Interesting read on US assassinations overseas..

[Twiddly]

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...ut-due-process

Some very interesting things in there, masked in all the legalese.

"The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.

"The U.S. is in armed conflict with al-Qaida as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9-11 and may use force consistent with its right to self-defense under international law," Koh said in a speech to a Washington legal symposium.""

When does it stop being self-defense, and start becoming premeditated murder of someone in a foreign country, because you do not agree with them?

The part that gets me the most is the "plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located."

Oh so we can attack inside other countries with drones when we feel there are terrorists there? Just because we feel like it? I do not mean to be bashing any nation, including my own, but come on America (where I live) And this is from a person that ran on "Change" Apparently the "Change" was more assassinations!

"Though he did not specifically address the issue of targeting Americans, many legal scholars believe his speech was an implicit statement that U.S. citizens could be legitimate targets."

Oh so thats good, we can kill our own citizens if they are a member of al-qaida; no trial, no jury, nothing. And This is from the party that normally does not support the death penalty very much, is that not what this boils down to being? A death penalty with no trial.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/licen...ory?id=9740491 Another link on the same topic.


I personally feel that morally, these unmanned drone assassinations are completely wrong. When killing people is a video game (Do the drone operators even feel the normal human emotions involved in killing someone? Its just a video game like screen to them..) Yeah it is less dangerous, but if you are not willing to look someone in the eye and pull the trigger on one of these trial-less death penalties, then he did nothing bad enough to be assassinated on foreign soil.

(And I would say this if he was not an American citizen; that fact just makes it worse for me, as I said earlier, it is essentially a trial-less death penalty)

[Foosha]

The people use women and children to blow up police stations and innocent people. Fuck them. Getting killed by a drone attack is getting by easy for them. If you are targeted by a drone strike, OBVIOUSLY you are doing something really, really bad.

[Zantumall]

While a trial by jury is clearly the preferred situation, sometimes we don't have that option. If a dangerous target absolutely has to die, would you prefer we send our own soldiers to their deaths to do so?

[I stand in fire]

He is someone that advocates the deaths of innocent people and spread the message of hatred and violence of a very perverted form of Islam. He deserved, nay, needed to be put down like the rabid dog he is.

[Twiddly]

The people use women and children to blow up police stations and innocent people. Fuck them. Getting killed by a drone attack is getting by easy for them. If you are targeted by a drone strike, OBVIOUSLY you are doing something really, really bad.

Do they? I guess we will never know if this guy did in this specific case; he was never charged with any crimes when he was a US citizen.

@Zanumall: Sending unmanned drones in to "Video game assassinate" Someone is simply morally wrong to me. As I said in the OP, If you are not willing to have any risk (Other then making your country look yet again like the "World police, we go anywhere we want, nyayayyaaaa we kill people in your country and there is nothing you can do about it!") then you need to re-evaluate the situation.

@fire: how do you know? Perhaps we are the ones that are forcing people to hate us? Not like he was ever even accused of any crime, same as some others we have assassinated. Just saying "if the president says kill, we kill" is an incredibly slippery slope, and where does it end? Would we send an un-manned drone in to kill an..I dont know, an Irish terrorist that had made threats against the US? Would you be ok with that?

[Caiada]

Terrorists are not getting murdered. It's self defense. There's risk in keeping them alive, that doesn't mean we should risk individual lives.

Saying AL-QAEDA OPERATIVES are somehow being forced to hate us is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, by the way.

[DetectiveJohnKimble]

He was a member of a militant organization that has directly attacked the United States and who we have essentially been at war with for a decade. Your ideas about trial by jury, etc. are pretty idealistic and outside the scope of reality when it comes to war.

Is war good or bad? That's a separate question.

[Fraza]

Oh how dandy it is to live in a bipolar good vs. evil world, where killing the "evil" guys just as precaution is perfectly fine.

[Gemenon]

The killing of American citizens at the whim of the sitting president is a scary thought. Might was well just erase the 5th amendment.

[Dacien]

@Zanumall: Sending unmanned drones in to "Video game assassinate" Someone is simply morally wrong to me. As I said in the OP, If you are not willing to have any risk (Other then making your country look yet again like the "World police, we go anywhere we want, nyayayyaaaa we kill people in your country and there is nothing you can do about it!") then you need to re-evaluate the situation.

Imagine someone had murdered a family and was hiding out in an abandoned house with a gun, surrounded by police. You have the option of sending in a high-tech robot to handle the situation. Would you go with that option or insist on a human being going in on moral grounds?

[Twiddly]

Imagine someone had murdered a family and was hiding out in an abandoned house with a gun, surrounded by police. You have the option of sending in a high-tech robot to handle the situation. Would you go with that option or insist on a human being going in on moral grounds?

This argument is completely different. The person this was specifically was about had never been charged, there is no evidence he was planning to do anything, and was assassinated.

Sending in a high tech robot to "Handle the situation"? How? Kill the guy? Because that is all these drones do. So basically the laws of our land are moot; we should just kill criminals straight away and be done with courts? So much for the constitution, who cares about that old piece of paper anyway! Lets just do whatever the presidents whims of the day are!

That is the vibe I am getting from most of the people for assassinations; screw the laws, screw other countries and there borders, screw it, just video game kill someone and then brag about it?

[Dacien]

This argument is completely different. The person this was specifically was about had never been charged, there is no evidence he was planning to do anything, and was assassinated.

