thing again nah.  Try and keep up.

Quote
If it is against everything the Constitution stands for then how de hell it is not illegal?  Is the Constitution not the highest law of the Land?

It is either against the Constitution or it is not! 


Exigencies of warfare.  Also you'd asked if 'due process' didn't mean having your day in court.  No it does not.  It means notice (of the state's complaint against you) and an opportunity to be heard (in response).  Ideally this should happen every time, but that isn't always possible or feasible.  What due process is due a gunman holding an innocent person hostage... other than "drop your weapon"?  Or one engaged in a shootout with police?  In the theater of warfare if you're engaged in combat against another side then you are on notice that they have a 'complaint' against you and by not putting down your arms you have conceded your opportunity to be heard.  This is why in conventional warfare you are given an opportunity to surrender.

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2013, 05:29:00 PM »

 


I don't have any list so I really don't know what it is you asking me for.  How am I supposed to know who's on the list?
You don't think this might be why you don't know who on the list? Or why they on the list?

The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy.

including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.[/quote]


As for Aulaqi... you just looking for talk if it is you're arguing whether this fella was involved in terrorist activities
so being 'involved' in terrorist activities is the secret criteria? how involved? what is the tipping point? what gets you on the list?

or whether the threat he posed was imminent or certain.  He don't have to have a gun in his hand himself in order to pose an imminent threat... if that is the criteria yuh trying to argue then what crime was Bin Laden guilty of?
no Bin Laden is a red herring here Bakes. let me not take the bait. I am ignoring this part.

Bakes you real disappointing here picking "certain" above all the other characteristics of the word imminent. Imminent mean about to happen in a SHORT SPACE of TIME. Iran can't come today and say Israel will certainly attack iran (whether today or 1000 years from now) so they must pre-emptively strike Israel. that will never satisfy article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, so because the criteria so open source, let me know what made his threat so imminent. what was the evidence that is so non-secretive.

I don't see any concrete details to support your judgement that the bolded parts of the ACLU statement it shit. That is exactly how i see it.

So in short bakes. I get that it cool with you for 'Washington' to label anybody - american or not - a terrorist and that automatically gives them the right to execute such person without trial (or a secret sham of a trial that is only used in these cases). But that is you. You are a true 'patriot'. unquestioned faith in your gov't above all.


Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2013, 08:21:47 PM »
You don't think this might be why you don't know who on the list? Or why they on the list?

Quote
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy.

including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.

Did you read the link that I provided in my initial response to truetrini... or do you I have to spoonfeed yuh and turn around and wipe yuh ass fuh yuh when yuh done digesting and egesting it?

"According to US authorities, these strikes target “groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known.”

Do you or the ACLU have any proof that any of the targets were NOT involved in terrorist activities?  All this talk about secret this and secret that... implying that there's something askance about the process of identifying targets... any proof that they've been wrong?  And I don't me those who are accidentally killed, I'm talking about "targets."

so being 'involved' in terrorist activities is the secret criteria? how involved? what is the tipping point? what gets you on the list?


Chances are that associating with members of a known terrorist cell and posting videos calling for attacks on the US, videos clearly used as recruiting pitches and yet others showing you helping train fighters... chances are all of that would get you put on the list as Al-Aulaqi did.  I realize yuh have yuh Muslim sympathies, but that's no excuse for exercising a little bit of intellectual curiosity (by doing your own research, or at least by following the links when provided) and common sense as well.

no Bin Laden is a red herring here Bakes. let me not take the bait. I am ignoring this part.

Look, I really doh have no patience with dotishness.  You asked about what imminent threat Al-Aulaqi posed.  He was connected to both the Fort Hood shooter and the Nigerian fella who try tuh light he jockey shorts afire.  Even if yuh want to discount that... the Yemeni government was trying him in absentia for helping plot attacks against foreigners in Yemen.  I know, I know... is American puppets in Yemen who do that right?  ::)

Maybe is time you come clean... what is your connection to Al-Aulaqi?

