Justice Dept Can Order Drone Strikes On Americans

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why an American citizen would be associating with known terrorists and chumming it up with them in the tourist hotspots of Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, or Afghanistan?

Maybe because he was a terrorist. Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why we should believe that U.S. intelligence will be so correct and proficient in every case as to justify blowing a dozen or so people away.

[108]

the police drone state has come to us via our elected officials who made some nice campaign loot from the drone industry

"we the corporation"

but hey, don't protest the corporate takeover of our country, or you'll get maced, beaten, and thrown in jail....with one half of the political party's calling you dirty hippies and freeloaders, trying to undermine any push against it

just awesome!!!!!

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Maybe because he was a terrorist.

Gasp! Who would have thought? A person hanging out and acting chummy with known terrorists is more likely than not: a terrorist. Regardless of what their passport is.

Perhaps you might have a plausible reason why we should believe that U.S. intelligence will be so correct and proficient in every case as to justify blowing a dozen or so people away.

It's impossible to be 100% accurate every time. In any job or in any decision.

And our drone policy isn't just "a hope and a prayer" we're right. There have to be a couple of different indicators prior to any strike being approved. Including bending over backward to make sure civilians aren't around. Accidents still happen, obviously, but as much (if not more) blame should be attached to the terrorists who deliberately hide behind women and children, daring us to target them anyway.

[GatorAvatar]

So we already killed American terrorists abroad and we now want to kill them in the USA. Liberals have been criticizing Obama on this for over three years now. Nothing new here.

[gator996]

I haven't looked at the memo yet...

Doesn't it pertain to Americans overseas?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by gator996

Asymetric warfare is going to be the dominant form of fighting that we need to align our future military for...

In my own humble opinion, the increasing prevalence of ever-sophisticated drones could easily reduce the "cost of war" to where nation-states become far more aggressive in their dealings.

The main historical deterrent to war has been 1.) high human cost (ie: body bags) and 2.) high capital cost. Largely eliminating the human costs with cheap, robotic drones that do the fighting (you can build 10 or more stealthy drones for the cost of 1 5th generation fighter) can reduce the "cost of war" calculus for different nation-states--up to and including our own. I don't see that as a promising development, by any means.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

Wow. This is scary stuff and sorry you libs out there, this article came from your own media's mouths. So you can't say it's from "Faux News" so it's fabricated.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...americans?lite



That means anyone is fair game to the Obama administration, even those that are deemed rivals. If I were Rush, Hannity, Trump, and any other "right-wing extremist", I'd be concerned. Militia groups should be on the lookout. Now you know why we need assault rifles.....no way you can shoot down these things with a hunting rifle (although not much chance with anything else).

apparently you suspect Rush and Hannity of being senior leaders of Al Qaeda. I'm curious if you have any evidence to back that up.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

In my own humble opinion, the increasing prevalence of ever-sophisticated drones could easily reduce the "cost of war" to where nation-states become far more aggressive in their dealings.

The main historical deterrent to war has been 1.) high human cost (ie: body bags) and 2.) high capital cost. Largely eliminating the human costs with cheap, robotic drones that do the fighting (you can build 10 or more stealthy drones for the cost of 1 5th generation fighter) can reduce the "cost of war" calculus for different nation-states--up to and including our own. I don't see that as a promising development, by any means.

Never said it was promising...

I agree with your points.

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by oragator1

This is the exact same kind of memo that folks in the Bush administration gave themselves the OK to have "enhanced interrogation techniques" with.
There's something wrong with a system where the government can make these kinds of decisions through a secret process, execute them through clandestine activity, without them ever seeing the light of day. Something isn't legal because an official says it is, it's legal because a court says it is.
Just one more example of post 9/11 hysteria eroding the bedrocks of our system.

I think it's even worse, because anyone can be killed at the discretion of a government official. Had the Bush administration done this, the press would have gone berserk.

What explanation is there for the abrogation of Obama's insistence on the right to trial by jury, right to due process, etc.? Did not Obama slam Bush over enhanced interrogation, "wire tapping," etc. Were there not threats to bring legal action against those in the Bush administration who participated in "enhanced interrogation"?

Now Bush will be responsible for Obama's killings based on the decision of a government official.

Note: Outrage reserved for conservatives.

