U.S. Admits Drones Killed 4 Americans

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.

**whembly**

So... I was perusing the NYTimes and ran into this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1&

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.
...

What I really don't understand is this... Holdner acknowledges this right before Obama's scheduled speech tomorrow. WTF?

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**

Maybe they decided to get ahead of the bad news for a change

**Ouze**

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

really?

Really?

This is right up there with "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that".

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**CptJake**

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...

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.

**whembly**

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.

? You mean like a "Wag the Dog" scenario??

**Dreadclaw69**

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**

Top comment on article

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.

**whembly**

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.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

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

**whembly**

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

A lot.

I'd rather not talk of impeachment as it deflects the issue at hand.

**djones520**

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.

Hey, those terrorists got a bit of water up there nose. How dare you try to undermine the pain and suffering they endured.

**Ouze**

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!

**Dreadclaw69**

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

Clear unequivocal evidence of sufficient wrong doing to merit it. Until that happens I think any talk of impeachment should be off the table, otherwise it is (as whembly rightly says) a distraction, and people are more receptive to counter accusations of "witch-hunt" the more people say the "i" word.

**Grey Templar**

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!

Now you did it Ouze, you invoked the Sheeple.

**d-usa**

Many people will not see an issue here, unfortionately.

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

/hipsterglasses

**MeanGreenStompa**

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**

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

Hipsta McHipster!

That's true.

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?

**Ahtman**

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?

What part of that is confusing?

**motyak**

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**

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**

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?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Hey... I'm on your side on this.

I apologize if I have you confused with someone else... my bad.

**d-usa**

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**

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?

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.

**whembly**

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.

Yeah... that's why I'm so torn on this.

Isn't the issue really about whether or not our rights exist outside of our boundries? I'm gonna google-fu that...

**Grey Templar**

Indeed.

I don't care that the particular dudes that got pasted got pasted, I mind the way it was done. It was a very shady way of dealing with these guys and that is what was wrong.

**MeanGreenStompa**

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?

**Lordhat**

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?

I want due process to be given due effort. If one of our citizens has forfeited their right to due process, then I want evidence to that fact to be made available to the public.

**d-usa**

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?

Were they sitting in their rooms going "I think we should bomb something" when they were shot?

Did the police find them and randomly decide to kill t hem?

After they arrested the other guy, did they execute him in his hospital bed?

They attempted to arrest them, when they actively fought back they started to shoot. Standard operating procedure for arresting any person suspected of commiting a crime. Dropping drones on peoples head does not equal trying to arrest them.

The taking down of any criminal?

See above.

Do you want to go extract them?

Yes. Because the constitution protects them from summary execution without a trial.

Screaming "but it's soooooo hard to pick up people that are hiding" is not a reason to wipe your butt with the constitution and drop a missile on them.

**Valion**

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.

And the left wing would be demonizing it to the ends of the earth, while making the argument that nobody's ever going to see the real evidence on which the decision to kill these guys was based.