One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.
...

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.

 whembly wrote:


This is awfully untimely in that light, since coverage of this story is going to swallow up Obama’s speech tomorrow and leave him on the defensive. Strange...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just idle speculation on my part, but could this be connected to the AP and Fox stories? Maybe the Administration were aware that something was about to be published concerning these deaths and decided this was the least worst option.

Ever so conveniently, the "evidence" that Awlaki was anything more than a rabble-rousing blogger remains classified by the government. And if this week's news of the Obama administration's assault on journalism is any indication, any reporter daring to ask a federal employee for a look-see at said evidence will be declared an enemy of the state forthwith.

Holder, who has so speciously proclaimed that the criminal banking cartel is too big to jail, now asks us to blindly accept his rationale for state-sponsored murder. This, while peaceful Americans protesting their own victimization by the criminal banking cartel are being tased and arrested right outside his office building. Can domestic weaponized drones be that far away?

Truth-telling is being frozen while our government wages secret wars with Hellfire missiles. "Some say the world will end in fire," wrote Robert Frost. "Some say in ice."

From the looks of things, the experiment known as America will end in both, unless more people wake up and take notice of the atrocities being committed in all our names.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I seem to be having trouble getting my point across tonight Let me try again.

What I meant was perhaps the Administration knew that the story about them killing 4 Americans by drone was going to break, and decided to break the story first before a news agency could. Does that make more sense?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
What would have to happen these days for someone to get impeached?

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I seem to be having trouble getting my point across tonight Let me try again.

What I meant was perhaps the Administration knew that the story about them killing 4 Americans by drone was going to break, and decided to break the story first before a news agency could. Does that make more sense?

*click*

Got it!

Yeah, they don't want to add another "scandal" into the mix...

So... lemme get this straight.

Obama's policy killed more American than Bush's waterboarding policy... there better be bloody outrage about this.

 CptJake wrote:
I very seriously doubt this gets much coverage except on libertarian web sites and a bit on Fox. It will not swallow up his speech.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
What would have to happen these days for someone to get impeached?

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I very seriously doubt this gets much coverage except on libertarian web sites and a bit on Fox. It will not swallow up his speech.

In which we now pretend mainstream media such as the NY times will not cover a story, in a thread in which the OP's article is from the NY times.

Clearly liberal bias has once again buried this story to protect Obama! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

 d-usa wrote:
Many people will not see an issue here, unfortionately.

Of course I complained about drones killing americans before it was cool.

/hipsterglasses

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

 whembly wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

Erm... wat?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

Erm... wat?

 motyak wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

Is the case with these deaths that they were working for the other side? Or was it some mistake that the drone hit them. Because that's a pretty important thing to make clear with sources.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

Erm... wat?

Those targeted and erased in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia weren't there selling cookies, they were participating in terrorist activities.

Other than some sort of tick box option on the computer screen to remove citizenship prior to liquidation, I don't know what you expect them to do, they blew up bad guys, with minimal risk to US forces.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

Is the case with these deaths that they were working for the other side? Or was it some mistake that the drone hit them. Because that's a pretty important thing to make clear with sources.

This issue is this.

Are they on the battle field? If so, the feth 'em.. drone them all day long.

If their in a "camp" or not actively fighting... then, it's a grey area because are they truly enemy combatant? Here, you have a U.S. military asset used to kill an American citizen who's not actively fighting.

See?

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

So the shooting of the Boston bomber?

The taking down of any criminal?


Do you want to go extract them?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

So the shooting of the Boston bomber?

The taking down of any criminal?

Do you want to go extract them?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are participating in the radicalization of and training of terrorists to go into the world and do harm to the US, then the US is at liberty to exterminate their asses.

Or would you rather they continued in their 'work'? Or that we endanger personnel to extract them?

Screw them, bomb them, move on. Preemptive strike ensures no massive civilian death in the US later, that's a good result. There is a strong argument that once you start working towards the downfall of your nation, your actions have renounced your citizenry by definition and made you an enemy combatant.

This is only being made news to attempt to wound Obama and feed the tinfoil 'hes a dictator' angle, the right wing would be cheering this on if there was a Republican in the white house.

BY MAJ. CHARLES G. KELS
Over the past two years, prominent officials in the Obama administration — most of them high-ranking lawyers — have offered public defenses and rationales for the so-called “targeted killing” program carried out predominantly with unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones.

These statements are undoubtedly a good thing, since the best way to prevent outside critiques of U.S. policy from becoming accepted wisdom is to challenge them vociferously and explain our own reasoning clearly. This task became particularly urgent once the United Nations “special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” delivered his 2010 report to the Human Rights Council questioning the legality of all U.S. drone strikes outside of “hot” conflict zones — that is, in locations other than Afghanistan and (until recently) Iraq.

Inasmuch as the current targeted killing program is a continuation (albeit vastly expanded) of the previous administration’s policies, and will surely be pursued in some form by future ones, it is vital that the U.S. government put forward a coherent and sustainable theory of what we are doing and why. So far, the official explanations fall short of the mark.

PUBLIC STATEMENTS

As the Obama administration has taken pains to point out, U.S. actions overseas must comply with “all applicable law,” meaning both domestic and international legal norms. International law is composed largely of the customs observed by states, and such customary international law is informed primarily by a combination of state practice (what nations do) and opinio juris (why nations do it). That is, to establish a desirable rule as customary international law — or to prevent such establishment of an undesirable rule — states must not only act consistently in accordance with or in defiance of that rule but also demonstrate that they are acting that way as a matter of legal principle.

Therefore, the recent speeches by top government officials are significant not just as a matter of public accountability to the American people in whose name targeted killings are being ordered but also as the preliminary foundations of an emerging legal doctrine establishing both the permissibility and limits of a tenable targeted killing program using drone technology. The good news is that the administration now clearly understands this, perhaps in part due to the persistence of certain gadflies in academia and think tanks who have been insisting over the past several years that the government discharge its duty to publicly recognize and defend what it already believes it has the legal right to do.

Thus, this spring the president’s counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, acknowledged that as “the first nation to regularly conduct strikes using remotely piloted aircraft in an armed conflict,” the U.S. has a special obligation to set an example of the lawful and ethical prosecution of such a program. Brennan attested to the administration’s mindfulness that it is “establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting life, including innocent civilians.” In other words, China is watching closely, and everything we do and say will most certainly be used against us when the Chinese inevitably launch a full-scale drone strike program of their own and we contest its legality.

The administration’s speeches can thereby be read as an emerging body of opinio juris establishing the legal thinking behind recent U.S. counterterrorism practices, as well as a hedge against future bad actors who seek to justify their practices as consistent with American precedent. Granted, these statements might not be as forthcoming as some observers would like, given the White House’s self-assigned goal of unprecedented transparency and its decision to release the legal opinions on interrogation practices rendered by the previous administration. What inquiring minds really want are the Justice Department’s memos on targeted killing, most especially the one justifying last year’s drone strike on American-born propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki. But in an ironic twist that is perhaps unsurprising to political veterans, the current administration is considerably more circumspect about disclosing its own internal legal communications than it was with respect to its predecessor’s.

ADDING IT UP

Nonetheless, we can only work with what we have, and the official statements to date at the very least offer a broad framework shedding light on some of the major U.S. positions in this area. First, the U.S. government maintains that the nation is at war, in an armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban and all their associated forces. In terms of domestic law, operations against these enemies were sanctioned by Congress via the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed one week after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and legislatively reaffirmed a decade later.