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by gator1986

Start attacking Americans it will be the downfall of the US Government... I do not believe any of this, there are more gun owners outside the military than within. If they want to see society fall, if they want to watch police die, firefighters, EMT's, etc... etc.... Then they will start attacking Americans, which I do not believe the the people will stand for. It will be the straw that breaks the camels back. I also personally believe if they asked military personnel to attack the citizens of the United States, 1/8 of them actually would, the other half would turn around and fire back at them instead.

I fully believe the article that the OA thinks it's has a right to attack American citizens with drones, but would it really happen?

Does anyone here honestly believe, considering the military's overall disdain for Obama, that if military personnel were ordered to use a drone on American citizens that they'd actually do it? If they did, you'd have a civil war on your hands.

Just imagine if Obama ordered them to strike a target in or near their home town?

Just like with the military. Imagine if Obama declared "all guns must be confiscated" (something I WANT him try IMO). There is no way the military or the National Guard is going to go out and hold American citizens at gunpoint and demnd they give up their guns. There's no way they'd start shooting on their friends and families and loved ones.

My guess if Obama tried that, the military itself would drag Obama out of the WH and place him under arrest for treason, and Obama knows this.

He knows the military hates him and he can't rely on them for something like that. It's why he'll never be able to take away anyone's guns in this country.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by DeanMeadGator

I think it's even worse, because anyone can be killed at the discretion of a government official. Had the Bush administration done this, the press would have gone berserk.

What explanation is there for the abrogation of Obama's insistence on the right to trial by jury, right to due process, etc.? Did not Obama slam Bush over enhanced interrogation, "wire tapping," etc. Were there not threats to bring legal action against those in the Bush administration who participated in "enhanced interrogation"?

Now Bush will be responsible for Obama's killings based on the decision of a government official.

Note: Outrage reserved for conservatives.

We can't kill a treasonist on the field of battle before a trial?

[egator1245]

Originally Posted by gator996

We can't kill a treasonist on the field of battle before a trial?

Field of battle while fighting is one thing, but these have often been in someone's house.

[gator996]

The field of battle for Al-Qaeda leadership increasingly is in civilian neighborhoods...

OBL was in a house.... not in the caves of Afghanistan.

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by egator1245

Field of battle while fighting is one thing, but these have often been in someone's house.

Sitting in a house coordinating attacks, or making bombs, or recruiting suicide bombers IS the field of battle. Or are we to wait until they are about to self-detonate?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by gator996

Never said it was promising...

I agree with your points.

Never thought you were implying that.

It's probably worthy of it's own thread--don't want to side-track this one too much. But suffice it to say, given mankind's history with any advanced new weaponry that, on surface level, gives one group an advantage over another--well, it tends to be used more often than not. And glad we agree that isn't a great development for world affairs or humanity.

[JerseyGator01]

Such a coincidence that this is leaked to the media after 500,000 attend the Roe rally in DC and this administration's tendency to label pro-lifers as terrorists.

Liberal logic:

Bombing = good

Torture = bad.

[GatorAvatar]

So let's say we spot Adam Gadan (sp?) an American-turned AQ member in Pakistan possibly plotting an attack. Should we torch him or not? Remember, he is an American.

[bluelang]

What is all this weird "American Citizens" stuff? The government can do anything short of what is forbidden by the constitution to "American Citizens." Just about every single tool the police use today was invented for a war somewhere.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

In my own humble opinion, the increasing prevalence of ever-sophisticated drones could easily reduce the "cost of war" to where nation-states become far more aggressive in their dealings.

The main historical deterrent to war has been 1.) high human cost (ie: body bags) and 2.) high capital cost. Largely eliminating the human costs with cheap, robotic drones that do the fighting (you can build 10 or more stealthy drones for the cost of 1 5th generation fighter) can reduce the "cost of war" calculus for different nation-states--up to and including our own. I don't see that as a promising development, by any means.

Good point. How difficult will it be in the future for less powerful nations - or groups - to employ drones? Is this technology something only the more advanced can afford and employ - or not?

[Row6]

The memo exposes the legal machinations behind a policy which we all know already existed. It's not really something new in that sense. It's a difficult issue, but I am in agreement with present policy, though I would want judicial review of some kind. Battlefield parallels seem convincing to me.

Comparisons to torture policy are not equivalent IMO, as there are many other ways to skin that cat that are now determined to be more effective, they can impact how other nations may treat our troops if captured, and degrade whatever - admittedly weak - international standards we have been instrumental in building up over the last century.