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.

 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.

That would be welcome. It would show openness, some accountability and serve as an example to other nations who may establish their own drone programs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

There are some issues that go beyond partisanship. The President has received a lot of criticism from all sides concerning his expanding use of drones. To paint it as only one side using it as a vehicle for impeachment is more than a little dishonest.

 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!

Well, I'm not exaclty an Obama-hater but I think it is worrying when any administration decides they can just "Drone Strike" American citizens without due process. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and those laws must be followed f they are to mean anything. Crazy talk, I know.

Of course, I also think the term "Enemy Combatant" is the most dangerous thing we have seen in the last 12 years.

 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.

Agreed. They were enemy combatants on foreign soil. They were successfully "combatted."
If its US soil-no way Jose.

Wait...if I remember correctly...takes two to approve the strike that is verified by a judge before a launch. Its not on the operator of the drone to launch with no approval before hand. I rather drone strike someone that's deep in a foreign country then put boots on ground. I rather not give up anymore M60 Blackhawk tech to anyone unless its someone like Osama category. Also more thermite grenades to melt down the aircraft. The ENTIRE aircraft

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.

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".

I think you nailed it.

 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.

I agree that war has changed, and that a strong case can be made for updating the Geneva Conventions to recognise this fact. That we include non-state actors, and make specific provisions for those engaged in hostilities who do not wear a uniform or identifying features of a militia.

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.

 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.

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

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.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:
They were enemy combatants on foreign soil.

Words have meanings, Frazzled. Al-Awlaki and his son were not combatants. Murdering a sixteen year old boy because of his father's constitutionally protected speech is obscene.

 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.

The collateral damage thing is huge. As much as some protest the death penalty due to the risk of getting innocent parties...

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.

I am usually an Obama defender, but I have always spoken out about a lot of the "war on terror" BS that has been going on for 11 years now. It has absolutely zero to do with me hating Bush/Obama more than terrorists. It has everything to do with me placing my feelings for the constitution above my hate for terrorists.

I don't have a magical answer for how to address this. But I do know that the current process is 100% wrong.

 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.

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.

 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.

The executioner is the one responsible for collateral damage, not the one being executed.

 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.

bs. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was murdered while sitting in a cafe, two weeks after the death of his father.

 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.

Yeah... you're winning me over in this debate.

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

 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.

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.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

We had friends 'over there'??

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.

 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.

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 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.

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.

 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.

The judicial has no sanction on foreign soil against terrorists.

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

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.


"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim!" - Anwar al-Awlaki.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Morally wrong... ah... I find it morally wrong to subvert, train and brainwash young men into becoming human bombs for a place in the hereafter. Your mileage may vary.

He was a recruiter, supporter and enabler of terrorist groups directly targeting US interests and US/Allied forces lives.

He was not a combatant? No, he did not have a gun in his hand, he was simply brainwashing and recruiting actively. He was not the shooter, he was loading the gun, I find that as guilty.

I don't blame him for America's decisions, I blame him for rearing a son into his culture of absolute jihadist hatred and warmongering under the pretense of 'religion'.

I am also fascinated by your mention of Obama's sick fantastical eternal global war and would like you to tell me more about it? Show me how you have the measure of being 'morally' and 'factually' right with that then...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I was not aware of any secret service with the 'right' to kill threats to national security abroad, just that all secret services carry this out regardless. I would imagine there were lots of folks working for either side in the cold war who carried citizenship for the same nationality as the security agency that executed them.

 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?

 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

 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.

 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?

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

 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

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.

 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.

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

A few points:

Al Awaki's son was capped in a strike aimed at another AQ leader. Kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was not targeted for anything his dad did or did not do. The other folks killed that day are in the exact same category, collateral damage. Also note it was not a strike against Yemen, so stating we are not at war with Yemen is a moot point. The congress critters have given the executive the authorization to use force and the executive has (rightly or wrongly) interpreted that authorization to include authorization to attack AQ targets in Yemen (and other places). The Gov't of Yemen allows it. IF congress would get off their asses and take back the constitutional responsibility they have to 'declare' war this would not be an issue. If they feel the AUMF does not cover operations in Yemen, quit funding those ops and amend or (better) replace or rescind the AUMF and limit where the executive can apply force.

Command and control and training nodes have always been legitimate targets. If congress wants to authorize use of force, AQ leadership and planners and trainers are legitimately on the target list, regardless if they are just about to pull a trigger/set off a bomb/pose an imminent threat. No one is whining that capping Bin Laden after waking him up in the middle of the night by crashing a helicopter full of Tier 1 trigger pullers in his front yard was a bad thing. Do you want to argue he was an imminent threat at that specific point in time? I submit he was not.

The courts have very specifically stayed out of the business of telling the executive branch how to conduct or when to conduct military operations.

The CIA is NOT a federal LE agency as someone above seems to think. They are an intelligence agency which also has a legal mandate to conduct certain types of direct action overseas. They do not enforce US laws anywhere.

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

I did not dispute whether they did, or did not. I asked if it was acceptable for them to kill on US soil

 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.

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?

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

And often to very loud cries and protests from the host nation. Especially as assassinations are not permitted under international law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

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.

Combatants are defined by the Geneva Convention as those taking an active part in hostilities. From the information to date he was not engaged in hostility

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.

So those who are killed or injured as collateral damage in these drone strikes can be said to have been collectively punished for an offence that they have no committed.

Like I said, show me that he was a real and immediate risk to the United States and I'll agree that it was justified. If he was an actual leader, and in the process of planning an attack, and not just acting as a demagogue then I'd have much more sympathy for the actions taken.

Drone strikes are too good for those who leave the country to aid terrorists. I would definitely have an issue if this started happening on US soil, but until then:

Keep up the good work, Obama.

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?

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.

 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.

Yeah, but by then the target would have already committed the crime of being inconvenient to get to.