The AUMF does not specify any geographical limitations, but instead authorizes the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against broadly specified actors linked in some fashion to 9/11 “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism” against us by those parties. The president also retains his constitutionally derived powers as commander in chief “to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack,” but the AUMF serves as the bedrock of legal authority for military activities in this particular conflict.

Second, in terms of international law — and more specifically, within that subset of international law governing the use of force (known as jus ad bellum) — the U.S. asserts that we are engaged in lawful actions pursuant to the inherent right of self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. More to the point, we are relying on a corollary of the self-defense principle, which holds that a state (in this case, the U.S.) may lawfully use force within the sovereign territory of another state (Pakistan and elsewhere) to defend itself against non-state actors (al-Qaida and its affiliates) when that host state is “unwilling or unable” to take effective action to stem the tide of violence emanating from within its borders.

According to the U.S. argument, such defensive operations require neither the consent of the state that is harboring (wittingly or unwittingly) the violent nonstate actors — although such consent is certainly preferable, as may be the case in Yemen and, at least in some cases, in Pakistan — nor an authorization for the use of force from the U.N. Nor, for that matter, must we be at war with the state whose territory we are entering, because our fight against al-Qaida legitimately extends to wherever members of that group or its partners may be tracked down. This “unwilling or unable” test is based upon the aforementioned notion of customary international law, but is certainly neither uncontroversial nor uncontrovertibly settled. It is distinct from the so-called “Bush doctrine” of states being “either with us or against us,” because it provides a legal tool for us to bypass the territorial sovereignty of a nation that is either complicit or hapless with respect to combating terrorism, without requiring us to make a definitive statement as to the nature of our official relationship with that country’s government.

Third, the U.S. position is that our targeted killing program is designed to comply with the rules governing conduct in war, otherwise known as jus in bello or the law of armed conflict (LOAC). As State Department legal adviser Harold Koh has stated, “the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system used” (unless specifically designed to inflict unnecessary suffering), but rather how those weapons are employed. In this sense, the use of drones as a weapons platform is irrelevant — targeting law is the same regardless of whether the ordnance is delivered via a sniper, high-altitude bomber, sea-based launch mechanism or pilotless aircraft. If anything, officials claim, drones enable us to be super-vigilant in our targeting practices by affording unparalleled surveillance capabilities and removing the elements of risk and fear on the part of the trigger-puller.

Moreover, the U.S. says, targeted killing does not constitute “assassination,” which is prohibited under domestic law by Executive Order 12333 — promulgated first by President Ford and reissued under President Reagan — and in international law via the ban on treachery under the Annex to The Hague Convention IV of 1907. According to Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, “the pejorative term ‘assassination’... should be rejected in this context,” because we are in an armed conflict and thereby empowered to exercise lethal force against valid military objectives. The fact that we are facing an unconventional enemy, Attorney General Eric Holder has said, does not alter our ability to take decisive action.

Yet the question of who constitutes such a valid objective implicates another hotly contested issue in itself. Namely, when can a civilian who is not part of a state’s armed forces be lawfully targeted based upon actions that constitute taking a “direct part in hostilities”? The U.S. government has chosen largely to elude this controversy in its public statements, but it would help, again as a matter of opinio juris, for us to explain the standards we use when applying that categorization. This is especially the case because in 2009, the International Committee for the Red Cross published an “Interpretive Guidance” document that is starkly at odds with the way American practitioners of LOAC analyze targeting decisions.

The historical analogy invoked most often by U.S. officials to rebut the “assassination” charge is our downing of the plane carrying Japan’s most prominent naval flag officer in 1943, based upon intercepted intelligence as to his flight itinerary. This analogy is not particularly helpful in terms of the “direct part in hostilities”debate, because Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto was clearly a member of a national military. A more useful starting point, at least in terms of exploring the mechanism by which civilians render themselves military objectives, might be our early 19th-century incursion into Libya to track down Barbary pirates.

Finally, the administration emphasizes its “rigorous standards and process of review ... when considering and authorizing strikes” outside of “hot” war zones. The State Department’s Koh has insinuated that this robust vetting process is integral to validating our legitimate self-defense claim in each and every targeted killing operation. This is a somewhat disconcerting line of argument, because it is seemingly at odds with the government’s overall assertion that we are in an armed conflict with al-Qaida. Self-defense is a jus ad bellum principle; once we are at war, the appropriate legal standards for applying force are guided by jus in bello. Applying a self-defense analysis to each individual drone strike — as opposed to the time-honored LOAC principles of war fighters — sends mixed signals about whether we really believe we are in an armed conflict.

Given that the lawful imperative of U.S. self-defense in World War II was the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, we would seem to be on firm ground today by strictly maintaining that our right of self-defense, as triggered by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, is geared toward the much narrower goal of degrading or eliminating al-Qaida’s capability to launch another deadly attack against the U.S. homeland. Within that framework, we are guided by LOAC in the conduct of hostilities. Indeed, the U.S. government clearly believes that drone warfare is particularly suited to the task of waging an armed conflict with limited goals, because the new technology enables to us to synergize the campaign’s means and ends as never before.

At least in the context of an American citizen such as al-Awlaki, the attorney general has stated that on top of traditional LOAC principles, the elaborate “kill list” procedure considers the imminence of the threat posed by the individual, as well as the feasibility of capture in lieu of deadly force. Such robust executive deliberation, Holder argues, satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s accordance of due process of law; this provides the context in which he famously said that “the Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” The attorney general has taken considerable heat for this statement, in large part because an ultra-secretive executive war-making function is an odd tool with which to safeguard constitutional rights. From an armed conflict perspective, however, law professor Jack Goldsmith is surely correct in his estimation that the current U.S. system, as described in the administration’s speeches, “goes far beyond any process given to any target in any war in American history.”

DOES IT HOLD WATER?

Taken individually, each of these arguments is reasonable, accurate and perhaps even persuasive. Viewed as a whole, however, the U.S. position suffers from a degree of cognitive dissonance which results from our trying to please everyone at once instead of holding firm to basic, time-tested principles. In the end, this scattershot approach risks undermining our legal authority and — ironically — pleasing no one. The problem emanates from attempting to superimpose legal doctrines on top of one another rather than insisting on their own internal logic. The net effect is to make us appear hesitant about the wisdom and legality of our own actions, which merely emboldens those critics whom we can never hope to satisfy anyway — at least not without compromising our own security.

To see why it’s so crucial for us to speak boldly and plainly, it’s important to understand what entities such as the U.N. Human Rights Council and the Red Cross are really trying to do. At base, these noble organizations — reflective of the international human rights law community as a whole, with a decidedly continental European outlook — believe that “sporadic, low-intensity attacks” from nonstate actors “do not rise to the level of armed attack” that would enable us to invoke the right of self-defense as a basis for resorting to force. As the aforementioned U.N. report approvingly remarks, “the legality of a defensive response must be judged in light of each armed attack, rather than by considering occasional, although perhaps successive, armed attacks in the aggregate.”

In other words, the human rights community rejects our jus ad bellum argument that we are at war with al-Qaida wherever they may be. Moreover, these institutions deny that we are in an armed conflict at all — at least outside of “hot” war zones — both because al-Qaida is not cohesive enough and because the intensity and duration of the havoc it wreaks is insufficiently destructive. Thus, the applicable standard for applying force in each instance is not LOAC; jus in bello is out the window because there is no war. Rather, the peacetime model of human rights law prevails. This clearly is not a position that the U.S. can abide: first, because it eradicates any realistic deterrent for states to rein in terrorist attacks emanating from their territory; and second, because it effectively neuters our considerable national security apparatus as a counterterrorism asset. Simply put, it is an attempt to hem us in by wedding us to a police paradigm rather than a military one.

