(04-24-2015 11:25 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Up next, you are a member of a sovereign citizen group that the government thinks is about to bomb a Federal building.
They drone strike you.
That sounds insane, but from a logical standpoint it's the same thing; in fact, it's identical.
Not unless he's killed in the autonomous border region of Pakistan along with the remainder of his hostile, non-state agency, it is not.
In your scenario, military use on US soil is prohibited (I think by presidential order, not constitutionality). Use of law enforcement is plausible in your scenario, but absolutely not an option in the autonomous regions of Pakistan.
If you used a drone to kill Charles Whitman (University of Texas shooter, who killed 16 and wounded 32 from the Tower), would he be less dead than he was from the shotgun blast that killed him?
Note that I am not at all in favor of using Drones for targeted assassination on US soil. Just like I am not in favor of the use of attack helicopters or tanks on American streets.
The fact we are talking about all of this in the same vein is my original point.
You are saying, "well, we have a rule against that." Well, we had a rule against what we are doing now over there.
That's why I said we are only a hop, skip, and a jump away. We've made that hop and skip already.
Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
(04-23-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote: (CNN)He was known as the American mouthpiece of al Qaeda, speaking against his native country on behalf of a terrorist organization that's devoted blood and resources to attacking it.
But not anymore.
The White House announced Thursday that Adam Gadahn, 36, was killed in January in a U.S. government counterterrorism operation. Neither he nor Ahmed Farouq -- another U.S. citizen and al Qaeda operative who died in what the White House said was "likely a separate" operation -- was specifically targeted, according to the statement.
Sort of burying the lede, if you ask me. Also from the article...
Quote:Warren Weinstein, a U.S. citizen who was abducted by al Qaeda in Pakistan in 2011, died along with another hostage, Italian Giovanni Lo Porto, in the attack that killed Farouq, according to the White House.
Using drones to kill American citizens without due process AND killing American hostages. Disturbing.
So you disapprove? Perhaps we should go back to the Bush way and just have an all out war where thousands of Americans die. LMFAO
When did liberals give up on civil liberty? Just because your guy got elected?
(04-24-2015 11:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: The determinative fact here is the citizenship of those involved.
Is it okay to kill foreigners? Morally, no. Legally, perhaps.
The other determinative fact is the circumstance. It's not a war. That means everything.
Killing American citizens for their personal beliefs, which is what this at its heart is, is a serious problem for me. I'll clarify, as a normal guy I don't have a problem with killing some terrorist ass hole, US citizen or not; but, as an American citizen, I don't like where this could lead.
I can't speak to legalistic arguments or implications here. I would expect that there be considerable process and documentation in place prior to making a decision to attack, though. I also object to the characterization that he and others are targeted because of personal beliefs rather than concrete involvement in a terrorist group, and I think it is the latter for which they are targeted.
(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote: I also don't like the precedent that could be set if simply having an american citizenship provides you some sort of international protection from us. If we could perhaps provide notice of severing their connection with the united states prior? I don't know, it just seems silly if someone holding a visa with a different stamp is what makes a person worth being killed or not.
It also strikes me that the situation is analogous to gang members using kids (under 12 or so) to commit murders, etc. because they cannot be prosecuted as adults at that age. Better to make your leaders US citizens (at least the public face) because then you can draw ground troops into a conflict rather than see stand-off weapons (drone, airplane, sniper rifle, etc) used.
(04-24-2015 11:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: The determinative fact here is the citizenship of those involved.
Is it okay to kill foreigners? Morally, no. Legally, perhaps.
The other determinative fact is the circumstance. It's not a war. That means everything.
Killing American citizens for their personal beliefs, which is what this at its heart is, is a serious problem for me. I'll clarify, as a normal guy I don't have a problem with killing some terrorist ass hole, US citizen or not; but, as an American citizen, I don't like where this could lead.
I can't speak to legalistic arguments or implications here. I would expect that there be considerable process and documentation in place prior to making a decision to attack, though. I also object to the characterization that he and others are targeted because of personal beliefs rather than concrete involvement in a terrorist group, and I think it is the latter for which they are targeted.
(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote: I also don't like the precedent that could be set if simply having an american citizenship provides you some sort of international protection from us. If we could perhaps provide notice of severing their connection with the united states prior? I don't know, it just seems silly if someone holding a visa with a different stamp is what makes a person worth being killed or not.
It also strikes me that the situation is analogous to gang members using kids (under 12 or so) to commit murders, etc. because they cannot be prosecuted as adults at that age. Better to make your leaders US citizens (at least the public face) because then you can draw ground troops into a conflict rather than see stand-off weapons (drone, airplane, sniper rifle, etc) used.