Sending in a high tech robot to "Handle the situation"? How? Kill the guy? Because that is all these drones do. So basically the laws of our land are moot; we should just kill criminals straight away and be done with courts? So much for the constitution, who cares about that old piece of paper anyway! Lets just do whatever the presidents whims of the day are!

That is the vibe I am getting from most of the people for assassinations; screw the laws, screw other countries and there borders, screw it, just video game kill someone and then brag about it?

I think you're being a little hyperbolic. A lot more goes into the decision to execute these missions than whims.

[Herecius]

but if you are not willing to look someone in the eye and pull the trigger on one of these trial-less death penalties, then he did nothing bad enough to be assassinated on foreign soil.

I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say 'it's ok to kill somebody if you're willing to kill them right in their face' but say it's not ok to kill somebody if it has to be done with a drone attack. Either way, somebody dies, either way, somebody killed somebody. Whether you agree with it or not isn't really the point I'm trying to make, just that this is bad reasoning.

[Pud'n]

I find it hard to believe military drone strikes on U.S. citizens would look good for Obama's presidency. Seems more like bs Obama's political opponents are spewing in an effort to give him bad press.

Sending drones to "Video game assassinate" terrorists is much more effective than sending in armed personal due to safety reasons. Obviously drone strikes run the risk of killing civilians the terrorists may be hiding with. But that's just a reality of war we have to face when the terrorists are intentionally using civilians as meat shields. Also sending in military personal doesn't exactly guarantee the safety of civilians as there's still the high probability of civilians being killed in the crossfire of the initial raid.

The U.S. is also pretty precise in who they target with drone strikes, through use of interrogation of captured terrorists, satellite imaging, and information from hidden informants, we minimize the risk of targeting actual citizen houses, and not just anyone that looks suspicious.

To say that we should give enemy terrorists a trial is just plain ridiculous given the type of warfare we're in. That's like saying every enemy solider in a war is entitled to a trial.

The reality is we just can't afford the type of ethics you're asking for in these times of war.

P.S. To say that anyone that who disagrees with the U.S. = Terrorist; is just plain asinine (I wish I can say stupid >.<).

Edit: Spell Edit

[Gman299]

This argument is completely different. The person this was specifically was about had never been charged, there is no evidence he was planning to do anything, and was assassinated.

Sending in a high tech robot to "Handle the situation"? How? Kill the guy? Because that is all these drones do. So basically the laws of our land are moot; we should just kill criminals straight away and be done with courts? So much for the constitution, who cares about that old piece of paper anyway! Lets just do whatever the presidents whims of the day are!

That is the vibe I am getting from most of the people for assassinations; screw the laws, screw other countries and there borders, screw it, just video game kill someone and then brag about it?

If they aren't a U.S. citizen they aren't protected by the constitution and our rights and laws don't apply to them we do not have to give them any trial. If they are a citizen and they have joined an organization that is at war with the United States I don't see why they shouldn't forfeit their citizenship. Why should the U.S. protect someone who wants to harm it? At that point they are an enemy and should be treated like every other member of that group. Also if there is no evidence someone is planning on doing something I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't waste a ton of money on a drone strike. This is war and sometimes preemptive strikes are necessary.

[Voltrond]

The killing of American citizens at the whim of the sitting president is a scary thought. Might was well just erase the 5th amendment.

The right to decline testimony due to fear of incriminating oneself?

[Caiada]

This argument is completely different. The person this was specifically was about had never been charged, there is no evidence he was planning to do anything, and was assassinated.

Sending in a high tech robot to "Handle the situation"? How? Kill the guy? Because that is all these drones do. So basically the laws of our land are moot; we should just kill criminals straight away and be done with courts? So much for the constitution, who cares about that old piece of paper anyway! Lets just do whatever the presidents whims of the day are!

That is the vibe I am getting from most of the people for assassinations; screw the laws, screw other countries and there borders, screw it, just video game kill someone and then brag about it?

You're simplifying a tiny news window into a process you clearly have no idea about and using it to assume that they just do whatever the hell they want. Perfectly rational logic.

[TheFNK]

The right to decline testimony due to fear of incriminating oneself?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Pertinent part bolded.

[OrcsRLame]

It's war, shit happens. Murder is unlawful killing. War is on a scale that is so big the law doesn't apply imho. Yes, there are laws governing the conduct of individuals, but that is why the military polices itself. As an organization though, the military, (any military) is above the law. Is that right? Well, I can't really judge that honestly, as I haven't thought of a viable way to change it. However, regardless of it being right or wrong, it's the world we live in.

Global conflicts are determined by strength and strength alone. In that sense, morality, and the law, is powerless, and therefore meaningless. So in that sense, this is not murder.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while might doesn't make right, might does make real, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it so just deal with it.

[Herecius]

If they aren't a U.S. citizen they aren't protected by the constitution and our rights and laws don't apply to them we do not have to give them any trial. If they are a citizen and they have joined an organization that is at war with the United States I don't see why they shouldn't forfeit their citizenship. Why should the U.S. protect someone who wants to harm it? At that point they are an enemy and should be treated like every other member of that group. Also if there is no evidence someone is planning on doing something I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't waste a ton of money on a drone strike. This is war and sometimes preemptive strikes are necessary.

Now, as much as I advocate the use of drone strikes over sending troops in to do the same job, I can't agree with this. It's a slippery slope; just because somebody isn't a citizen of the US doesn't mean they are somehow without basic rights. Those rights do not necessarily extend to a trial, but we must always be careful to never dehumanize another person.