WHAT TO DO

This context illustrates precisely why the government has to stop straddling the fence and sending mixed messages about what we are doing. We must emphatically state that any complex vetting process undertaken by the president before targeting an individual terrorist is simply a matter of discretionary policy and grand strategy, not legal obligation. The bizarre “bureaucratic ritual” of White House “Terror Tuesday” meetings attended by high-level political advisers — as reported in a recent, much-publicized New York Times article — bears an unsettling resemblance to President Lyndon Johnson’s well-documented “Tuesday lunches” reviewing target lists for Vietnam. Although the conflicts and eras clearly differ, the U.S. must not repeat the mistakes of the Rolling Thunder campaign by allowing overly restrictive and centralized targeting rules to degrade the efficient and lawful application of our military might.

In this vein, when the attorney general invokes the due process clause of the Constitution in connection with fighting an avowed enemy belligerent — who just so happens to be American by birth — it can create considerable confusion. Constitutional due process should be extraneous to wartime targeting, for the sake of both meaningful due process and military effectiveness. As we have seen, such promises of due process through internal executive deliberations will not satisfy the American Civil Liberties Union, but they will send perplexing signals as to whether we are really at war. It makes no difference whether an enemy combatant is an American; what matters is his belligerency. An American national at Omaha Beach wearing a Nazi uniform and firing at our troops would have been just as valid a target as the German national beside him. As Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, has said, “belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where noncitizen belligerents are valid military objectives.”

Moreover, it is crucial that senior officials stop making outlandish claims of “zero” civilian casualties. No advanced technological weapons system or exhaustive vetting process can guarantee perfection, and this is not what LOAC demands. The rules governing combatants in warfare were, quite literally, developed through hard-fought experience, and they reflect the accrued wisdom of warriors over centuries. The jus in bello principles of necessity and distinction, and the proportionality test that balances them, require armed forces to take reasonable precautions, while simultaneously recognizing the inevitability of innocent death in war. Laying out a “zero casualties” standard merely encourages our enemies to employ human shields, which is a lesson they already know all too well as it is.

The U.S. also needs to be very careful about saying that we only undertake lethal force when capture is not feasible and apply an “imminent threat” test to every application of violence. This oft-repeated assertion appears to be a reaction to politically motivated complaints that the current focus on targeted killing is a cynical maneuver designed to avoid the thorny detention issues of the previous administration. However, when the U.S. proclaims a capture-first, kill-second policy, we are feeding right into the hands of the international human rights law community. There is no obligation under LOAC to refrain from targeting the enemy, even if capture is a viable option. In fact, belligerents are lawful targets at all times, and only when they attempt to surrender must we hold fire and offer quarter. The obligation to calibrate force is a function of the law enforcement paradigm, which is precisely what certain international institutions want to force us to adopt. Police officers must arrest rather than kill, reserving deadly force as a last option in imminent defense of life. The same does not hold for soldiers.

Finally, some U.S. spokespeople continue to declare that targeted killings deliver “justice” to terrorists. This is patently untrue and counterproductive. “Justice” entails due process, which again is inapplicable to LOAC. The rules governing conduct in war stipulate that belligerents are subject to force because they employ force. This duality says nothing about their moral guilt or innocence. Our drone pilots and special operators are not judges dispensing transnational justice to outlaws. They are war fighters. Contrary to some political assertions, the raid on Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice for 9/11. It was a lawful and successful use of force in the context of an armed conflict.

The administration’s senior legal officials are to be lauded for their efforts to publicly explicate the justifications and reasoning behind the drone strike program. But in making our case to the world and setting precedents for the future, we must resist the temptation to be too clever by half. The U.S. will never placate everyone, so we are best off being clear about what we believe to be right. Namely: we are in an armed conflict with al-Qaida and its affiliates, authorized domestically by congressional authorization and internationally by the inherent right of self-defense. In that fight, we will apply and abide by LOAC, maintaining the highest professional standards, but making no promises of perfection or due process. The law of war demands no more and no less.

It makes no difference whether an enemy combatant is an American; what matters is his belligerency. An American national at Omaha Beach wearing a Nazi uniform and firing at our troops would have been just as valid a target as the German national beside him. As Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, has said, “belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where noncitizen belligerents are valid military objectives.”

 motyak wrote:

It makes no difference whether an enemy combatant is an American; what matters is his belligerency. An American national at Omaha Beach wearing a Nazi uniform and firing at our troops would have been just as valid a target as the German national beside him. As Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, has said, “belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where noncitizen belligerents are valid military objectives.”

Is this bit in your laws over there somewhere? Or is that just the opinion of the person writing.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Hmm, so I wonder if someone where to kill a drone pilot in America, say in their house while they were sleeping, and then surrendered to American forces, if they would be treated as a legal combatant or a terrorist? .

 easysauce wrote:
this is only what we know, its what we dont know that makes me worry.

 motyak wrote:
[edit: and thanks Ouze, I asked because I have no idea about your laws. And the laws actually carry on overseas? Or do they only carry on overseas when the person doing it is the US government? For example if France had drones, I can't see it being illegal that they killed a terrorist, right? It's just because it is the US government doing it?

 motyak wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Hmm, so I wonder if someone where to kill a drone pilot in America, say in their house while they were sleeping, and then surrendered to American forces, if they would be treated as a legal combatant or a terrorist? .

If an American murdered another American in America? I assume that, short of some proof of a conspiracy of terrorism, they'd be treated like any other murderer.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
What would have to happen these days for someone to get impeached?

 Ouze wrote:
He wasn't "threatened with it", he was in fact impeached.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I forgot you can be impeached and never actually get kicked out of the office.

 Ouze wrote:

That was a hypothetical situation, not something I've done.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I very seriously doubt this gets much coverage except on libertarian web sites and a bit on Fox. It will not swallow up his speech.

In which we now pretend mainstream media such as the NY times will not cover a story, in a thread in which the OP's article is from the NY times.

Clearly liberal bias has once again buried this story to protect Obama! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

 Ouze wrote:
There isn't any sort of, that I am aware, international agreement that has guidelines for the use of drone strikes. If France were to enact a drone strike, it would be between them and their voters.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but how do you propose bringing them in, and how do you propose handling cases where they really can't be brought in?

How do you propose gathering evidence which can be brought up in a court?

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't really give a feth if they were nuclear scientists helping them build bombs. If they were citizens then you bring them in and make them stand trial.

Short of an "A citizen was standing there with his finger on the button so we took him out" scenario, any killing of a US citizen without a trial is unconstitutional in my book.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but how do you propose bringing them in, and how do you propose handling cases where they really can't be brought in?

You work on bringing them in. Just like any other criminal. Unless you guys are fine with adding (*unless it's too hard) at the bottom of the constitution.

How do you propose gathering evidence which can be brought up in a court?

How are we deciding that these citizens are eligble for extrajudicial execution? Whatever evidence is good enough for the administration to push the kill button is good enough for a trial.

 Ahtman wrote:
We've had this discussion before at least twice, on what constitutes giving up one's citizenship. It is a murky area. One side argues that you can never do it, one that you would pretty much have to stand on the capitol steps and turn in a parchment in writing specifically stating you are renouncing your citizenship, and the last is that your actions can be considered renouncing ones citizenship, when those actions are the active participation in the planning and execution of plots aimed at killing other Americans while in cahoots of terrorist organizations.

There was no agreement than, and I doubt there will be now.

A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT

Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added).

B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

A person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen.

D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Nonetheless, renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status.

E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION

Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no affect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS

Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore, parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION

Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).

A U.S. citizen who is a resident or citizen of a foreign country may be subject to compulsory military service in that country. Although the United States recognizes the problems that may be caused by such foreign military service, there is little that we can do to prevent it since each sovereign country has the right to enact its own laws on military service and apply them as it sees fit to its citizens and residents.

Military service by U.S. citizens may cause problems in the conduct of our foreign relations since such service may involve U.S. citizens in hostilities against countries with which we are at peace. For this reason, U.S. citizens facing the possibility of foreign military service should do what is legally possible to avoid such service.

Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. , 163 U.S. 632 (1896), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States citizenship in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Involuntarily Losing Your US Citizenship (Denaturalization)

Both the State Department and the USCIS have specfic laws and regulations they must follow in determining whether someone’s US citizenship should be taken away.

1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States

Treason is a serious crime, and the Constitution defines the requirements for convicting someone of treason. Treason is waging a violent war against the United States in cooperation with a foreign country or any organized group. It includes assisting or aiding any foreign country or organization in taking over or destroying this country including abolishing the Constitution. Treason also consists of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the US government or of betraying our government into the hands of a foreign power. If you are caught and convicted of treason, you can pretty much count on losing your US citizenship as well as serving lots of jail time.

2. Holding A Policy Level Position In A Foreign Country

If you become an elected official or hold a policy-level position (like an ambassador, cabinet minister, or any high level administrative position where you make government policy) in your native country or a foreign country, you run the risk of losing your US citizenship. On the other hand, if you hold a non-policy level job like working in your native country’s embassy or working for your native country’s government in an advisory or purely administrative capacity, you run little risk of jeopardizing your US citizenship. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND SEEKING PUBLIC OFFICE IN A FOREIGN STATE.

3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States

If your native country is engaged in hostile actions or is at war with America you need to be extremely careful. The US government will attempt to take away your US citizenship if they find out you are either aiding or serving in your native country’s armed forces in any capacity. Alternatively, the US government could try to nail you with a treason conviction and then strip you of your US citizenship.

4. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces As An Officer Or A Non-Commissioned Officer

If your native country is not at war with or engaged in hostilities towards the US, then serving in your native country’s armed forces is OK as long as you are not an officer or non-commissioned officer (usually the rank of sergeant or above). Serving as a civilian worker in your native country’s armed forces, or serving as an enlisted man or women are generally acceptable. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE.

The State Department has set several administrative guidelines for dual citizens to follow in order to avoid losing their US citizenship ( ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL NATIONALITY ). The four reasons for losing US citizenship cited above were taken from these guidelines. We strongly suggest that you carefully review these guidelines if you are planning on maintaining dual citizenship. As you review the guidelines keep in mind that the State Department is primarily referring to native-born US citizens who become dual citizens by being naturalized in another foreign country. The guidelines are also applicable to naturalized US citizens who maintain their original citizenship.

5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process

If you deliberately withheld information from or misrepresented information given to the USCIS or INS when filing your N-400, the USCIS may cancel your Certificate of Naturalization and revoke your US citizenship. This includes withholding information and misrepresenting yourself during your naturalization interview or oath ceremony. If your Certificate of Naturalization is cancelled and your US citizenship revoked, you may also find yourself facing criminal prosecution as well as deportation proceedings.

For example, if you lived outside the country for four months and deliberately omitted this absence from your N-400 and the USCIS finds out about it after you’re naturalized, they could move to have your Certificate of Naturalization cancelled. All they would need to show is that your absence would have disqualifed you from or materially affected your naturalization due to the “physical presence in the United States” requirement for naturalization applicants.

You may also lose your US citizenship if you withheld information or misled the USCIS or INS when becoming a permanent resident. If within five years of becoming a permanent resident, the USCIS finds out that you withheld information from them or misled them in order to obtain your green card, the USCIS may also strip you of your US citizenship. Of course, after five years from becoming a permanent resident, the only way the USCIS would be able to take away your US citizenship would be if you withheld or misrepresented yourself during the naturalization process.

The above examples illustrates why you need to be both truthful and accurate when filing for naturalization and permanent residency. You don’t want to give the USCIS any ammunition they could use against you later if they or someone else (like a politician or government bureaucrat) is looking for any means to get rid of you.

6. Refusal To Testify Before Congress About Your Subversive Activities

We included this legal provision for completeness. If you refuse to testify before Congress within ten years of being naturalized regarding your involvement in any subversive activities, the Attorney General can move to have your US citizenship revoked [ 8 USC 1451(a) ]. Subversive activities are not well defined but include activities such as spying, belonging to a terrorist or other organization wanting to overthrow the US, or other activities aimed at undermining our government [50 USC 783 & 843, 18 USC Ch. 115]. Of course, if you do testify before Congress about your subversive activities, you may still lose your citizenship if your testimony is later used to convict you of treason.

US Courts and Immigration Attorneys as Safeguards

Fortunately, it’s not as easy to take away your citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization as the law reads. Even if you were not entirely truthful or forthcoming during the naturalization process, the USCIS just can’t arbitrarily revoke your citizenship. Citizenship is one of those fundamental rights that our third branch of government (the judicial branch) takes very seriously. It appears the USCIS runs into difficulty with the federal courts when the USCIS revokes someone’s citizenship without giving the accused his or her day in court (no matter how blatant the violation of the law, see - INJUNCTION OF INS ADMINISTRATIVE DENATURALIZATION PROCEDURE ).

In other words, the only way you are going to lose your US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization is in a federal court and by a federal judge, who is appointed for life, makes good money, and is answerable to no politician or government bureaucrat no matter how on popular the judge's decision turns out to be.

If any of these situations listed apply to you now or could in the future, we strongly suggest you seek the legal advice of an immigration attorney experienced in US citizenship law. Your US citizenship is too valuable to risk losing because you don’t fully understand the law and the possible consequences of your actions. Here is a brief listing of websites for immigration attorneys:

American Immigration Lawyers Association ILW.com: The Immigration Portal

Open Directory (Google) - Immigration Lawyers

Voluntarily Losing Your US Citizenship (Renunciation)

After becoming a naturalized US citizen, you always have the option of renouncing your US citizenship. Beware though, if you renounce US citizenship, you will most likely be barred from living in the United States (there are exceptions), and can never become a US citizen again.

In order to renounce your US citizenship, you have to physically be outside the US and it’s possessions when renouncing. So if you ever plan on renouncing your citizenship, make sure you have a country to live in (no doubts about your citizenship and residency status) and renounce your US citizenship there. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship.

Can a person voluntarily renounce their US citizenship and still live in the US? Can you get your green card back or a new green card? The answer to these questions is technically yes, but it is going to be a legally complicated process. You will most definitely need the advice and help of an immigration attorney to attempt such a legal maneuver. You will still have to renounce your US citizenship outside the US, and then need some type of visa or immigration papers to return to the US as a resident. Keep in mind, the US government will probably resist you every legal step of the way, and there is no guarantee of success. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: RENUNCIATION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS CLAIMING A RIGHT OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

Voluntarily renouncing your US citizenship should not be taken lightly. Once you renounce your citizenship, it is nearly impossible to get it back. You will lose all the benefits of US citizenship including US residency and your US passport, and you will likely still be held responsible for paying any past, current or future US taxes (which is the primary reason why most people want to renounce their US citizenship). For further information, see the State Department’s circular: LOSS OF NATIONALITY AND TAXATION (please scroll down to this topic after you open this web page).