Quote
Bakes you real disappointing here picking "certain" above all the other characteristics of the word imminent. Imminent mean about to happen in a SHORT SPACE of TIME. Iran can't come today and say Israel will certainly attack iran (whether today or 1000 years from now) so they must pre-emptively strike Israel. that will never satisfy article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, so because the criteria so open source, let me know what made his threat so imminent. what was the evidence that is so non-secretive.

I "disappointing" you... LOL.  Sorry Miss, ah go try harder on mih test next time.

GTFOH... I not here for your "appointment" or "disappointment".  You have offered nothing of your own to counter the policy of the Obama administration.  All you have offered is empty talk parroting "secret" this and "secret" that.  Your dictionary definition of "imminent" is meaningless in the context and exigency of warfare.  There is well-established precedence supporting this notion.  Look up Schenck vs. The US, where the "clear and present danger" test was established.  Although countenanced with respect to speech, the issue was speech that had the potential to incite unrest.  The court made it clear that what might fly during times of peace, might be potentially more dangerous during times of war.  When yuh done with that check out Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the court examined the meaning of "imminent lawless action"... focusing less on the "SHORT SPACE of TIME" Webster dictionary nonsense you offering, and more on a real world determination of what is the intent behind the action, and what is the likelihood of it being acted upon by others.  In other words, I suspect yuh's ah smart fella but yuh like to act like yuh doh understand:  what was Al-Aulaqi's intent behind the videos and what was the likelihood that his followers would act upon his words?  That right there is how the law contemplates the issue of "imminence" when it comes to advocacy of lawlessness as yuh boy was doing on YouTube and in the mosques in Yemen and Alexandria, VA.

Quote
I don't see any concrete details to support your judgement that the bolded parts of the ACLU statement it shit. That is exactly how i see it.

So in short bakes. I get that it cool with you for 'Washington' to label anybody - american or not - a terrorist and that automatically gives them the right to execute such person without trial (or a secret sham of a trial that is only used in these cases). But that is you. You are a true 'patriot'. unquestioned faith in your gov't above all.



Even if I was to drop said 'concrete proof' on yuh head yuh still wouldn't see it.  And please, spare me the bullshit.  At no point did I say or suggest that I was cool with 'Washington' labeling "anybody" a terrorist.  Try that reductio ad absurdum nonsense with somebody who head could get easily tied up.  Is not "anybody" being targeted and killed right now.. the unintended collateral targets aside.  Is people engaged terrorist activities (and we all know what that is, so doh play dotish), who hold a senior position (one where they are given responsibilities and can influence a large number of followers).  Yuh could try and label me "true patriot" and accuse me of having "unquestioned faith in [the] gov't" all yuh like.  That sort of ad hominem doh really faze me, so try yuh best.

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2013, 09:24:02 PM »

Do you or the ACLU have any proof that any of the targets were NOT involved in terrorist activities? 
sorry, I thought the burden of proof went the other way around  ::)

Chances are that associating with members of a known terrorist cell
guilty by association?


posting videos calling for attacks on the US,
I do not believe that that is the case in this one example that we are talking about. Some brave researcher could prove me wrong though if they could find the non-deleted youtube videos.

videos clearly used as recruiting pitches and yet others showing you helping train fighters... chances are all of that would get you put on the list as Al-Aulaqi did. 
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/31/nation/la-na-terror-intel31-2009dec31
Quote
"He's saying all this but we haven't determined all of it is true; whether [Awlaki] blessed it or gave the green light or was the impetus behind it," the FBI official said. "It's very possible and it's being investigated. But it's also possible he's saying it to give himself credibility" among militants who look up to Awlaki.
you know a real trial would help bring all these minor details out.  ;)

the Yemeni government was trying him in absentia for helping plot attacks against foreigners in Yemen.  I know, I know... is American puppets in Yemen who do that right?  ::)
same yemen with the secret CIA jails? or another one?