Your involvement with groups of your choice is nothing more than a manifestation of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.
What does "concrete involvement with a terrorist group" really mean? So, by "concrete involvement" we mean spending a particular amount of time at a known location the group uses? Okay. What about "terrorist group?" Why not "domestic terrorists" like sovereign citizens or militia groups which the government really doesn't like.
There is your jump. It didn't take much and we threw away your 1st Amendment right by never actually confronting it. Now, we have the dreaded chilling effect. The government can control expression through a remote thread of force.
That's the fear, and it is very, very real.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2015 12:06 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
(04-24-2015 11:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: The determinative fact here is the citizenship of those involved.
Is it okay to kill foreigners? Morally, no. Legally, perhaps.
The other determinative fact is the circumstance. It's not a war. That means everything.
Killing American citizens for their personal beliefs, which is what this at its heart is, is a serious problem for me. I'll clarify, as a normal guy I don't have a problem with killing some terrorist ass hole, US citizen or not; but, as an American citizen, I don't like where this could lead.
I can't speak to legalistic arguments or implications here. I would expect that there be considerable process and documentation in place prior to making a decision to attack, though. I also object to the characterization that he and others are targeted because of personal beliefs rather than concrete involvement in a terrorist group, and I think it is the latter for which they are targeted.
(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote: I also don't like the precedent that could be set if simply having an american citizenship provides you some sort of international protection from us. If we could perhaps provide notice of severing their connection with the united states prior? I don't know, it just seems silly if someone holding a visa with a different stamp is what makes a person worth being killed or not.
It also strikes me that the situation is analogous to gang members using kids (under 12 or so) to commit murders, etc. because they cannot be prosecuted as adults at that age. Better to make your leaders US citizens (at least the public face) because then you can draw ground troops into a conflict rather than see stand-off weapons (drone, airplane, sniper rifle, etc) used.
Your involvement with groups of your choice is nothing more than a manifestation of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.
What does "concrete involvement with a terrorist group" really mean? So, by "concrete involvement" we mean spending a particular amount of time at a known location the group uses? Okay. What about "terrorist group?" Why not "domestic terrorists" like sovereign citizens or militia groups which the government really doesn't like.
There is your jump. It didn't take much and we threw away your 1st Amendment right by never actually confronting it.
That's the fear, and it is very, very real.
Those are legitimate fears, and I would be willing to bet, they aren't being as addressed as we'd really like.
(04-24-2015 11:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: The determinative fact here is the citizenship of those involved.
Is it okay to kill foreigners? Morally, no. Legally, perhaps.
The other determinative fact is the circumstance. It's not a war. That means everything.
Killing American citizens for their personal beliefs, which is what this at its heart is, is a serious problem for me. I'll clarify, as a normal guy I don't have a problem with killing some terrorist ass hole, US citizen or not; but, as an American citizen, I don't like where this could lead.
I can't speak to legalistic arguments or implications here. I would expect that there be considerable process and documentation in place prior to making a decision to attack, though. I also object to the characterization that he and others are targeted because of personal beliefs rather than concrete involvement in a terrorist group, and I think it is the latter for which they are targeted.
(04-24-2015 11:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote: I also don't like the precedent that could be set if simply having an american citizenship provides you some sort of international protection from us. If we could perhaps provide notice of severing their connection with the united states prior? I don't know, it just seems silly if someone holding a visa with a different stamp is what makes a person worth being killed or not.
It also strikes me that the situation is analogous to gang members using kids (under 12 or so) to commit murders, etc. because they cannot be prosecuted as adults at that age. Better to make your leaders US citizens (at least the public face) because then you can draw ground troops into a conflict rather than see stand-off weapons (drone, airplane, sniper rifle, etc) used.
Your involvement with groups of your choice is nothing more than a manifestation of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.
What does "concrete involvement with a terrorist group" really mean? So, by "concrete involvement" we mean spending a particular amount of time at a known location the group uses? Okay. What about "terrorist group?" Why not "domestic terrorists" like sovereign citizens or militia groups which the government really doesn't like.
There is your jump. It didn't take much and we threw away your 1st Amendment right by never actually confronting it.
That's the fear, and it is very, very real.
Those are legitimate fears, and I would be willing to bet, they aren't being as addressed as we'd really like.
Exactly, and they aren't. That form the second prong of the fear associated with this.
(04-24-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
(04-24-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
DEA and ICE have unarmed Drones that Patrol the Rio Grande River. When they spot a Target of Interest they can call in Speed Boats armed with 20mm cannons that pretty much blow Druggies out of the water.