As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state or service in foreign armed forces. In addition, before 1967 it was possible to lose the citizenship due to voting in foreign elections. However, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the provisions of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting in a foreign election in the case Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253,[36] . 8 U.S.C. § 1481 specifically outlines how loss of nationality may occur, which predominantly involves willful acts over the age of 18 with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality. U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Afroyim v. Rusk constitutionally limited the government's capacity to terminate citizenship to those cases in which an individual engaged in conduct with an intention of abandoning their citizenship.
Current U.S. State Department rules automatically assume that an individual does not intend to give up citizenship when performing one of the above potentially expatriating acts. If asked, the individual can always answer that they did not intend to give it up; this is sufficient to retain their citizenship.[37] Hence, the U.S. effectively allows citizens to acquire new citizenships while remaining a U.S. citizen, becoming a dual citizen.
There are also special provisions for persons who are deemed to have renounced citizenship for purposes of avoiding U.S. taxation (which is, in some cases, applicable on certain income for up to ten years after the official loss of citizenship, Internal Revenue Code, section 877), which in theory can result in loss of right to entry into the United States. However, the loss of right of entry (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)[38]) has never been enforced by the Attorney General since its enactment in 1996. Further, since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, the Attorney General (Department of Justice) would no longer be empowered to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States.
No new legislation has modified 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) to enable the DHS Secretary to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States. Lastly, IRC section 877 and Revenue Rulings was modified in 2004 to discontinue the practice of the Internal Revenue Service issuing rulings to determine if a former U.S. citizen had a tax-related motive in renouncing U.S. citizenship. Instead, IRC section 877 establishes an objective test to determine if the section 877 regime will apply.
If the former U.S. citizen fails one of these objective tests, for ten years after the individual's expatriation they are subject to the 877 regime. In practice, given the various modifications since the enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E), that the U.S. government has never enforced 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) since its inception in 1996, a former U.S. citizen may freely travel to the U.S. subject to normal visa restrictions.
After a U.S. citizen satisfies the Department of State procedures, the Department of State issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) signifying that the Department of State has accepted the U.S. Embassy/Consulate's recommendation to allow the renunciation.[39] Renunciation of citizenship includes renunciation of all rights and privileges of citizenship. A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances.[40]
It is also possible to forfeit U.S. citizenship upon conviction for an act of treason against the United States.[37] Prominent former Nazi officers who acquired American citizenship have also had it revoked if the Office of Special Investigations has been able to prove that the citizenship was obtained by concealing their involvement in war crimes committed by the Nazis in World War II

 d-usa wrote:
You handle it by following the constitution. That is my solution.

If it is just too hard to follow it then the politicians should at least put your money where their mouth is and make an amendment that lets you strip somebodies citizenship if you have the evidence that they are planning or aiding terrorists. Then feel free to blow them up.

This whole "it's too hard to follow the constitution" argument is pretty stupid. It's either worth folllowing, or it's not.

 Ouze wrote:
So far as the legal authority to do this, it's TBH sort of a grey area. Anwar al-Awlaki was both a US citizen, and simultaneously, a member of an organization for which the President of the US had a valid Authorization for the Use of Military Force against.

In my personal opinion, I think the drone strikes against American citizens are unlawful. I think the end result (a dead terrorist) is a desirable goal, but I feel it violates our due process laws, which Congress cannot abrogate short of an amendment. But that's just my lay opinion.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
So far as the legal authority to do this, it's TBH sort of a grey area. Anwar al-Awlaki was both a US citizen, and simultaneously, a member of an organization for which the President of the US had a valid Authorization for the Use of Military Force against.

In my personal opinion, I think the drone strikes against American citizens are unlawful. I think the end result (a dead terrorist) is a desirable goal, but I feel it violates our due process laws, which Congress cannot abrogate short of an amendment. But that's just my lay opinion.

That's close to my thinking too. As an American citizen they are entitled to due process and from what little we know there seems to be fewer legal safeguards for the accused before an order is given to engage via drone. Even if they are members of a terrorist group they are still US citizens, they can only lose their citizenship as described above

 LuciusAR wrote:
Being British I'm an outsider to American law, but I'm struggling to see the controversy here. These guys were not whacked on American soil, they were in foreign terror camps that where directly threatening America. They where, for all intents and purposes, defectors.

Personally I don’t see any ethical quandary regarding the killing of traitors in a war situation.

 CptJake wrote:
What the gov't needs to do (in my opinion) is define what process is due in these situations, put it into the US Code, and put policies in place to ensure that due process is met. AND be able to explain to the US people all that is.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Because The Constitution.


but really...

Because It's Obama.

And they so desperately want to impeach him on something, anything, that they would turn the liquidation of terrorists who actively work to the death of US citizens into the 'murder' of Americans. Because they hate Obama more than they hate the terrorists.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If they are in the field, actively contributing to the factions who wish to or are actively killing Americans, then feth them, feth them with a drone strike to the face. Using the killing of terrorists to attack Obama is low.

NEXT!

 LuciusAR wrote:
Being British I'm an outsider to American law, but I'm struggling to see the controversy here. These guys were not whacked on American soil, they were in foreign terror camps that where directly threatening America. They where, for all intents and purposes, defectors.

Personally I don’t see any ethical quandary regarding the killing of traitors in a war situation.

 streamdragon wrote:
I think the main issue is that the method of war has changed over so many years.

People are upset that drones are being used to kill enemy US defectors, and yet I suspect few would have these same issues if said defectors were killed during, say, a fire fight. US soldiers gunning this man down in the street during a push into a city or some such would not raise nearly the eyebrows that the drone strikes seem to cause. The issue I have with that distinction is that war, especially of the kind we see being fought with insurgent or terrorist groups instead of standing military forces, is not really fought that way anymore.

Military dakkanauts can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is still an oath taken by all those joining the military to protect the US from all enemies, "foreign and domestic". How these defectors don't fit those qualifications eludes me. Some argue that the defectors can't be considered combatants because they're not actually fighting, but is a general who plans attacks any less of a combatant than a grunt in the field? Seems a dubious distinction to me. Actually, it reminds me of the Aesop Fable "The Trumpeter Taken Prisoner".

 streamdragon wrote:
I think the main issue is that the method of war has changed over so many years.

People are upset that drones are being used to kill enemy US defectors, and yet I suspect few would have these same issues if said defectors were killed during, say, a fire fight. US soldiers gunning this man down in the street during a push into a city or some such would not raise nearly the eyebrows that the drone strikes seem to cause. The issue I have with that distinction is that war, especially of the kind we see being fought with insurgent or terrorist groups instead of standing military forces, is not really fought that way anymore.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Would I have the same concerns about a drone strike on US citizens that were actively engaging US forces on the battlefield? Absolutely not. They have clearly shown that they are a hostile force, that they have taken arms against their country, they are present in a country that the US has declared war on, and that there is an immediate risk of harm to US service personnel.
However to my mind that is different to carrying out a drone strike on US citizens who are not posing an immediate risk, travelling by car and not engaging in an obvious hostile act (had they been killed while transported a VBIED that would be a different matter), with no US service personnel in the vicinity, and in a country that the US are not engaged in hostilities in and has not declared war on.

 streamdragon wrote:
So the guy who teaches a terrorist to fight is not a combatant in your mind then? That isn't considered hostile?

 streamdragon wrote:
I'm also unsure why "US service personnel in the vicinity" should matter. Does it really make a difference if there are boots on the ground? Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and was killed during a raid by US Navy Seals. Would it have been different to you if he had been killed by a drone strike instead of a Navy Seal's bullet? Everything else would be the same, just drone vs Seal. I, personally, don't see a difference besides putting US soldier in jeopardy.

