Does the US Government Have the Right to Kill American Citizens with Drone Strikes

[pocketfullofshells]

How would you feel about the government shooting someone who they say is plotting to blow up a building simply because they said he was a dangerous person?

It seems to me there is a vast difference between shooting a criminal about to commit a violent act and shooting someone because the government has decided that person is a criminal.

if you read what was said...that would not be legal..
What would be legal is use on someone committing a hostile act..

If your planning a attack...they arrest you..
if your committing it, they can use force.

the weapon is not relevant.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Wow ....
I am sure you are so far above POS intellect to answer that question!

the adults are talking, go play in the sandbox or something.

 

[PLC1]

if you read what was said...that would not be legal..
What would be legal is use on someone committing a hostile act..

If your planning a attack...they arrest you..
if your committing it, they can use force.

the weapon is not relevant.

Drones are not arresting anyone, nor are the targets committing hostile acts. Some of them may be planning hostile acts, or not, we don't know, but they aren't being shot down in the act of committing violent crimes.

Now, they can shoot American citizens the same way.
How long until drone attacks can be used on US soil?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Drones are not arresting anyone, nor are the targets committing hostile acts. Some of them may be planning hostile acts, or not, we don't know, but they aren't being shot down in the act of committing violent crimes.

Now, they can shoot American citizens the same way.
How long until drone attacks can be used on US soil?

Drones are not killing anyone in the US...zero...and they are not planned to be....The question was asked...could they be legally...and yes as I stated above they can. If they where in some circumstance where a major terrorist act was in the middle of being committed and a drone strike was the only and best solution they could legally do it...Just as they could legally shoot the terrorist with a gun. Just like the question, is it legal to shoot down a Civilian 747 with a f-15...ask that 15 years ago and people would shit a brick if the white house said yes...But then on sept 11...no one ever had any question it was legal and that we should do it.

 

[PLC1]

Drones are not killing anyone in the US...zero...and they are not planned to be....The question was asked...could they be legally...and yes as I stated above they can. If they where in some circumstance where a major terrorist act was in the middle of being committed and a drone strike was the only and best solution they could legally do it...Just as they could legally shoot the terrorist with a gun. Just like the question, is it legal to shoot down a Civilian 747 with a f-15...ask that 15 years ago and people would shit a brick if the white house said yes...But then on sept 11...no one ever had any question it was legal and that we should do it.

No, drones are not killing anyone in the USA, at least not at the present moment. Are they planned to be? No one outside of the inner circle could possibly know that one way or another. Suppose that the answer is an emphatic no, no one plans to ever use drones on US soil. The problem with that is the power to reach out and kill someone resides not with the present administration, but with the presidency.

Who is the next president, and the one after that?

If you don't know, then the powers that keep accruing to that office should send a chill up your back.

 

[dogtowner]

No, drones are not killing anyone in the USA, at least not at the present moment. Are they planned to be? No one outside of the inner circle could possibly know that one way or another. Suppose that the answer is an emphatic no, no one plans to ever use drones on US soil. The problem with that is the power to reach out and kill someone resides not with the present administration, but with the presidency.

Who is the next president, and the one after that?

If you don't know, then the powers that keep accruing to that office should send a chill up your back.

Holder did not define what a terririst was.
The administration has admitted condidering right wing groups as them though.

So it has become a political matter but that does not trouble Poc as he agrees and he is not considering the principle. Short sighted.

 

[PLC1]

Holder did not define what a terririst was.
The administration has admitted condidering right wing groups as them though.

So it has become a political matter but that does not trouble Poc as he agrees and he is not considering the principle. Short sighted.

No, he didn't define what a terrorist was. That will be up to future and as yet undetermined leaders. Whether and to what degree one trusts the current administration is irrelevant, as the power to kill an undefined group of people without adequate oversight rests with those future and as yet undetermined leaders.

Are the KKK terrorists? How about t he drug cartels? The ACLU? Who knows how the term might be determined in the future?

