Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

I am specifically referring to the story , newly revealed, that 'We Killed 4 US Citizens!', and I very clearly stated I was not assigning any bias.

Please be sure to read the rest of my post which you conveniently chopped off, it will clarify the point:

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.

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.

 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.

That sums up my thoughts as well.

I want us to be aggressive in going after the bad guys.

At the same time, I want to be assured that everything is vetted appropriately.

This policy needs to be clear, precise and transparent as all hell. Unfortunately, I don't think we're there yet.
EDIT: that Liberman proposal was only if you're convicted if I remember right. I think that sets a bad precendent had that been approved.

 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.

No worries, I've been having a few days were I just can't say what I mean. It gets lost between my brain and the keyboard
I absolutely agree that a lot of the law (domestic and international) is starting to look very dated when compared to the modern era. That is something that needs addressed, but it also needs a lot of international co-operation to do so.
I agree that there should be some oversight into the process too. As I've said, if it can be shown that he was in fact posing a threat then I have no problem with him being killed.

 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.

I think with what Jihadin posted you still have to be convicted of treason. And one of the problems with the War on Terror is that the government seems keen to sideline the rule of law when it is convenient for them to do so. Mere accusations should not be enough to strip someone of citizenship.

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".

 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...

No, you are clear for killing because in most cases it would be ridiculously unfeasible to bring you in for a trial.

And no, I'm not saying "It's too much work and it would cost too much money". I'm saying that in most of these instances the individual is in an area that they KNOW will be hazardous to any troops on the ground and they can rely upon the local populace and/or government to provide them with some kind of assistance should US troops or assets come after them.
I don't think it appropriate to risk human lives in a situation like that.

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.

I'm okay with taking out drug cartels with drones.

 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.

You mean "shouldn't we just bomb the place?" right?

I would say that the two cases are not analogous at all. There's a huge difference between your run of the mill murderer and someone like al-Awlaki.
And before you ask:
If it were someone high enough up in a cartel who was hiding in their compound?
I'd be okay with a drone strike. They've shown absolutely NO restraint in how they operate. They thrive off the violence they cause and know that by and large they will not have to endure responses of a similar scale. The Mexican military has made a few token efforts, but given that you have groups like Los Zetas which came about from a group of Mexican special forces who decided to go into the drug trade--it doesn't always end well for those efforts.

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.

And the "right thing to do" is to not spend the blood of people who have volunteered to defend the Constitution to bring in some religious nutbag who is going to use his trial as a way to espouse his radicalized views.

That's something that you seem to be overlooking here, D. I doubt it's on purpose or to be disingenuous--but it's something which I feel bears consideration.

People like al-Awlaki thrive on publicity. They were not getting their hands dirty. They are figureheads, planners, and individuals whose power and link to the crimes is the fact that they espouse the views that their followers then latch onto.
They're going to be martyrs one way or another. I'd rather that troops not be killed bringing someone like that in for a trial.

 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.

Does the cartel in your example through words and actions consider itself at war with the US like AQ do?

Are they actively plotting violent acts against the US, like AQ do?

And most importantly, has congress passed a AUMF against them which includes operations against them in Mexico and then allocated funds for those operations?

The answers to those questions should point you to the difference between what happened in Yemen and your scenario.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides...with budget cuts...its cheaper taking them out with a drone

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?

Before people start advocating using drones for civil issues like drug cartels , all these questions need to be thought of, I don't like where this whole drone strike thing is leading. It is political assasination, something that used to be regarded with gravitas , now peoples perceptions seem to be flippant and to be honest bloodthirsty.

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?

Doubt it. The US does it now because they know they can get away with it. What are Pakistan or Yemen going to do about it after all? Call the US a bully? Half the world already does that anyway. With no real threat of retaliation the US doesn't have much of a reason to think twice about applying force. We're pretty accustomed as a country of throwing our weight around whenever we like.

And, of course, Yemen seems to be fine with it.

I'm just thinking ahead to where the US isn't top of the pile anymore. A lot of you guys seem to be very blase about assassinating people in other countries, I'm thinking if the shoe was on the other foot, perhaps things would be different. It's kinda strange that the "worlds policeman" thinks it is ok to kill people anywhere around the world.

