US may kill own citizen with drone attack.

[ringpriest]

It's a combination of the "host" countries not having the ability to catch a lot of the terrorists, and bad relations with the US that don't really make them want to try.

I'd say the evidence is pretty strong if they are announcing the decision.

They're not publicizing the actual evidence though, are they?

And if a country's official position is, "We can't catch people launching attacks on other sovereign states from within our borders" isn't that pretty much a public abrogation of their own sovereignty?

[Rukentuts]

The trial evidence : Intelligence based never too be seen by the eyes of the public.
The judge : A drone.
The verdict : Assassination.

Tell that to police officers that shoot down perpetrators without a trial. Don't act like there are certain situations in which deadly force isn't warranted.

[Deleted]

Tell that to police officers that shoot down perpetrators without a trial. Don't act like there are certain situations in which deadly force isn't warranted.

But it's a drone and drones are evil because they are drones.

[diddle]

They're not publicizing the actual evidence though, are they?

And if a country's official position is, "We can't catch people launching attacks on other sovereign states from within our borders" isn't that pretty much a public abrogation of their own sovereignty?

It's similar to when we found Osama in Pakistan, regardless of their excuses in the end they were either incredibly incompetent or compliant with him. Sadly either were just as likely so it's hard to make a definite decision.

[Rukentuts]

But it's a drone and drones are evil because they are drones.

I really loathe that term. A dude could stick a camera on his hobby RC airplane and call it a drone. There's a lot of masses out there that think these are some sort of autonomous killbots.

[Deleted]

Tell that to police officers that shoot down perpetrators without a trial. Don't act like there are certain situations in which deadly force isn't warranted.

I hate this fucking argument. How is what a police officer does relevant to drone stikes. AMAGAD I'm going to draw some parallels between two completely different situations and try and discredit you. I see it alot, gun wankers saying ban cars they kill too. Fuck off with your bullshit argument that has nothing to do with the point.

[Rukentuts]

I hate this fucking argument. How is what a police officer does relevant to drone stikes. AMAGAD I'm going to draw some parallels between two completely different situations and try and discredit you. I see it alot, gun wankers saying ban cars they kill too. Fuck off with your bullshit argument that has nothing to do with the point.

I really don't see a compelling rebuttal in there. The truth of the legal matter is this: if a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that a perpetrator is imminently about to inflict deadly harm onto the officers or others, they can use deadly force. But when the federal gubmint does it, suddenly it's evil?

[Naxere]

I really don't see a compelling rebuttal in there. The truth of the legal matter is this: if a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that a perpetrator is imminently about to inflict deadly harm onto the officers or others, they can use deadly force. But when the federal gubmint does it, suddenly it's evil?

Please explain how someone drawing a weapon when facing down the cops is equal to someone allegedly planning terrorist attacks.

[diddle]

Some states already execute their own citizens unless becoming a prisoner completely removes citizenship.

bah, been killing me on the semantics

[Khime]

Terrorism is by definition treason, and treason forfeits your rights as a citizen.

Conviction for an act of treason forfeits your rights as a citizen. I don't see mention of a trial and a sentence by a jury of his peers here. US citizens aren't just "automatically guilty" of crimes they've been accused of.

Tell that to police officers that shoot down perpetrators without a trial. Don't act like there are certain situations in which deadly force isn't warranted.

Oh, sure, catch him in the act? I agree, smoke 'im.

[Deleted]

I really don't see a compelling rebuttal in there. The truth of the legal matter is this: if a law enforcement officer reasonably believes that a perpetrator is imminently about to inflict deadly harm onto the officers or others, they can use deadly force. But when the federal gubmint does it, suddenly it's evil?

Why do you have to take the argument away from drone strikes to local law enforcement. Smokescreening the point bro. Argue with me about drone strikes, extra-judicial killing, cia kill lists, accountability, transparency and the right to pre-emptively strike. Tackle the point at hand.

[Rukentuts]

Why do you have to take the argument away from drone strikes to local law enforcement. Smokescreening the point bro. Argue with me about drone strikes, extra-judicial killing, cia kill lists, accountability, transparency and the right to pre-emptively strike. Tackle the point at hand.

The point I have already made; multiple times in fact. There are legal circumstances in which deadly force is authorized. This is one of those circumstances. Maybe if you don't want to be droned, maybe you shouldn't leave the country and hang out with terrorist networks and plot attacks to kill innocent American civilians. Savvy?

[Bakis]

Tell that to police officers that shoot down perpetrators without a trial. Don't act like there are certain situations in which deadly force isn't warranted.

Police officers, at least should, only shoot when the threat is imminent. A terrorist plotting half across the globe for a future attack is not a very good comparison in that sense.

[diddle]

Why do you have to take the argument away from drone strikes to local law enforcement. Smokescreening the point bro. Argue with me about drone strikes, extra-judicial killing, cia kill lists, accountability, transparency and the right to pre-emptively strike. Tackle the point at hand.

The comparison is that if a cop was faced with an imminent, proclaimed threat (let's say a terrorist with his finger on the bomb trigger) he would be authorized to kill without a trial and jury, hence making it an extra-judicial killing.

[Deleted]

He is a terrorist, I don't see how this is a difficult decision.

about as difficult as the decision the terrorists make, right ?

[Rukentuts]

Police officers, at least should, only shoot when the threat is imminent. A terrorist plotting half across the globe for a future attack is not a very good comparison in that sense.

He's a member of an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. This means he is a member of a military group; one we are actively at war with. Is killing an enemy combatant wrong now?

In this case lethal force is optimal.

[Xisa]

From the first paragraph:



Reading this makes me wonder how many who oppose Drone Strikes on US citizens who threaten us are also tote the "everybody should have a gun" so they can shoot a US Citizen who threatens them.

Because this is the Federal Government deciding who lives and dies. Once they make a decision, there is no more due process, and no consequences for actions that may be legitimate or not.

You would have to be truly dense to not understand the difference.

[Xarkan]

The point I have already made; multiple times in fact. There are legal circumstances in which deadly force is authorized. This is one of those circumstances. Maybe if you don't want to be droned, maybe you shouldn't leave the country and hang out with terrorist networks and plot attacks to kill innocent American civilians. Savvy?

If you have the time to struggle with the legalities of perhaps ordering a drone strike to kill the man and a random number of innocent bystanders you probably also have the time to send a team to extract the guy and test the evidence in a court of law.. Your comparison with some cops and imminent risk of harm to civilians or cops fails to seem valid..

[Bakis]

He's a member of an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. This means he is a member of a military group; one we are actively at war with. Is killing an enemy combatant wrong now?

In this case lethal force is optimal.

Yea I guess so, illegal combatant open up to labeleling anyone as such
I withdraw my argument above.

[Rukentuts]

Yea I guess so, illegal combatant open up to labeleling anyone as such

Do you deny al-Qaida is a military group?