 Frazzled wrote:
They were enemy combatants on foreign soil.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
So the guy who teaches a terrorist to fight is not a combatant in your mind then? That isn't considered hostile?

Who qualifies as a combatant doesn't matter to my mind, but it does matter to the Geneva Convention. Combatants are generally regarded as those taking an active part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If the individual teaching a terrorist to fight is not engaged in hostilities then (s)he is not a combatant, but (s)he is providing material support to a terrorist.

 streamdragon wrote:
I'm also unsure why "US service personnel in the vicinity" should matter. Does it really make a difference if there are boots on the ground? Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and was killed during a raid by US Navy Seals. Would it have been different to you if he had been killed by a drone strike instead of a Navy Seal's bullet? Everything else would be the same, just drone vs Seal. I, personally, don't see a difference besides putting US soldier in jeopardy.

Because it brings in the question of whether or not there was the threat of immediate harm to US citizens.
And concerning Bin Laden had the US used a drone there would have been significant collateral damage (he was living with at least one wife and several children), as well as the risk of him surviving, or them not being able to confirm that they had killed their target.

 djones520 wrote:
Well... Al-Awlaki's son was killed just like that wasn't he? Did he have the sign off? I don't believe so. So we killed a US citizen who wasn't even our target. That doesn't sit right with me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Well... Al-Awlaki's son was killed just like that wasn't he? Did he have the sign off? I don't believe so. So we killed a US citizen who wasn't even our target. That doesn't sit right with me.

It doesn't sit right with me either, what a selfish and terrible bastard that terrorist Al-Awlaki was to bring his son with him as he spread hate and enabled the life taking of Americans. What a tragedy that poor boy was born the son of scum and was caught up in his liquidation.

That was his father's fault.

His father took the steps to go to foreign soil and plot the downfall of the nation he held citizenship with. His father's actions condemned him to death.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It doesn't sit right with me either, what a selfish and terrible bastard that terrorist Al-Awlaki was to bring his son with him as he spread hate and enabled the life taking of Americans. What a tragedy that poor boy was born the son of scum and was caught up in his liquidation.

That was his father's fault.

His father took the steps to go to foreign soil and plot the downfall of the nation he held citizenship with. His father's actions condemned him to death.

 d-usa wrote:
His father engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
His father was not convicted of any crime.
His father was sentenced to death by a branch of the government that should not make that decision.
He was sentenced to death without a trial in violation of the constitution.
His son is an innocent victim in this.

If we let our hate of people overwrite the constitution then just get rid of the whole thing.

 d-usa wrote:
His father engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
His father was not convicted of any crime.
His father was sentenced to death by a branch of the government that should not make that decision.
He was sentenced to death without a trial in violation of the constitution.
His son is an innocent victim in this.

If we let our hate of people overwrite the constitution then just get rid of the whole thing.

 whembly wrote:
I'd also add that our "Drone" policy isn't making us friends over there either.

At least in the context of an American citizen such as al-Awlaki, the attorney general has stated that on top of traditional LOAC principles, the elaborate “kill list” procedure considers the imminence of the threat posed by the individual, as well as the feasibility of capture in lieu of deadly force. Such robust executive deliberation, Holder argues, satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s accordance of due process of law; this provides the context in which he famously said that “the Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
His father engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
His father was not convicted of any crime.
His father was sentenced to death by a branch of the government that should not make that decision.
He was sentenced to death without a trial in violation of the constitution.
His son is an innocent victim in this.

If we let our hate of people overwrite the constitution then just get rid of the whole thing.

The constitution has no sway in Yemen.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The constitution has no sway in Yemen.

He represented a threat to the lives of servicemen and women.

He was an enemy agent and subversive in a time of war.

His son's regrettable death is his own fault.

He was an enemy of the state and represented a threat to the lives of America's civilian and military personnel, his liquidation is entirely justified.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Lest we forget there is supposed to be a separation of powers in the United States, between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch.

At least in the context of an American citizen such as al-Awlaki, the attorney general has stated that on top of traditional LOAC principles, the elaborate “kill list” procedure considers the imminence of the threat posed by the individual, as well as the feasibility of capture in lieu of deadly force. Such robust executive deliberation, Holder argues, satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s accordance of due process of law; this provides the context in which he famously said that “the Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

I think that this is a clear case of the executive branch of government usurping the powers of the judicial branch to find someone guilty without trial, and without having any evidence tested, before passing their sentence. This bypasses any checks and balances that there may be against the abuse of government power.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Are you even capable of saying anything on this subject that isn't factually and morally wrong? The US constitution has sway over the US government, even over their actions in other countries - Boumediene v. Bush confirms this. He was not a combatant or a threat to the lives of any American soldier, he was an unarmed civilian. We aren't at war with Yemen, no matter what sick fantasies Obama might have about his eternal, global war. And his son was murdered in a cafe two weeks after Anwar's death, so you'd have to be a complete idiot to blame him for America's decision to bomb the cafe.

 d-usa wrote:

Then our laws have no sway in Yemen and we have zero right to enforce it there and US law enforcement (the CIA) has absolutely zero rights to kill a man that is not in active combat and has not been tried.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The judicial has no sanction on foreign soil against terrorists.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The executive commands in cases of combat and threats to the welfare of the state, not the judicial nor the legislative.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
A leader and demagogue for Al Qaeda was killed, he had an American passport. If it slowed the organisation from murdering more American or British people, I want to buy whoever sanctioned it a pint.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The judicial has no sanction on foreign soil against terrorists.

Neither does the Executive have sanction in other sovereign states. Would it be acceptable for China to carry out drone strikes on US soil, targeting Tibet protesters who have emigrated to the US? What about defectors?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The executive commands in cases of combat and threats to the welfare of the state, not the judicial nor the legislative.

Was there evidence of any immediate risk posed by the individuals targeted to the United States? Is the US engaged in combat, or has otherwise declared war on Yemen?
As I said before, if they were carrying vehicle borne IEDs I have no problem with them being engaged

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
A leader and demagogue for Al Qaeda was killed, he had an American passport. If it slowed the organisation from murdering more American or British people, I want to buy whoever sanctioned it a pint.

I'm all for minimizing civilian deaths from terrorists. But targeting people who are not an imminent risk for extra-judicial killings sets a dangerous precedent.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Do you think China does not assassinate people in other countries? Seriously?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So an enemy of the state and of national security must be armed when taken down? I was unaware that international rules of engagement were written by The Predator.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It does not, nations have carried out assassination on their enemies since there have been nations, this includes defectors to enemy causes.

Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

If you are using deadly force then yes, that individual must present a clear risk and immediate threat. It is no different to the rules of engagement for many militaries. You do not shoot people who are unarmed and not posing a threat.
Was there evidence of any immediate risk posed by the individuals targeted to the United States? Is the US engaged in combat, or has otherwise declared war on Yemen?

 CptJake wrote:
That is just silly. We, and every country that engages in war, target power plants, communications and logistics nodes, command centers and so on. All within the laws of war.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That is just silly. We, and every country that engages in war, target power plants, communications and logistics nodes, command centers and so on. All within the laws of war.

Usually when engaging a hostile state, against an opposing military force (or clearly designated militia) when you have declared war. Not someone who was in a car, posing no threat, in a country that we have not declared war on.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
That is just silly. We, and every country that engages in war, target power plants, communications and logistics nodes, command centers and so on. All within the laws of war.