(04-24-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
yeah, that sounds like a real good idea.
Oh god, yeah internally I was imaging some future form of drone that could arrest suspects, not the bomb carriers they are now.
(04-24-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
yeah, that sounds like a real good idea.
Oh god, yeah internally I was imaging some future form of drone that could arrest suspects, not the bomb carriers they are now.
I'm ok with cops having drones to asses a situation like a standoff, but I don't want them using them for anything else at all.
I don't know, apprehension with pepper spray or other, far less harmful devices could be used? Regardless, it's so far removed from reality at this point I'm just pissing in the wind. We both agree, no ICBMS painted by drones for a speeding violation.
(04-23-2015 02:13 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: AND killing American hostages. Disturbing.
As if this was part of the plan?
Of course not.
That said, I've recently read reports that indicate the CIA didn't know who they were bombing. This also bothers me, but, if true, indicates these Americans were NOT targeted. So, in this instance, my objections may not apply. But on the policy, I'm with HOD on this.
(04-24-2015 12:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Your involvement with groups of your choice is nothing more than a manifestation of your 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression.
What does "concrete involvement with a terrorist group" really mean? So, by "concrete involvement" we mean spending a particular amount of time at a known location the group uses? Okay. What about "terrorist group?" Why not "domestic terrorists" like sovereign citizens or militia groups which the government really doesn't like.
I'm fairly certain that you could distinguish (in legal terms) between beer guzzling cranks and groups that have set bombs off in the basements of very large buildings. I think breaking bread with said cranks/bombmakers continuously for over 3000 days running and appearing in propaganda videos for said group would qualify as concrete involvement, whereas getting lost in the woods after surfing jihadis-r-us.com for a few months and buying a ticket to Karachi after stealing dad's credit card would not.
(04-24-2015 12:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: There is your jump. It didn't take much and we threw away your 1st Amendment right by never actually confronting it. Now, we have the dreaded chilling effect. The government can control expression through a remote thread of force.
That's the fear, and it is very, very real.
You bring up good points, and I can't necessarily answer them all, either (perhaps none to your satisfaction).
The good thing is that these actions are publicly known and a low grade rumbling over someone that no American should shed a tear over (even if you were willing to devote 10 years of your career defending him in court) would probably become a much bigger deal if it were to again escalate to a Branch Davidian or Ruby Ridge situation. The issues involving those incidents were never fully resolved, but there was enough outrage that they have not been repeated.
I have yet to see anyone propose rules by which you can resolve a situation like Adam Gadan or Anwar al Awlaki to the point that you can say that they pose a threat and you have found a way to deal with them appropriately to end that threat. I'm not willing to either grant that they posed no threat worth dealing with, or that we should have taken risks that could potentially lead to the deaths of several to dozens of US troops and/or law enforcement officials.
Likewise, I'm not sure we have any rules or procedures that will prevent another Branch Davidian/Ruby Ridge type disaster, whose outcomes were arguably much worse than the Gadan or Awlaki outcomes.
(04-24-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
yeah, that sounds like a real good idea.
Oh god, yeah internally I was imaging some future form of drone that could arrest suspects, not the bomb carriers they are now.
I think drones with something like Metal Storm are a very high likelihood in the near future, and I could see this appealing to law enforcement.
Looking at this specific case, it certainly seems like we did our due diligence. We tracked the house for days and saw only terrorists go in and out. We hit it and killed the 4 terrorists we were after. No way anyone could have guessed there would be hostages imprisoned inside. This is not like accidentally bombing a wedding or some of the other careless mostakes we have made. I can't really fault the decision on this one.
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2015 03:22 PM by Hokie4Skins.)
(04-24-2015 11:55 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Hell, drones could be useful for police. Maybe they wouldn't have such itchy trigger fingers if they were sitting behind a keyboard instead of in risk of being shot? Not an attack on them, either, anyone would act differently.
yeah, that sounds like a real good idea.
Oh god, yeah internally I was imaging some future form of drone that could arrest suspects, not the bomb carriers they are now.
Off-Topic:
Does anyone else remember the scifi movie where they had personalized drones that would hunt you down and take you out? I think it came out before 2005 - probably before 2001 when drone was not a commonly used term. These had hummingbird sized drones that I think would deliver a drug to kill or capture you... Could be Gattaca, but I think it was a different movie.
![[Image: 1341422266_1341422266_terminator5-ff.jpg]](http://img.moviepilot.com/assets/tarantulaV2/project_images_square_big/1341422266_1341422266_terminator5-ff.jpg)
