Some people finally understand the reality behind drone strikes

[Two's in]

Much liberal wailing and breast beating going as a result of a US Justice Department memo being published. Apparently some fairly random people are making decisions about who can or can't be killed in drone strikes, including US citizens, using some fairly broad criteria:

Congress considers putting limits on drone strikes - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2013/02/05/memo-sets-rationale-to-kill-qaida-linked-citizens)

I'm genuinely curious as to who they thought was making these decisions on a daily basis? Did they think that the President was sitting down with the Supreme Court every day and agreeing who got slotted? The true irony is in a nation that is paranoid about "due process" there is a dawning realization that when the bad guys won't follow the rules, you might need to change the rules.

The obvious problem of course is who decides the targets and how good is the intel on which the decision is made? Suddenly "due process" is down to intelligence analysis and the laws of probability. Hard to deny you were an active AQ member after an active Hellfire has remodeled your bedroom with you still in it. At this point you have to hope your ratio of definite bad guys to unlucky pizza delivery guys eviscerated is suitably compelling.

Some interesting legal questions for UAV operators involved in armed actions, you'd better hope there was some serious i dotting and t crossing done on that task authorization. So who gets to put the red 'X' on the UK's target list? Or is this one of those ROE documents the public will never see.

[Just This Once...]

Two's In, you are correct that ROE documents will not see the light of day but the broad principals of UK UAV / RPAS operation are in open forum. In essence the UK operates armed UAVs in an identical manner to manned platforms. Primary mission remains ISTAR with the ability to provide an armed response if required and only when strict conditions are met.

At all times the absolute avoidance of non-combatant deaths is paramount - even if that means dumping the weapon in an empty field if the situation changes mid-flight. 'Courageous Restraint' means our guys on the ground may have to fend for themselves if the correct conditions are not met. The level of scrutiny is incredible.

The UK only conducts live missions above Afghanistan. It does not participate, co-operate or facilitate any other type of operation. UK law means that it cannot participate in any 'kill-chain' that its own RoE would preclude.

[dead_pan]

there is a dawning realization that when the bad guys won't follow the rules, you might need to change the rules

Just as long as you don't compromise those values which you hold so dear, otherwise what's the point? If you're willing to get down and dirty, what exactly differentiates you from the bad guys - your zip-code?

At this point you have to hope your ratio of definite bad guys to unlucky pizza delivery guys eviscerated is suitably compelling.

Therein lies the rub - I suspect you usually don't know who you have killed. Those drone strikes in Pakistan which went horribly wrong when there were large numbers of civilian casulaties have been recruiting gold for the Jihadists.

I recall a few years back there were reports that some Israeli Apache pilots expressed their disquiet about being called upon to conduct extrajudicial strikes on suspected terrorists. Maybe the shift to drone operations has been in part a response to this, the thinking being that some lowly drone operator nestled away in an office is less likely to question orders and more easily replaced if they do?

[Cornish Jack]

I suspect that the one area NOT 'in the open' would be the 'principals' ... if, however, the military can ever get over their obsession with secrecy, it's just possible that the 'principles' might be available to the people who pay for these things.

[Lonewolf_50]

I've seen some discussion on the US Hamster Wheel of our concerns in the US regarding the lack of oversight, which puts the Drone strike mode of enemy disposal in line with the controversy over the Patriot Act monitoring of electronic communications.

At the heart of the latter was that the FISA court mechanism provided an overisght of the executive, and a requirement to keep nose clean. The Bush admin, driven mostly by Rumsfeld as I recall at the time, wished to not have to be bothered with getting a post op Judicial review/approval. Yes, 48-72 hours AFTER the tap, they had to get a judicial ruling on it being legit. Even that was considered too much trouble by the executive branch.

The same problem arises with the use of Drones to attack, depending upon the RoE. I have some small experience on the RoE side of this, in terms of dealing with a very tight RoE and trying to get any weapon off the rail on any target, at all. That's some years ago. Most of the armed units I dealt with returned home with weapons still on the rail. Not for a lack of targets, but for a lack of permission.

Near the end of the Bush administration, particularly in Pakistan and that area, and apparently still in Yemen, the RoE has loosened considerably. I probably would not recognize the RoE now, as compared to what I had to work with.

And this leads to the question raised elsewhere: at whose authority does RoE change, and what is the oversight process?

If a FISA type requirement was laid on the missions that are assassinations, at the least oversight and an adherence to a given rubric, might provide for the kinds of protections that are being required for most law enforcement operations.

ON the other side, if you have joined an organization fighting and killing out people, you are a target. I don't care where you were born, you are now on the other side.

It's that in between crap that, while inconvenient, needs to be addressed as we can be sure that humans being humans, they'll attempt to either get around or just ignore what modest protections are in place.

A slippery slope indeed.

[Courtney Mil]

To the recipients, what difference does it make if the bomb comes from a manned aircraft or a UAV? As long as ROE is applied in the same way and the obvious safeguards are in place I can't help thinking this is just another bleeding heart storm.

[Trim Stab]

To the recipients, what difference does it make if the bomb comes from a manned aircraft or a UAV? As long as ROE is applied in the same way and the obvious safeguards are in place I can't help thinking this is just another bleeding heart storm.