Usually when engaging a hostile state, against an opposing military force (or clearly designated militia) when you have declared war. Not someone who was in a car, posing no threat, in a country that we have not declared war on.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

That's a bit simplistic.

Yemen supports this activity, so we aren't going to declare war on them in order to carry it out. Then when you factor in the reality that this enemy doesn't wear uniforms or fight in the name of a particular nation we must use different identifying criteria.

 djones520 wrote:
How is it simplistic. He's drawing a comparison between Al Alwaki, and Erwin Rommel. There is no comparison.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
How is it simplistic. He's drawing a comparison between Al Alwaki, and Erwin Rommel. There is no comparison.

The point made was about how they weren't a direct threat at the time they were killed, which was a criteria given for who should be assassinated.

Are we reading the same posts?

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

Yeah, but were weren't talking about LOAC before, we were talking about immenent threats at the time of death.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
You understand that none of that has any relevance to the way that international terrorists operate, right?

Which is why compairing the two is silly.

Yeah, but were weren't talking about LOAC before, we were talking about immenent threats at the time of death.

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

You have ben arguing a target must be armed and posing an imminent threat. Every single one of my examples proves that premise is not true. They are all 'apples' for that purpose. You can now go back and change the argument to try to make the reply wrong, but an honest reading of my posts I believe will show I am right in the point I was making.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Those people your pointing at were uniformed soldiers serving in the armed forces of nations we had a declared state of war with.

Apples and Oranges bud.

You have ben arguing a target must be armed and posing an imminent threat. Every single one of my examples proves that premise is not true. They are all 'apples' for that purpose. You can now go back and change the argument to try to make the reply wrong, but an honest reading of my posts I believe will show I am right in the point I was making.

I have been arguing that an AMERICAN target... that's the big difference.

Otherwise whenever we have a militia group out there preaching anti-american things, and "training" people to use arms and violence, all we need to do is drop some AGM's on them.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Maybe it's my non-American-citizen bias talking, but I don't think the US going around assassinating whoever it wants in other countries is fantastic policy no matter which way you slice it, even if they're not American citizens. When you're talking about assassinating people in cafes and weddings, it seems you've moved far from any sensible definition of "war" and are in the realm of police work.

The fact that it's drones that are doing it is really irrelevant to the core issue. It would be the same if it was military planes, for example.

 Ahtman wrote:
I have no problem with ending these ex-citizens, but I want more transparency in the process.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm finding some of the ideas on 'uniformed soldier only' about as backward to the realities of modern conflict as thinking that leaders come together and say "we shall only fight from yon river to thine hill and at the end of the day we shall tally the score and a winner declared in ensuing battle. Holy men may only use blunt weapons on thine field and if a servant doth fall and surrender he must be allowed to leave thine field o' battle." While they are debating the colours and banners, the actual combatants are leaving bombs in Starbucks and absconding with all the scones. We live in an age of little wars, where enemy combatants don't wear uniforms and represent country's interests.

 Ahtman wrote:
We can't just say 'not in uniform = not combatant'. This doesn't give a free pass, such as having once been a citizen doesn't allow one impunity from being a legitimate target. What it means, to me at least, is that we need more transparency in both the process of selecting these targets and in the reasoning why the specific method was used. I don't need to know the name of the informants, but I do need to know how they got from A to B, and that it was done in a legal way that is reasonable and considered. Once that is in place blow the fethers to hell.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I have no problem with ending these ex-citizens, but I want more transparency in the process.

They are still citizens until at least one of the steps detailed earlier in the thread occur;
- Renunciation in a US Consulate/Embassy
- Convicted for an act of treason (note; convicted)
- Holding a policy level position in a foreign government
- Serving in your native country's armed forces as an officer or NCO (most likely to affect immigrants)
- lying to USCIS during naturalisation
- refusal to testify before Congress concerning your subversive activities

 Ahtman wrote:
That is your interpretation of it, and one I'm not sure I agree with. Most of it is fairly straightforward, but there are parts that are open to interpretation, most in what constitutes renunciation. Terrorists turncoats are not going to give written notices to consulate/embassies, they will give mail bombs to them. The idea of an enemy combatant following bureaucratic process is ludicrous.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I very seriously doubt this gets much coverage except on libertarian web sites and a bit on Fox. It will not swallow up his speech.

In which we now pretend mainstream media such as the NY times will not cover a story, in a thread in which the OP's article is from the NY times.

Clearly liberal bias has once again buried this story to protect Obama! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

In which we pretend that an article or two = much coverage. Don't be stupid. Unless you are implying this will get the type of coverage that the IRS scandal or the Oklahoma Tornadoes get, my point stands and is accurate. It will get some, but not much coverage except by the types of sites I mentioned.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that they are somehow ex-citizens is just an intellectual cop out for justifying the killing of citizens without any constitutional protection.

We gave a trial to McVeigh for attacking the federal Government and killing 100+ people with his bomb.

We gave trials to the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, we didn't just turn around and kill them.

The Fort Hood shooter is currently waiting on a trial instead of just being killed because he is now an ex-citizen for attacking US soldiers.

We are not simply killing the one guy captured alive from the Boston attacks.

So we are cool with following the constitution when it comes to actually killing other Americans.

But if you talk about killing Americans, or tell others to kill Americans, then you are clear for killing because you are so far away...

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that they are somehow ex-citizens is just an intellectual cop out for justifying the killing of citizens without any constitutional protection.

 Ahtman wrote:
Until he was killed by a drone I never saw a single story or post that questioned the terrorist nature of Awalaki; now he is some martyr that just had differing opinions than others.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If you look at the sources that I provided (including from State Department) I would respectfully submit that it is slightly more than just my own interpretation.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I very seriously doubt this gets much coverage except on libertarian web sites and a bit on Fox. It will not swallow up his speech.

In which we now pretend mainstream media such as the NY times will not cover a story, in a thread in which the OP's article is from the NY times.

Clearly liberal bias has once again buried this story to protect Obama! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

In which we pretend that an article or two = much coverage. Don't be stupid. Unless you are implying this will get the type of coverage that the IRS scandal or the Oklahoma Tornadoes get, my point stands and is accurate. It will get some, but not much coverage except by the types of sites I mentioned.

Well, I might be stupid as you say, but even I know how to use a search function. The NY times has covered Anwar al-Awlaki alone over 1500 times, NBC has run 1400 articles. Hell, the NYT even have a whole topic just devoted to him. My point about the ludicrousness of pretending only right-wing news sites will cover a story when the OP's link is to the NY Times stands.

I know a fun game conservatives like to play is "The media's not covering this story because of biaaaaaaaaaaaaaassss!" but that is a stance that is generally divorced from reality. But he, if you guys have fun playing it, have a good time. Dress up like batman or whatever, games where you pretend things are supposed to be fun.

The Rest Of What Jake Typed wrote:These are my predictions, they may be wrong, but in no way did I imply anyone was or would bury the story to protect Obama, I am saying the story isn't going to have legs because most Americans and the news media just won't see it as a big story. So quit adding meaning to my post that isn't there.

The fact that the NY Times dedicated a sentence or two in the third paragraph an article about how the President wants to switch how we fight the War on Terror (or what ever we are calling it now) kind of makes my point. The article mentions the killings in passing, not as a main topic nor one which was deeply investigated or even analyzed by the Times. News worthy, but just barely.

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't know how many more times I can say it, but we need more oversight into the process if it is something we are going to do.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't know how many more times I can say it, but we need more oversight into the process if it is something we are going to do.