Maybe is time you come clean... what is your connection to Al-Aulaqi?
lawd, is now self you want a drone to come strike thu my window :)

I'll check out your links and references.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 09:28:02 PM by kounty »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2013, 09:56:59 PM »
The burden of proof is on the one asserting a position... and so since I say the strikes were justified against Al-Aulaqi I offered the evidence put forth by the Obama administration... and yuh bawl

"guilty by association"

"I do not believe"

"...a real trial" (Did Yamamoto get a trial? How about sniper targets... dem does get trials?)

"Yemen... secret CIA jails"

 ::)

In short not one shred of evidence or argument in opposition, just trying to discredit the source or otherwise intimating that it's insufficient.  Offer your proof.  The way yuh trying to play Devil's Advocate it is clear that you have some kinda connection to Al-Aulaqi out dey in New Mexico.  But me eh give yuh wrong talk shit behind de computer screen.  If yuh really believe he was innocent or that your ties to him are innocent yuh wouldn't have nutten tuh hide.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2013, 10:11:44 PM »
How Yamamoto get in this? 

Quote
he way yuh trying to play Devil's Advocate it is clear that you have some kinda connection to Al-Aulaqi out dey in New Mexico.

hehehehehehe

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2013, 12:24:28 AM »
How Yamamoto get in this? 

His was a targeted killing... targeted killings during times of war, though extreme, are nothing new.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2013, 12:58:59 AM »
How Yamamoto get in this? 

His was a targeted killing... targeted killings during times of war, though extreme, are nothing new.

well yeah but that different...after we crack teh code we get him on de beach but dais not extra-judicial in the truest sense.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2013, 01:05:09 AM »
How Yamamoto get in this? 

His was a targeted killing... targeted killings during times of war, though extreme, are nothing new.

well yeah but that different...after we crack teh code we get him on de beach but dais not extra-judicial in the truest sense.

Nah he was shot down in an ambush... very much extra-judicial.  They coulda force the plane to land and capture him, but the decision was made to take him out so as to break the will of the Japanese navy.  It wasn't no gunfight kinda thing, they knew his itinerary, tracked him and shot him out the sky.

Offline kounty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2931
  • Truthfulness is brighter than the light of the sun
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2013, 05:08:16 PM »
How Yamamoto get in this? 

Quote
he way yuh trying to play Devil's Advocate it is clear that you have some kinda connection to Al-Aulaqi out dey in New Mexico.

hehehehehehe
lol. i hope the real cia dudes smarter than allyuh 2 retards  ;)

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2013, 06:24:12 PM »
lol. i hope the real cia dudes smarter than allyuh 2 retards  ;)

Well dey eh scoop you up yet, right?

Offline Feliziano

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
  • www.TheWarriorNation.com
    • View Profile
    • The Warrior Nation
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2013, 07:02:54 PM »
That LA cop on the run is going to be the first public drone assassination by the government and it also going to test the waters on public reaction  ;)
Feliz
Warrior Nation Secretary & Membership Officer
http://www.TheWarriorNation.com

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Drone Strikes
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2013, 08:37:25 PM »
So let me get this: according to news articles in the last 6 mts.

1) DHS tested drones over the US (currently using them along the Canadian Border and to a minimal amount on the southern border.

2) DHS has bought 250 million rounds of Jacketed Hollow Point in .40 Caliber for "target practice" (either they love blowing tax payer dollars/ they prepping for something/ Or Big Sis Janet is just incompetent)

3) DHS has given out over 50 mil in contracts to Firearms Co... ordered over 65,000 sidearms to be produced, major contracts with H&K and Sig to produce new weapons cambered in .40.

4) Has ordered an additional 20 million rounds (caliber unknown) this year.

5) De DHS stockpile is 1.6 Billion rounds of Ammo..

6) Maxine Waters say that Barracus have compiled a comprehensive database on Americans.

7) DHS has been doing "military style" drills around the US on major cities...

8) Recently awarded a 217 mil contract to a formerly stained mil co-founded in N.C.  :devil:

hmmmm the plot thickens...