 

[BigRob]

Holder did not define what a terririst was.
The administration has admitted condidering right wing groups as them though.

The AUMF describes who we are at war with -- not the President. Unless some "right wing" group is money laundering or something for Al Qaeda, then they are not legitimate targets here.

So it has become a political matter but that does not trouble Poc as he agrees and he is not considering the principle. Short sighted.

I think it has become a political matter after it seemingly detatched a little from what the reality of the situation is.

 

[Texas_tea]

The AUMF describes who we are at war with -- not the President. Unless some "right wing" group is money laundering or something for Al Qaeda, then they are not legitimate targets here.

The family of Aw-Laki's son denies that the 16 year old American citizen had anything to do with his father's terror network. The White House refuses to release any information about the attack including confirming that the son was involved.

Essentially the US government labeled an underage American citizen a terrorist, killed him with a drone strike with out any oversight and now refuses to say why or release any information about he attack.

If you are OK with the US Gov being able to kill US citizen at home or abroad who are not engaged, without any explanation, in secrecy and without due process, then this is where we can agree to disagree on the 5th Amendment.

 

[BigRob]

The family of Aw-Laki's son denies that the 16 year old American citizen had anything to do with his father's terror network. The White House refuses to release any information about the attack including confirming that the son was involved.

This is just the point we were at earlier -- his son was killed in a strike that also killed other high level terrorists that were part of his father's network. Officials in Yemen have stated this, and US officials confirmed it off the record. Now, either the kid was just hanging out with these high level terrorists in some other capacity, or more likely, the US had no idea the kid was even there.

Essentially the US government labeled an underage American citizen a terrorist, killed him with a drone strike with out any oversight and now refuses to say why or release any information about he attack.

From the evidence that we have about the attack -- that is the most unlikely scenario.

If you are OK with the US Gov being able to kill US citizen at home or abroad who are not engaged, without any explanation, in secrecy and without due process, then this is where we can agree to disagree on the 5th Amendment.

As we have been over -- what is "engaged", what is "due process" -- I maintain, and I'm sure you don't want me to type up the whole argument again, that these actions were indeed proper.

 

[Texas_tea]

This is just the point we were at earlier -- his son was killed in a strike that also killed other high level terrorists that were part of his father's network. Officials in Yemen have stated this, and US officials confirmed it off the record. Now, either the kid was just hanging out with these high level terrorists in some other capacity, or more likely, the US had no idea the kid was even there.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not on a kill list. He was not even accused of a crime. He was clearly the "target" of the US drone strike. Even if he was "just hanging out with these high level terrorist" (which has not been confirmed) does not give Obama the right to target and kill a US citizen who has not been accused of a crime and without due process.

Furthermore, the administration has neither acknowledged his death or acknowledged that it killed him. It has, indeed, done everything it possibly can to avoid saying how and why it killed him, and has answered the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU with a blanket insistence that it is not obligated to confirm or deny the existence of the CIA's drone program, much less disclose information about those the drone program has killed.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891

From the evidence that we have about the attack -- that is the most unlikely scenario.

What evidence? There should be full disclosure of who, how, and why anytime the US Government kills an American citizen! You are only assuming that is the most unlikely scenario.

As we have been over -- what is "engaged", what is "due process" -- I maintain, and I'm sure you don't want me to type up the whole argument again, that these actions were indeed proper.

The definition of "engaged" is simple in this context. Waco was engaged against the Federal Government. Randy Weaver was not engaged when CIA agent, Lon Horiuchi assassinated his wife at Ruby Ridge. Christopher Doner was engaged at the time the smoke grenade was tossed into the cabin he was in. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not engaged.

And, moreover, if you believe that some secret deliberation made behind closed doors by the Executive Branch counts for "due process" for American citizens that may or may not have even been accused of a crime, then again, we, at this point can agree to disagree.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No, drones are not killing anyone in the USA, at least not at the present moment. Are they planned to be? No one outside of the inner circle could possibly know that one way or another. Suppose that the answer is an emphatic no, no one plans to ever use drones on US soil. The problem with that is the power to reach out and kill someone resides not with the present administration, but with the presidency.

