Legal Case for Drone Strikes on Americans

[MoFinz]

Sure I did. I'm always up for a good laugh.

Thats what she said to ya huh
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Spesh]

Police officers are taught to be ready to fire when they pull out their weapon and to shoot to kill. In every situation its their job to take the suspect into custody, but sometimes they have to fire to protect themselves or others. I personally dont view our drone program as all that different. If we have the resources available to end a threat by taking our wayward citizens into custody for trial, we absolutely should. But if the choices are ending a threat by killing the American citizen or letting them go to continue plotting and potentially succeeding, i vote kill.

Some of those killed have publically declared they no longer want to be Americans, should we accept their own declaration in the most extreme way? When you go to court you can waive your rights, should this extend to other policies? Should we force their rights on them when they no longer want them? For my money, as i suggested above, it depends on situation and setting. And, as TheWalrus pointed out, we have a precedent for killing Americans who fight for the enemy.

[rob19]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscent of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

[GoFins!]

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscent of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

We're using terrorist tactics against terrorists?

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

[Dolphins9954]

According to this illegal and unconstitutional justification of killing Americans (without their due process rights). Then a bunch of drone bombs should be sent to Washington ASAP. Especially the CIA building.

[Dolphins9954]

We're using terrorist tactics against terrorists?

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Plus it's a war crime.

[Dolphins9954]

Police officers are taught to be ready to fire when they pull out their weapon and to shoot to kill. In every situation its their job to take the suspect into custody, but sometimes they have to fire to protect themselves or others. I personally dont view our drone program as all that different. If we have the resources available to end a threat by taking our wayward citizens into custody for trial, we absolutely should. But if the choices are ending a threat by killing the American citizen or letting them go to continue plotting and potentially succeeding, i vote kill.

Some of those killed have publically declared they no longer want to be Americans, should we accept their own declaration in the most extreme way? When you go to court you can waive your rights, should this extend to other policies? Should we force their rights on them when they no longer want them? For my money, as i suggested above, it depends on situation and setting. And, as TheWalrus pointed out, we have a precedent for killing Americans who fight for the enemy.

Even though illegal it all sounds good in theory. But doesn't the part where they don't have to provide ANY evidence or ANY oversight bother you at all??? Not to mention this is happening in countires that had nothing to do with 9-11 and against people who had nothing to do with 9-11. What about children??? Mr. Sandy Hook dropped a bomb on a 16 year old american child. And according to Obama's own press sec. the excuse was "he should have had a better father". You really think that's cool???

[Dolphins9954]

How does Team Obama justify killing him?

The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



This is why the constitution made this illegal. Anyone who feels they have this power will abuse and corrupt it.

[Spesh]

Even though illegal it all sounds good in theory. But doesn't the part where they don't have to provide ANY evidence or ANY oversight bother you at all??? Not to mention this is happening in countires that had nothing to do with 9-11 and against people who had nothing to do with 9-11. What about children??? Mr. Sandy Hook dropped a bomb on a 16 year old american child. And according to Obama's own press sec. the excuse was "he should have had a better father". You really think that's cool???

My post was refering to the theory/idea behind drone striking American terrorists. Ive questioned the effectiveness of the practice previously, as we wont feel the consequences of our actions until a generation(or longer) from now. Many of these people who are growing up without brothers, sisters, mothers, and/or fathers are going to be at an age to do something about their misgivings. Sure, we've ripped through al-Qaeda, but what about tommorows extremists? They are being made today.

If you have a person who is engaging in hostile actions while traveling with Islamic extremists who are known to be actively aggressive towards America, isnt that "evidence" in a military scenario? In WW2, it was impossible to identify the nationality of every single person shooting at you, all they could do was fire at those who fired at them or attack anyone at an enemy encampment. The technology and tactics have changed, but the doctrine and logic behind it hasnt. On the other hand, if we have enough intelligence to know there is an American in a target zone then we should also have enough intelligence to know why they are there. And if they have publically declared their intent to give up their rights, shouldnt we honor their wishes(albeit in an extreme way)?

Much like a police officer has to take down a madman pointing his gun at a innocent pedestrian, its our responsibility to neutralize an American who is actively trying to kill people. The prefered "neutralization" would be, of course, an arrest and trial. But if the situation is to do nothing and potentially watch him kill someone or kill him ourselves, i say take him down.

[Dolphins9954]

My post was refering to the theory/idea behind drone striking American terrorists. Ive questioned the effectiveness of the practice previously, as we wont feel the consequences of our actions until a generation(or longer) from now. Many of these people who are growing up without brothers, sisters, mothers, and/or fathers are going to be at an age to do something about their misgivings. Sure, we've ripped through al-Qaeda, but what about tommorows extremists? They are being made today.

If you have a person who is engaging in hostile actions while traveling with Islamic extremists who are known to be actively aggressive towards America, isnt that "evidence" in a military scenario? In WW2, it was impossible to identify the nationality of every single person shooting at you, all they could do was fire at those who fired at them or attack anyone at an enemy encampment. The technology and tactics have changed, but the doctrine and logic behind it hasnt. On the other hand, if we have enough intelligence to know there is an American in a target zone then we should also have enough intelligence to know why they are there. And if they have publically declared their intent to give up their rights, shouldnt we honor their wishes(albeit in an extreme way)?

Much like a police officer has to take down a madman pointing his gun at a innocent pedestrian, its our responsibility to neutralize an American who is actively trying to kill people. The prefered "neutralization" would be, of course, an arrest and trial. But if the situation is to do nothing and potentially watch him kill someone or kill him ourselves, i say take him down.

A madman engaging in killing people is quite different than a 16 year old child looking for his father. Either way the police that killed that madman still have to produce plenty of evidence and paper work. Obama and company don't have to produce squat. Huge difference.