President Can Use Drone Strikes Against Americans on U.S. Soil

[JayC]

Involvement does not equal, "engaged in combat".  There is little doubt that both of the men were 'involved', Aulaqi may very well have been operational, but I just don't think the President (any President) should get to pick and choose which american citizens he gets to kill.  Even more so when that same President denied in court the existence of the "kill list", didn't charge him with a crime, and made no attempt to capture him.  Khan was almost certainly not 'operational' let alone imminent threat.  

 

But, you again glossed over the son, a 16 year old with no direct ties to any terrorist organization.  Nobody has claimed he was "operational", or "engaged in combat", yet it appears as if he could have been targeted.  So explain to me exactly how we justify the killing of a unarmed 16 year old eating dinner on the side of the road? 

 

 

JAYC just so you are aware after the attack AQAP confirmed both mens involvement with the terrorist network. 

Edited March 8, 2013 by JayC

[c.a.willard]

I didnt gloss over i left him out because i already stated i dont really believe the story behind his death.  Nor do i emphatically trust our government.  In fact i have a health distrust of the majority of government ofiicials.  when you are recruiting and financing alqaeda operations that is operational and being engaged in combat.  You do not have to be the one conducting the operation planning and assisting in it is enough.   

 

Better yet Jay what would have been your solution

[JayC]

Maybe my education is lacking, but recruiting and financing for AQAP may very well be a crime, but does not meet the definition of "engaged in combat" nor an imminent threat.  Nor do they constitute an act of war, or make somebody an unlawful enemy combatant.  Therefore not covered under the same theory of how a policeman shoots and armed suspect, or a SWAT officer uses deadly force to end a hostage stand off.

 

Lets pretend that certain aspects of recruiting maybe rise to the level of 'operational', but never to the level of 'engaged in combat'...  but where is that line drawn?  Is providing religious advice, even if that advice justifies armed attacks on the US 'operational'?  Where exactly does a persons free exercise of religion and preaching that religion turn into an operational terrorist activity? Further, where is the proof that he was doing anything operational?

 

Khan is an entirely different story, there is no way to describe anything he was doing as operational in nature.  It's likely that all of his documented activities were legal.

 

Since you don't believe the story behind Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi's killing what do you think happened?

 

I didnt gloss over i left him out because i already stated i dont really believe the story behind his death.  Nor do i emphatically trust our government.  In fact i have a health distrust of the majority of government ofiicials.  when you are recruiting and financing alqaeda operations that is operational and being engaged in combat.  You do not have to be the one conducting the operation planning and assisting in it is enough.   

 

Better yet Jay what would have been your solution

Edited March 8, 2013 by JayC

[c.a.willard]

and khan was killed in the awlwaki strike.  The difference i guess is what we view as engaged in combat.  For me if you are giving material support of unlawfull combatants you yourself are an unlawfull combatant.  A combatant need not be armed and in the process of fighting to be attacked.  All it takes for him to be considered an unlawfull combatant was his membership in alqaeda.  The laws of war do not require him to be anything else.  His membership in AQAP was self admitted

 

Again im not trying to avoid the 16 year olds death i am just not sure i believe the story about his death and his death may very well have been illegal both under US law and the LOAC.  

 

It really all boils down to there are limited cirumstances where it would be legal to authorize the taking of an American life with a drone strike. 

 

I see this just continuing to go around in circles so we may just have to agree to disagree, but regardless the discussion of it is important.  And a healthy distrust of government is necessary to remain a free people.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But JayC's argument is saying, on at least one point, that the President can't be judge, jury and executioner. An

American citizen has at least the right to some kind of trial before the American government can imprison or

execute them. If he is in a declared war zone in a declared war, which I will stay out of this part, and giving aid

to the enemy, altogether different, but if being related is the threshold for a death sentence, that might make

anyone a target, eventually.

 

The idea of a Presidential kill list, which was denied, but is known to exist, is not part of presidential authority.

It is the military's job to conduct war. Muddying everything up further is Holder not being specific enough to

declare what is and what isn't legal to do leaves a very bad taste in anyone's mouth for the further use of any

military hardware against the civilian populace of this country. It's called overstepping legal authority.

 

How much crap will people let him get away with to make everything gray enough to weasel himself out of

trouble when he does something like using a drone against a civilian? That's the problem.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Another thing to ponder. Do you want private tribunals used on American citizens and let someone evaporate

you with a drone without your constitutional protection? I don't think you could come close to calling that living

in a free society, like we are supposed to be living in.

 

You better be damned careful how you let technology make your life easier, because it might end up like a piece

of science fiction. Let's see "Brave New World", "Fahrenheit 451", several of Heinlein's books come to mind as a

good start to a reading list to make one think more than twice about how that technology is good or bad. Then

putting the wrong political ideology in charge of it and you can be facing disaster. Put real events like Waco, Ruby

Ridge and Fast and Furious in the mix to give you a jolt about how much you should trust your government.

 

Finally, if you give a damn about your Constitution you better be prepared to protect it just as others have had

to in the past. Just the Patriot Act scares the Hell out of me. Drones are a dangerous game changer, especially

armed and over American soil.

[DaveTN]

I do not fear being shot by a drone, nor do I fear being targeted as a terrorist.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good for you. I don't, either, but I see a time coming that will be very uncertain.

[c.a.willard]

6.8  I agree Holder culd have prevented alot of this by being less ague in his initial memo, i think the second memo calriffied things well enough for the majority of people.  I can also agree that there should be more transparency in these types of operations.  In the case of Aulaqi i would even go so far as to agree that the U.S. had plenty of time to atleast prefer charges against him.  However he was a terrorist conducting unlawfull combat against the US he was self admitedly a member of AQAP  khan was as well.  The only potential tragedy here was the death of Aulaqis son.  The documents relating to that strike should definately be released and it would not hurt to release matters of evidence relating to the other two as well. 

 

I also agree that there is great potential for misuse of this type of attack, thats why i believe there should be more transparency from the govtwhen it comes to attacks of this nature, however that does not make them illegal.

[JayC]

Ok, lets agree to disagree on the two adults....  

 

Lets focus on the teenager... 

 

While there maybe some very limited situations where premeditated killing of a criminal is lawful...

 

But, most situations it would not be...  So don't you think in all cases, we should have a clearly defined process of determining which Americans deserve to be killed and which shouldn't?  Shouldn't that process be open to third party review (courts or at least congressional oversight)?  And when that process isn't followed and an innocent is killed should their not be criminal sanctions?

 

And all of this should be done in the public 'light of day' at the very least after the fact?

 

and khan was killed in the awlwaki strike.  The difference i guess is what we view as engaged in combat.  For me if you are giving material support of unlawfull combatants you yourself are an unlawfull combatant.  A combatant need not be armed and in the process of fighting to be attacked.  All it takes for him to be considered an unlawfull combatant was his membership in alqaeda.  The laws of war do not require him to be anything else.  His membership in AQAP was self admitted

 

Again im not trying to avoid the 16 year olds death i am just not sure i believe the story about his death and his death may very well have been illegal both under US law and the LOAC.  

 

It really all boils down to there are limited cirumstances where it would be legal to authorize the taking of an American life with a drone strike. 

 

I see this just continuing to go around in circles so we may just have to agree to disagree, but regardless the discussion of it is important.  And a healthy distrust of government is necessary to remain a free people.

 

[c.a.willard]

I do agree that after the fact it should be subject to third party review.  And at minimum all documents should be available to congress that is a crucial part of checks and balances and serves to prevent abuse of power.   the LOAC do a fairly good job at determining what would be a legal threat/vs non threat non combatant.

 

and like i said in my previous post i think in regards to the 16 year old the iformation that lead to him being killed should be released.  If it is true that he was accidentally killed in a attack targeting someone else there is no great reason to not release it. 

 

 

Of course any information release many here would say is fabricated anyways. 

[TMF]

Best way not to get hit in a drone strike is to not go to Yemen and hang out with AQ. Would have been no different if it was an American reporter with ABC News that happened to be doing an interview with a targeted AQ member at the time of the strike.

I'm reminded of that reporter/camera man team that was killed in Iraq by an AWT strike, and the footage leaked to the press. Everyone is up in arms as if the pilots should have had a copy of their press pass or something. Everyone overlooks the fact that they were imbedded with armed fighters. Sorry, that's a risk you take. My heart doesn't bleed for these folks, and I think we have very real threats to the constitution without having to stand on the graves of evildoers.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think we do, too, but it is the job of the military to do these things, not POTUS. Politics should only be what

gets us in a war, not determining who the the target is after the marching orders. The President picking targets

is too political and it means the military is too politicized, which is one reason why standing armies were only

to be kept for brief periods(one year at a time, originally, wasn't it?). Our military could become our biggest

enemy by being turned against us, or morphing it into something it's not supposed to be.

 

Anyone thought that Obama could be killing targets that are offered up as trophies to wave to the American

public, while other enemies are planning or doing something worse, in other words, protecting the real enemy?

Benghazi comes to mind for me. That atrocity will never be avenged. And it has Obama's name all over it.