I agree 100%. I think this is going to be even more of a problem when we start to target American insurgents/terrorists/whatever overseas that are not members of AQ. At that point even the very thin basis we're using to justify this won't be present.

Dreadclaw posted some stuff about how it's like, almost 100% impossible to remove the citizenship of someone who doesn't want it removed. I was formerly in that school of thought, but Jihadin once posted a link to some WW2 era legislation that also clouded my opinion on that as well. The whole thing is sort of murky.

Joe Lieberman had proposed some legislation to revoke the citizenship of citizens accused of terrorism. I can't help but think that's even more dangerous than the attacks that al-Awlaki had planned.

I have a lot of opinions on the legality of the things we've done, and I too crave more oversight, but I have little to offer in the way of a good solution to neatly address all of these concerns.

 Ahtman wrote:
That was poor phrasing on my part. Note I did not say you were wrong, just that I am not sure that it is that simple. The law never is, and there have been good arguments about what constitutes renouncement of citizenship, some of which have some merit. I think some of the problem is that much of these were written when the idea of non-state actors for war/wars wasn't really a consideration. Just as some things have changed with the internet, we also need to look at some others in regards to how conflicts are actually engaged in.

I don't know how many more times I can say it, but we need more oversight into the process if it is something we are going to do. I do have ethical and moral questions about the way Awalaki was killed, but I also can't change that he is dead, but I can change how we treat these in the future, and I don;t think acting as if we can never take out a terrorist just because he once was an American, or still has an American passport is a reasonable position. I may not like the way Awalaki was killed, but I won't magically transform an donkey-cave into a hero over it either.

 Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw posted some stuff about how it's like, almost 100% impossible to remove the citizenship of someone who doesn't want it removed. I was formerly in that school of thought, but Jihadin once posted a link to some WW2 era legislation that also clouded my opinion on that as well. The whole thing is sort of murky.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that they are somehow ex-citizens is just an intellectual cop out for justifying the killing of citizens without any constitutional protection.

We gave a trial to McVeigh for attacking the federal Government and killing 100+ people with his bomb.

We gave trials to the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, we didn't just turn around and kill them.

The Fort Hood shooter is currently waiting on a trial instead of just being killed because he is now an ex-citizen for attacking US soldiers.

We are not simply killing the one guy captured alive from the Boston attacks.

So we are cool with following the constitution when it comes to actually killing other Americans.

But if you talk about killing Americans, or tell others to kill Americans, then you are clear for killing because you are so far away...

 d-usa wrote:
So if a known murderer is hiding in a Mexican border town, in a compound filled with gang members armed to their teeth, then we shouldn't just just bomb the place because he knew it would be hard to get him.

It's a stupid argument and it is a lazy cop out. We don't have the constitution because it is easy. We have it because it is the right thing to do.

 d-usa wrote:
So if a known murderer is hiding in a Mexican border town, in a compound filled with gang members armed to their teeth, then we shouldn't just just bomb the place because he knew it would be hard to get him.

It's a stupid argument and it is a lazy cop out. We don't have the constitution because it is easy. We have it because it is the right thing to do.

Bullockist wrote:
What worries me about the whole dronestrike thing is: with the precedent being set today in regard to ignoring countries airspace , will it become commonplace in the future for most countries to do this? Will it become the way to silence regimes detractors in other countries? Will other countries be doing it in the US?

 Jihadin wrote:
Think outside the box. I much rather have a drone go in and take out the bad guy instead of me going in and having me get taking out. So easy to see one sided when its not your arse on the line.

Nobody forced you to take an oath to protect the constitution

 Ahtman wrote:
This doesn't give a free pass, such as having once been a citizen doesn't allow one impunity from being a legitimate target.

 Jihadin wrote:
Doesn't matter in a firefight till afterwards.

Bullockist wrote:
I'm glad to see some of the off topic regulars have problems with the "drone strike " policy, i certainly wasn't expecting anyone to disagree with it.

The problem i have with it is : you cannot violate another countries airspace in order to do a drone strike, if it isn't ok to have another country do to you, you shouldn't do it to another. I am waiting for chinas first drone to crash in the US airspace and see the crap storm that happens.

2. Killing people without trial make a mockery of any law system ( let alone a constitution - i don't know enough about the US constitutions to make much of a comment though).

3. If you can accept killing people without trial, collateral damage is clearly not acceptable. guilt by association is not ok when it comes to executing people without trial. Current drone strike weapons in my small knowledge are not precision at all(i'm going on the main military drone used atm ). Shooting a car with other passengers is condemning the passengers for no real reason other that "they knew the target".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Does a drone attack constitute an unusual punishment

 Ouze wrote:

There were tons of stories because, and it looks like you don't know this - someone leaked he was put on a US kill list prior to his being killed (like, a year and a half prior). His father challenged it in court, and the court ruled he had no standing.

The executive branch stating it had the authority to issue an execution order for a US citizen with no meaningful oversight was a huge deal before they actually did it because, among other things, it appeared to violate the executive order proscription against assassinations.

 Easy E wrote:
However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right?

The lawyer leading a UN drone inquiry has praised a speech by US President Barack Obama as a "significant step towards increased transparency".

Ben Emmerson said Mr Obama had set out more clearly than ever before the legal justifications for targeted killing.

Pakistan, the main focus of the strikes, has reiterated its view that drones are "counter-productive".

Mr Obama pledged to continue strikes, but with tighter oversight of the programme and stricter targeting rules.

Mr Emmerson, a United Nations human rights special rapporteur, launched an inquiry into drones in January, saying their use "represents a real challenge to the framework of international law".

The inquiry is examining 25 attacks, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and Somalia.

He said in a statement that Mr Obama's speech had broken new ground on a number of issues.

"It sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under," he said.

"The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability."

The Pakistani foreign ministry said it appreciated that Mr Obama had acknowledged "force alone cannot make us safe" and welcomed his resolve to rebuild ties between the nations.

But the ministry added: "The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that the drone strikes are counter-productive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty."

A senior official from Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League has told the BBC the party is disappointed that President Obama gave no indication he would consult the Pakistan government about the continued use of drone attacks.

He said the question of the Americans bombing Pakistani territory without permission is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the new administration, which is preparing to take power after its recent election win.

The issue is hugely controversial in Pakistan, where parts of the government and military are often accused of ignoring or even condoning some of the drone strikes.

According to several estimates, US strikes in Pakistan hit a peak in 2010 when more than 100 drone attacks were reported.

Last year, the number was thought to be fewer than 50.

Mr Emmerson said after a trip to Pakistan in March that Pakistan "does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity".

However, correspondents say the US could not launch drone strikes without tacit support from Pakistan.

Mr Obama spelled out his new policy on drones as part of a wider speech on counter-terrorism.

"America does not take strikes to punish individuals, we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people," he said.

And he added that the strikes were permissible only "when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat" and there must be "near certainty" that no civilians would be killed.

His speech coincided with the signing of new "presidential policy guidance" on the use of drone strikes.

The policy document curtails the circumstances in which drones can be used in places that are not overt war zones, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

The use of unmanned drones in foreign countries has been overwhelmingly backed in US opinion polls.

However, the same polls reveal that few support the use of drones on US territory.

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

Looks like the bar's height is the # of drone missions.

But, the graph is disengenuous a bit because armed drones weren't really deployed much until the Obama administration...right?

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

Number of strikes and underneath number killed per year in those strikes.

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right?

My god, the strawman...it is so beautiful...so large...and so full of excrement. Truly a wonder to behold.

 Easy E wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right?

My god, the strawman...it is so beautiful...so large...and so full of excrement. Truly a wonder to behold.

Strawman?