Justice Department memo on drone strikes -Are you ok with this? (1 Viewer)

IntenseSaint

Powhatan Power
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
7,615
Reaction score
7,154
Location
South
Offline
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans - Open Channel

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
 

Anteros77

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,388
Reaction score
2,412
Offline
As far as I'm concerned you give up your rights to citizenship when you join a terrorist organization that is set against your country.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,366
Reaction score
21,558
Offline
As far as I'm concerned you give up your rights to citizenship when you join a terrorist organization that is set against your country.
The point is, evidence is required of a crime. Otherwise, I could just report that I saw you with a Koran and heard you say you hate Obama and you can be ordered killed.

Look out above.
 

Brandon13

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
4,198
Reaction score
2,608
Age
32
Location
Pensacola, FL
Offline
Yes, I am OK with this.

Accepting the fact that drone strikes are currently viewed to be legal military actions when used for the purposes of targeting individuals active within foreign-located terrorist organizations, I do not believe that these terrorist organizations' active members' U.S. citizenship statuses should pose a hindrance to the conduction of military operations targeting the organizations abroad.
 

Anteros77

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,388
Reaction score
2,412
Offline
The point is, evidence is required of a crime. Otherwise, I could just report that I saw you with a Koran and heard you say you hate Obama and you can be ordered killed.

Look out above.
If you actually believe that the current administration is ordering assassinations with such frivolous evidence then yes, I can see your point.

However, we all know that is not the actual case.

Lord knows I'm no supporter of the current administration...but even I know they are not ordering the assassination of American citizens for ***** and giggles.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,578
Reaction score
20,339
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
I dunno, sounds a lot like guilt by association to me. If my brother is a terrorist and I happen to be in another country, I don't think I would deserve a missile dropped on my head. IIRC, the American that was killed by a drone was an active part of al-Qeada. If he wasn't, then shame on the person who gave the order. The idea of using drone strikes on people without due process makes me nervous. Either the person is an enemy combatant or he's not.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
The point is, evidence is required of a crime. Otherwise, I could just report that I saw you with a Koran and heard you say you hate Obama and you can be ordered killed.

Look out above.
Its not a crime when there is Congressional authorization of war.
That is the key.
I do not see why this is controversial at all.
 

drob8785

All-Pro
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
1,905
Location
DC
Offline
IIRC, the American that was killed by a drone was an active part of al-Qeada.
FWIW, three Americans have been killed by drone strikes.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a member of the leadership of AQAP and advocated, encouraged, and helped to plan attacks on the US.
Samir Khan was certainly a member of AQAP, and helped to produce English-language recruiting and training materials. He was killed in the same drone strike as Anwar.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was Anwar's 16 year old son -- there is little to no evidence that he was an active member of AQAP involved in plots against America or Americans. He was killed a few weeks after his father in a drone strike that was targeting another AQAP leader, and according to unnamed US officials, was just "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
 

drob8785

All-Pro
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
1,905
Location
DC
Offline
Won't be long till we see a drone used in our country.
I imagine that sometime relatively soon we'll see unarmed drones being used along the border.

Armed drones though? Being used to kill on American soil? Yea...that's a zero-probability event.

Its not a crime when there is Congressional authorization of war.
That is the key.
I do not see why this is controversial at all.
The controversy is that the AUMF from 2001 is a little fuzzy where it stops. A strict reading of it would argue that the President has the power to go after ONLY those that plotted and executed 9/11. Read more broadly (as both the Bush and Obama Administrations have), it authorizes any military action (including drone strikes) anywhere (including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen) against anyone (including Americans) that are involved in plotting international terrorism against the US.

Legal? Most likely. But not without controversy.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
The controversy is that the AUMF from 2001 is a little fuzzy where it stops. A strict reading of it would argue that the President has the power to go after ONLY those that plotted and executed 9/11. Read more broadly (as both the Bush and Obama Administrations have), it authorizes any military action (including drone strikes) anywhere (including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen) against anyone (including Americans) that are involved in plotting international terrorism against the US.

Legal? Most likely. But not without controversy.
the The Justice Department memo makes clear that the government can only target operational leaders of al qa'ida. Given that the Congressional war powers authorization includes use of force against organizations that planned/carried out the 9/11 attacks the memo looks like its on sound legal footing.
 
OP
IntenseSaint

IntenseSaint

Powhatan Power
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
7,615
Reaction score
7,154
Location
South
Offline
I imagine that sometime relatively soon we'll see unarmed drones being used along the border.

Armed drones though? Being used to kill on American soil? Yea...that's a zero-probability event.
And if I had said in 2009 that Obama was going to have 6 times as many drone strikes as the Bush admin you probably would have said that would be a zero-probability event as well. :9:
 
OP
IntenseSaint

IntenseSaint

Powhatan Power
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
7,615
Reaction score
7,154
Location
South
Offline
the The Justice Department memo makes clear that the government can only target operational leaders of al qu'ida. Given that the Congressional war powers authorization includes use of force against organizations that planned/carried out the 9/11 attacks the memo looks like its on sound legal footing.
The report done by Stanford shows that they are targeting WAY more than just operational leaders of AQ.
 

efil4stnias

one lonely Beastie i be...
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
33,090
Reaction score
31,937
Location
Covington
Offline
I just had a brainstorm idea....

personal radar jamming app....look for it soon on Apple and Android.

:ezbill:
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,806
Offline
Not acceptable.

We've never allowed ordered assassinations of drug lords either. If you're serving a warrant and a firefight happens, so be it. If using a sniper to kill without notice is and always has been considered beyond the pale, then so should this.

And if I had said in 2009 that Obama was going to have 6 times as many drone strikes as the Bush admin you probably would have said that would be a zero-probability event as well. :9:
Not really. It was emerging military tech, and it's not surprising that it's use would increase no matter who was at the top, unless there was widespread opposition (which one day there might be). If Obama had run against using drones, then I'd have had an expectation that he'd pass down a mandate to use them less. Since he didn't, it doesn't really surprise me in the least.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
The report done by Stanford shows that they are targeting WAY more than just operational leaders of AQ.
What report by Stanford? The one about drone attacks in general that you posted a week or so ago?
I did not think that had anything to do with targeting U.S. citizens. Did it?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom