• US government to disclose its secret legal justification for drone strikes on Americans
    26 replies, posted
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/20/us-usa-drones-idUSBREA4J11D20140520?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637[/url] [quote]The U.S. government has decided to disclose its legal justification for the use of drones against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, a senior Obama administration official said on Tuesday. The U.S. solicitor general has made the decision not to appeal a federal appeals court's decision in April requiring the release of the redacted memorandum spelling out the justification for the policy, the official said. The court and the Justice Department have not set a time for the document's release. While the legal analysis that justifies the use of drones will be disclosed, some facts will still be excluded from the document, the official said. In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month reversed a lower-court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen. Ruling for the New York Times in the case, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.[/quote]
Vote Rand Paul 2016 he will stop the drones. He will filibuster them until they cease to exist.
Justification : "they were enemies of America :downs:" [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] Aka "because we said so"
Americans* *Living in the Middle East with terrorist groups.
As an enemy of America, I denounce this.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;44863790]Justification : "they were enemies of America :downs:" [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [b]Aka "because we said so"[/b][/QUOTE] You left out the part where it's because they've been confirmed to have had direct connections with militant Islamic groups. People like Anwar al-Awlaki and Adam Gadahn don't just get the attention of the CIA, or for that matter most intelligence agencies in the western hemisphere, for just being random jackholes.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;44864031]You left out the part where it's because they've been confirmed to have had direct connections with militant Islamic groups. People like Anwar al-Awlaki and Adam Gadahn don't just get the attention of the CIA, or for that matter most intelligence agencies in the western hemisphere, for just being random jackholes.[/QUOTE] I think the point is that they can use this justification to kill anybody critical of the US government. The next Noam Chomsky or Edward Snowden might find themselves on a "terror" list and on the receiving end of a drone strike. I don't like using the "slippery slope" argument, but it's been shown that the US government isn't even capable at deciding who is actually a terror suspect. They bombed a wedding in Yemen for fucks sake. "oops we just killed a bunch of people" - zero accountability
I see Glomar responses on the horizon.
we needed a new Walmart and the drones were taking up space
[QUOTE=seano12;44863774]Vote Rand Paul 2016 he will stop the drones. He will filibuster them until they cease to exist.[/QUOTE] Rand Paul is perfectly okay with drones and fully endorses them being used on US soil to blow up armed robbers [video=youtube;ETGAlGre-lY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETGAlGre-lY[/video] Just don't fly over his hot tub or his farm, evil EPA.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;44864031]You left out the part where it's because they've been confirmed to have had direct connections with militant Islamic groups. People like Anwar al-Awlaki and Adam Gadahn don't just get the attention of the CIA, or for that matter most intelligence agencies in the western hemisphere, for just being random jackholes.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter? As American citizens it is their right to a fair trial. If you walk into a bank and shoot three people in front of witnesses and on camera with your prints on the gun, you still get a trial.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;44864031]You left out the part where it's because they've been confirmed to have had direct connections with militant Islamic groups. People like Anwar al-Awlaki and Adam Gadahn don't just get the attention of the CIA, or for that matter most intelligence agencies in the western hemisphere, for just being random jackholes.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter how bad they might be, going around with drones and killing American citizens (and at the same time often innocent civilians) in other countries sets a very bad precedent. This slope is a little slippery.
So instead we send the U.S. army in to kill twice as many people as need be, including several soldiers. Being a citizen should not give you immunity.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;44865024]Doesn't matter? As American citizens it is their right to a fair trial. If you walk into a bank and shoot three people in front of witnesses and on camera with your prints on the gun, you still get a trial.[/QUOTE] Not if the cops show up and shoot you when you turn the gun on them. There are situations where a trial is not possible.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44865091]So instead wer send the U.S. army in to kill twelve as many people as need be, including several soldiers. Being a citizen should not give you immunity.[/QUOTE] So you're saying you're cool with our government blowing up weddings? The way we've been using these drones seems to be pretty careless to me.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;44865108]Not if the cops show up and shoot you when you turn the gun on them. There are situations where a trial is not possible.[/QUOTE] Okay. We're these guys directly shooting at other American citizens? No, they were not. I honestly cannot comprehend how other Americans could be supporting the precedent of execution without trial. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;44865024]Doesn't matter? As American citizens it is their right to a fair trial.[/QUOTE] Right, so who's going to go collect this guy and bring him back here for said trial? Are we just going to deploy the Army Rangers and tell them they have to go through a terrorist stronghold in an unfriendly region and kill everybody except that one guy because he has a ~special status~ based on his place of birth? And in the end they kill him anyway because he grabbed a gun and started shooting at them.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;44865024]Doesn't matter? As American citizens it is their right to a fair trial. If you walk into a bank and shoot three people in front of witnesses and on camera with your prints on the gun, you still get a trial.[/QUOTE] We also hold people who aren't US citizens on trial when they commit crimes in the US- does that mean we have no justification for killing insurgents overseas instead of deporting them to the US to face trial? In a perfect world anyone accused of a crime would be brought back to face trial, but in the real world we don't have that luxury, and the choice is to either employ extrajudicial killing against known, confirmed militants, or leave them alone as they kill innocents. It's not the best solution, it's not the democratic solution, it's not something anybody wants to do, but it's the only choice we have. When drones are used to kill people without trial on US soil, then I'll agree with you 100%, but in parts of the world where we simply can't pursue a legal solution military action is the only way to get the job done. If it were a team of Navy SEALs pulling the trigger on the ground we wouldn't be having this discussion- most people are fine with direct military action against known terrorists, whether they hold US citizenship or not. It's only because drones are considered scarier that it becomes contentious.