Who is the next president, and the one after that?

If you don't know, then the powers that keep accruing to that office should send a chill up your back.

again the power to kill someone in the act of committing a violent crime is not new...your Police force uses it often. The only thing changing is the weapon. This is not a new power...its been in place since forever.

 

[dogtowner]

again the power to kill someone in the act of committing a violent crime is not new...your Police force uses it often. The only thing changing is the weapon. This is not a new power...its been in place since forever.

you are assuming a violent attack is underway or imminent. they dont limit drone strikes so elsewhere or here.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you are assuming a violent attack is underway or imminent. they dont limit drone strikes so elsewhere or here.

no they don't...because those are part of a war and in other nations where we don't have police. I know you know this, but the Military does shit overseas that it can not do legally to citizens in the US...all the time..since there was a military.

Again...plane hijacked by by a American...who is going to fly the 747 into the white house...Would you down it with a F-15?
Yes: why is it ok to use a F-15 on a American but not a drone?
No: you would let the white house be destroyed and the plane anyway?

There are rules in place on use of force in the United states, even on non citizens. Do you believe that somehow a drone is just not subject to them even though anything else is?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not on a kill list. He was not even accused of a crime. He was clearly the "target" of the US drone strike. Even if he was "just hanging out with these high level terrorist" (which has not been confirmed) does not give Obama the right to target and kill a US citizen who has not been accused of a crime and without due process.

Furthermore, the administration has neither acknowledged his death or acknowledged that it killed him. It has, indeed, done everything it possibly can to avoid saying how and why it killed him, and has answered the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU with a blanket insistence that it is not obligated to confirm or deny the existence of the CIA's drone program, much less disclose information about those the drone program has killed.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891



What evidence? There should be full disclosure of who, how, and why anytime the US Government kills an American citizen! You are only assuming that is the most unlikely scenario.



The definition of "engaged" is simple in this context. Waco was engaged against the Federal Government. Randy Weaver was not engaged when CIA agent, Lon Horiuchi assassinated his wife at Ruby Ridge. Christopher Doner was engaged at the time the smoke grenade was tossed into the cabin he was in. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not engaged.

And, moreover, if you believe that some secret deliberation made behind closed doors by the Executive Branch counts for "due process" for American citizens that may or may not have even been accused of a crime, then again, we, at this point can agree to disagree.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not on a kill list. He was not even accused of a crime. He was clearly the "target" of the US drone strike. Even if he was "just hanging out with these high level terrorist" (which has not been confirmed) does not give Obama the right to target and kill a US citizen who has not been accused of a crime and without due process.

Furthermore, the administration has neither acknowledged his death or acknowledged that it killed him. It has, indeed, done everything it possibly can to avoid saying how and why it killed him, and has answered the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU with a blanket insistence that it is not obligated to confirm or deny the existence of the CIA's drone program, much less disclose information about those the drone program has killed.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891



What evidence? There should be full disclosure of who, how, and why anytime the US Government kills an American citizen! You are only assuming that is the most unlikely scenario.



The definition of "engaged" is simple in this context. Waco was engaged against the Federal Government. Randy Weaver was not engaged when CIA agent, Lon Horiuchi assassinated his wife at Ruby Ridge. Christopher Doner was engaged at the time the smoke grenade was tossed into the cabin he was in. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not engaged.

And, moreover, if you believe that some secret deliberation made behind closed doors by the Executive Branch counts for "due process" for American citizens that may or may not have even been accused of a crime, then again, we, at this point can agree to disagree.

you seem to just ignore the fact that Ibrahim al-Banna, a leader in al Qaeda, was the listed target of the strike...that he was not killed in the stike, does not change who the target was. Not evryone killed in war, was the target..