 

And Vietnam was a political war that got a lot of good Soldiers killed. I wonder how that would have turned out

if the military was allowed to perform to it's capability over there?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

6.8  I agree Holder culd have prevented alot of this by being less ague in his initial memo, i think the second memo calriffied things well enough for the majority of people.  I can also agree that there should be more transparency in these types of operations.  In the case of Aulaqi i would even go so far as to agree that the U.S. had plenty of time to atleast prefer charges against him.  However he was a terrorist conducting unlawfull combat against the US he was self admitedly a member of AQAP  khan was as well.  The only potential tragedy here was the death of Aulaqis son.  The documents relating to that strike should definately be released and it would not hurt to release matters of evidence relating to the other two as well. 

 

I also agree that there is great potential for misuse of this type of attack, thats why i believe there should be more transparency from the govtwhen it comes to attacks of this nature, however that does not make them illegal.

He was intentionally vague in his first memo. That's the Holder does things. He has done this before. There is

nothing trustworthy about him, or most anyone in this administration. That's all I need to know to say things

like the Patriot Act and this question about drones should be flushed down the toilet, immediately.

 

If we let these government officials get away with one thing, how many more do you think they will try and

succeed in the future? You, eradicate the behavior, then you make the behavior legal, or you ship these

fools off to prison, or execute them instead of worrying about some erratic maybe target that the military

should be concerned with, not part of a kill list from the White House.

Edited March 9, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Jesse]

Someone needs to start supplying black market RPGs to americans. Some day we might need to shoot down drones to save everyone.

[TMF]

Someone needs to start supplying black market RPGs to americans. Some day we might need to shoot down drones to save everyone.

Good luck hitting anything with an RPG more than 50 ft off the ground.

[Chucktshoes]

Good luck hitting anything with an RPG more than 50 ft off the ground.

How about an SA-7 or AT-4? might that work better? ;)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Best way not to get hit in a drone strike is to not go to Yemen and hang out with AQ. Would have been no different if it was an American reporter with ABC News that happened to be doing an interview with a targeted AQ member at the time of the strike.

I'm reminded of that reporter/camera man team that was killed in Iraq by an AWT strike, and the footage leaked to the press. Everyone is up in arms as if the pilots should have had a copy of their press pass or something. Everyone overlooks the fact that they were imbedded with armed fighters. Sorry, that's a risk you take. My heart doesn't bleed for these folks, and I think we have very real threats to the constitution without having to stand on the graves of evildoers.

If the one you are mentioning with the Apache firing on the Suburban like vehicle is it, I'm still wondering

if they were reporters. Lotsa doubt in my mind. Whoever that was should have definitely known better, to

be where they were.

[TMF]

How about an SA-7 or AT-4? might that work better? ;)

SA-7B yes... AT-4 not so much.... Unless you're one hell of a dead eye dick.

[TMF]

If the one you are mentioning with the Apache firing on the Suburban like vehicle is it, I'm still wondering
if they were reporters. Lotsa doubt in my mind. Whoever that was should have definitely known better, to
be where they were.

Well, they were confirmed to be press so I'll take their word for it. Seems like the story matches up well enough to make sense in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It really isn't any different than the reporters who imbedded with us. If one of them gets smoked by an EFP, that doesn't mean that Al Sadr was targeting the non-combatant, it just means the reporter was unlucky, and that is the risk you take. If it was an American reporter from Anywhere, Nebraska who was killed in a similar incident I would feel the same. The war still goes on whether you're a combatant or not. If I knew there was a reporter, American or not, inside a building that held enemy, it would not change my decision to try and cut it down with a .50 cal. This guy was legitimately killed whether he was aiding the enemy or not.

[TMF]

SA-7B yes... AT-4 not so much.... Unless you're one hell of a dead eye dick.

Actually I take that back... I'm not so sure you'd have luck with an SA-7; I doubt there is enough signature from the engine to get tone.

[scoutfsu]

Someone needs to start supplying black market RPGs to americans. Some day we might need to shoot down drones to save everyone.

 

 

Lol, some of you guys have been playing a little too much COD.  RPGs and AT4's at UAVs? Hahahaha, good luck with that one.  Hope your back blast area is clear :wave:

[Chucktshoes]

In my defense, I play no video games and was not in the Army. I have only a vague familiarity with the above mentioned equipment. S when I say "how about X device?" I really do mean it as a question to the grunts in attendance. :)

Anyways, I'm too busy studying how to make my own flamethrowers to worry too much about that stuff. Edited March 9, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[scoutfsu]

Haha, no worries man.  But for SA - they're unguided munitions.  You might be able to tag a large, slow moving helo if you're lucky but not a UAV.

[Chucktshoes]

I think the best options for taking out a drone would be:

1. some sort of device to disrupt/jam guidance/control systems causing drone to crash itself

2. Munitions laden mini-drones that can be quickly deployed and flown into the offending drone basically a quadcopter with live transmission camera and an electronically detonated pipe bomb.

Honestly, I think option 1 would be the easier (and less expensive) of the two options. Edited March 9, 2013 by Chucktshoes