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.