Like the right to a fair trial is such a cornerstone of our justice system and our society as a whole. What if the government one day decided that Westboro Baptist church no longer had their right to free speech? I would be outraged, as should everyone else. I do not support the wbc, but as Americans they have the right to say what they want. Denying them that right creates a dangerous precedent that could allow for the suppression of others, depending on what the government has decided in secret courts is allowed. -snip off topic- [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;44865147]We also hold people who aren't US citizens on trial when they commit crimes in the US- does that mean we have no justification for killing insurgents overseas instead of deporting them to the US to face trial? In a perfect world anyone accused of a crime would be brought back to face trial, but in the real world we don't have that luxury, and the choice is to either employ extrajudicial killing against known, confirmed militants, or leave them alone as they kill innocents. It's not the best solution, it's not the democratic solution, it's not something anybody wants to do, but it's the only choice we have. When drones are used to kill people without trial on US soil, then I'll agree with you 100%, but in parts of the world where we simply can't pursue a legal solution military action is the only way to get the job done. If it were a team of Navy SEALs pulling the trigger on the ground we wouldn't be having this discussion- most people are fine with direct military action against known terrorists, whether they hold US citizenship or not. It's only because drones are considered scarier that it becomes contentious.[/QUOTE] As an american citizen, an attempt to bring him in should have been made. Even if it was just a fucking email that said "turn yourself in or we will drone u" and i wouldnt approve of his extrajudicial execution by any means, whether it be by drone, SEAL team 6, or snu snu. and you have much more insight into this sort of stuff than i do, so i really respect your opinion and i understand why it was done, i just dont agree with it at a very basic level.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;44865202]Like the right to a fair trial is such a cornerstone of our justice system and our society as a whole. What if the government one day decided that Westboro Baptist church no longer had their right to free speech? I would be outraged, as should everyone else. I do not support the wbc, but as Americans they have the right to say what they want. Denying them that right creates a dangerous precedent that could allow for the suppression of others, depending on what the government has decided in secret courts is allowed. [/QUOTE] It sets a precedent that allows the suppression of others who engage in being hostile combatants and actively seek to harm Americans. If you pick up a rifle and shoot at Americans, if you go to a training camp to try to kill Americans, if you actively and openly work for Al-Qaeda, then yeah, you kind of lose your right to a fair trial while you're overseas. This really isn't a new thing- British defectors who fought in the SS British Free Corps in WW2, for example, were treated just like German combatants and weren't considered immune. The longstanding precedent is that if you actively aid and abet the enemy, you're considered a traitor, and you lose the legal protections of your home state. If these people are caught in the US, they'll be arrested. They'll go on trial. The 9/11 hijackers experienced this, we didn't summarily execute everyone we caught. But when we're talking about intervention in another country, courts and trials are a luxury we can't afford. This isn't about party lines, it's about necessity. For better or for worse, our justice system ends at the border. I get what you're saying about precedent but it's an apples and oranges comparison. Again, we're not talking about dissidents within the US, or activists that took a trip overseas, or wannabes trying to join up- these are people who have spent years or even decades working with the worst of the worst to deliberately harm Americans. These are people like Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, and Anwar al-Awlaki, who dedicated their lives to supporting insurgent groups. I understand that it can be a slippery slope when you're talking about killing without trial, but the evidence against these guys is pretty damning, and we've never done anything like this within the US. Like I said, in a perfect world we'd arrest them and put them on trial, and I totally understand where you're coming from. Extrajudicial killing is just a shitty thing we do because we really don't have any good alternative, and I don't think anyone can excuse that.
Just get a drone hunting permit, duh. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Qf3Q50u.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=catbarf;44865369]It sets a precedent that allows the suppression of others who engage in being hostile combatants and actively seek to harm Americans. If you pick up a rifle and shoot at Americans, if you go to a training camp to try to kill Americans, if you actively and openly work for Al-Qaeda, then yeah, you kind of lose your right to a fair trial while you're overseas. This really isn't a new thing- British defectors who fought in the SS British Free Corps in WW2, for example, were treated just like German combatants and weren't considered immune. The longstanding precedent is that if you actively aid and abet the enemy, you're considered a traitor, and you lose the legal protections of your home state. If these people are caught in the US, they'll be arrested. They'll go on trial. The 9/11 hijackers experienced this, we didn't summarily execute everyone we caught. But when we're talking about intervention in another country, courts and trials are a luxury we can't afford. This isn't about party lines, it's about necessity. For better or for worse, our justice system ends at the border. I get what you're saying about precedent but it's an apples and oranges comparison. Again, we're not talking about dissidents within the US, or activists that took a trip overseas, or wannabes trying to join up- these are people who have spent years or even decades working with the worst of the worst to deliberately harm Americans. These are people like Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, and Anwar al-Awlaki, who dedicated their lives to supporting insurgent groups. I understand that it can be a slippery slope when you're talking about killing without trial, but the evidence against these guys is pretty damning, and we've never done anything like this within the US. Like I said, in a perfect world we'd arrest them and put them on trial, and I totally understand where you're coming from. Extrajudicial killing is just a shitty thing we do because we really don't have any good alternative, and I don't think anyone can excuse that.[/QUOTE] 10/10 great reply (not sarcasm) for real thank you for taking the time for a well thought out reply
The way I see it, they're basically rebels who have declared war against the US.
This isn't going to change anything, just like the release of the legal justification for torturing prisoners didn't really change anything.
relevant: [IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/drone_loads_product_image_2.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;44865128]Okay. We're these guys directly shooting at other American citizens? No, they were not. I honestly cannot comprehend how other Americans could be supporting the precedent of execution without trial. What the fuck is wrong with you people?[/QUOTE] Technically fighting for an enemy faction is an automatic renouncement of your citizenship. Fighting for foreign military factions has pretty much always been considered a defacto renouncement but it is also a legal one in many circumstances.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.