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.
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.
We're using terrorist tactics against terrorists?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.
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
ďIím somewhat disappointed that more African Americans donít think for themselves and just go with whatever theyíre supposed to say and think."
- Dr. Benjamin Carson
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.
"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
How does Team Obama justify killing him?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...erican/264028/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.
This is why the constitution made this illegal. Anyone who feels they have this power will abuse and corrupt it.
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.