Perhaps stopping being a bully would be a good choice. I really hate being part of a country who is the weedy companion of the big bully, who as the bully hits someone laughs and throws something at the victim.

 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.

Now who is copping out?

Nobody forced you to take an oath to protect the constitution

Thank a Vet

Do drone pilots with carpal tunnel qualify for VA disability?

D-USA....don't you work in a VA Hospital?

Besides...I have to admit...I lined you up for "Thank a Vet" comment

I do, and I have no idea if they do!

I remember the stink when drone pilots got a medal that ranks higher than combat medals.

Hagel made the right call on that medal. As for disability.....I'm not saying what my rate is

edit
D-USA.

While I was in the Wounded Warrior Program at Meade. One of the first briefing we had was the disability process on injuries, ailments, mental...well heck all the stuff we can claim......and the math they use....if one condition...up to 5-6 conditions.....I was ready to execute the Briefer after 15 min for losing what little mind I had left trying t track what the Hell he was saying

I have zero do to with determining disability or eligibility. I did pick up the book once and tried to read some portions, it's like pig-latin.

 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.

There is no "having once been a citizen" here. At the time the Obama adminstration killed these people, they were US citizens.

Doesn't matter in a firefight till afterwards. Quite a few insurgents carry their passports. Had a couple from UK....all over the ME...France...Germany...Italy...one from Latvia.....few Bosnians...well.....you get the idea. Those we captured we turn over to the ANA. If a leader identified and captured then we put them in Bagram Holding Facility. Yet no one getting righteous for them as they do on the drone strikes.

Only thing I can compare the drone strikes being done by the US against other countries is



I will say if a country is harboring a wanted terrorist and knows we're drone striking them. Either the country ask them to get out of Dodge or turn him over to US forces. If not then they condone his actions against the US.

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

It's not a firefight if only one side is shooting. Neither Anwar nor his son were engaged in combat with the US military when they were killed, and they never had been.

Anwalaki was already engage in combat with the US...Maj. Hassan at Ft Hood he convinced to shoot the troopers getting ready for deployment to Afghanistan. Through the internet.

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".

Well, according to my American history textbook, Article III, section 3, of the constitution says that nobody will be convicted of treason against the USA unless on the testimony of two witnesses or a full confession in court. Then you have the 6th amendment that guarantees a fair trial. But this is where it gets confusing for me as the 8th amendment prohibits unusual punishments. Does a drone attack constitute an unusual punishment Now, I don't know if there is a SCOTUS case that dumps all over this, but technically, the deaths of these Americans 'abroad' is unconstitutional.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Does a drone attack constitute an unusual punishment

It's not a punishment at all, in the legal sense; as in the cases we are describing the targets had not been convicted of a crime (or actually, even charged with one yet). Hell, he wasn't even indicted.

We really do not have a good legal setup for dealing with what are essentially stateless actors like this. This closest we have is essentially treating them as pirates, and we haven't issued a letter of marque in sort of a while so that's not going to fly either (although I think that's not an altogether awful idea either, but I suppose officially sponsoring mercenaries is not something that's done by civilized nations anymore).

In my opinion I think we ultimately need to set up a legal framework with other nations for how we prosecute warfare on individuals and organizations like this. I know everyone loves to hate the UN but I think this would be a good framework to start from. The problem is that to allow this then the US would by definition have to relinquish some level of sovereignty, something we have been loathe to do in the past (such as refusing to sign on to the ICJ). And the arguments against this are compelling - I'd be distrustful of any organization that allowed a Gadhaffi-era Libya onto a human rights council - but something needs to be done.

 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.

Which is why this is a way "bigger" deal than some ridicuulous spin doctored talking points on Benghazi. However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right? I think that is in the Constitution. Article 3, subsection 48 "if the person we are breaking the law to kill is bad, then you are good; and everything is cool bro."

However, the problem of dealing with the lawbreaking is political. Democrats have traidtionally been painted as weak on Defense, so they have the motivation to show their strength by killing people. Republicans can't attack it because they have traditionally been strong on defense and if they oppose the Democrats killing people it will erode their claims to being strong on defense. If anything, all the Repubs can really say is that we would kill more people! Therefore, there is no political reason in the world for either party to address the core Constitutional issue.