To the recipients who are killed, you are correct, it makes no difference.

But I suspect that the use of drones for offensive operations does make a difference in the way that conflict is perceived by the wider public of both sides, and that does make a difference.

[Corporal Clott]

Trim Stab

Having done both, I believe that unmanned is far less likely to commit fratricide or have civil casualties/deaths. The unmanned crew have so much more SA - they can even pick up a telephone and dial the local Patrol Base to see whether all friendlies are back or just wait until all unidentified persons have been accounted for. In a fast jet I never had that luxuries!

CPL Clott

[Agaricus bisporus]

This whole debate is characterised by some of the wooliest thinking seen in recent memory.

Just how can it make a difference whether the weapon is launched from a "drone" (emotive boo-word), an Apache, a rifle or an artillery piece?
The bleeding hearts want to make a differentiation and sadly the meeja are going along with the deception. Smart weapons cause vastly less collateral damage than scatter-weapons like artillery which had to be delivered in quantity to "ensure" eradication of target for instance - yet when do the liberals wail about the iniquity of of shotgun-style artillery/mortar strikes?
The point must surely be the inherent morality of "action" vs. the accuracy of the prediction of targets, and that is a decision manifestly independent of the platform from which the munition is launched with the possible exception of directed infantry fire in close-combat (though this is probably subject to a far greater adrenaline derived error than most other forms of combat).
There ain't no logic to any of this - and thus no rational argument present which surely renders the entire argument invalid. Rationale - and fact - indicates that given equal intel and consideration (instead of the likely increased levels applied to UAVs) a single directed smart weapon produces vastly less colateral damage than an unguided strike and it CANNOT make any difference what platform this is launched from, least of all whether the manning of the platform is direct or remote. That factor is utterly irrelevant to the morality question and can be nothing but a red herring. How is it any different from any other form of remotely operated weapon release system as so often used by air - or logically from a missile rail that is only electrically connected to the pilots firing button? Are they saying that weapons release is only legal or moral if the combatant actually flings it with his bare hand? Would wearing gloves make this "illegal"? This approach is so clearly fatuous it is astonishing tho worrying that it has any credibility at all and is not simply laughed out of the house as it should be. Such is the level of modern public debate. One has to wonder, as every salesman knows to, what the real objection is. I'd hazard a guess that the wailers are actually uncomfortable at the idea of "no personal hazard warfare" which may be a valid subject for debate, but so far I haven't heard nay brave enough to vocalise this as it smacks of a rather unpleasant attitude towards the combatants of one's own country if you make statements to the effect that it would be somehow "better" or "more desireable/moral" if more of them were killed...

Equally wooly however is the thinking of the US Government (I can't quote for any other, tho I doubt they are alone in this) who until fairly recently regarded Israeli (usually helicopter mounted) directed strikes against specific personnel outside their borders as state sponsored unlawful homicide or some such wording...but they've changed their minds. Not that there's any law against that but it isn't altogether a consistent policy and could be interpreted as opportunistic (aka practical).

A minefield in some ways, but probably not the way the bleeding-hearts would have us believe.

[Two's in]

Ab,

In my view, the main difference in the "delivery method" is it is far more difficult to deploy manned (i.e. dumb) systems without some declaration of hostilities or evidence of such action, than it is to slip a UAV over someone's national border and surreptitiously take out a target. As others pointed out, it is largely academic to the recipient of such largesse whether or not he was bombed or droned, but it is much easier to have plausable deniability of such actions when the only living witness is sat in an air conditioned trailer in Nevada. That then comes down to the real meat of the discussion - do you trust your Government to behave ethically and with moral courage, and if so, are you confident your own actions will be regarded as above reproach at the subsequent Board of Inquiry.

[SASless]

Two....there are a lot of Non-Liberal's concerned....and I would probably say a hell of a lot more Conservatives are deeply bothered by the concept of "An Informed Person" , unnamed and in secret, can issue a Kill Order on an American Citizen without any Judicial Review or approval.

The Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments are pretty damn specific about the limits on that kind of Government Action....and does not limit those protections to just inside the physical boundaries of the United States. The protections follow the Citizen....not the borders.

The Federal Law re "Presidential Findings" REQUIRES the President to fully brief the Congress as soon as possible and in as full detail as possible. Obama until today has refused to do so.

Explain why the Official Justification for the Obama Administration and Obama himself carrying out these attacks remains "Classified" and not subject for review by Congress, the Media, and the Public.

The Intelligence Data and the methods of Collection may be legitimately withheld but the Justification surely does not and has no Legal Protection under Law.

The latest Memo that was released noted that there did not have to be actionable intelligence reporting the Target of the Kill Order had to be actually planning or about to participate in an attack on US Citizens, Military Forces, or US Property. That is a mighty damn thin threshold to get across don't you think?

As to attacking American Citizens sans any Judicial Finding, presentation of evidence, or anything other than the decision of that single informed anonymous Person can in no way be considered "Due Process" as required by the US Constitution.

The Liberals in whole have remained silent over this. The very ones that were beside themselves over Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld approving Water Boarding for some reason are AWOL now that it is Obama in the White House. Any idea why killing a US Citizen is less offensive to them than pouring water up Sheik Mohammed's nose?

I am as Conservative as anyone who attends these forums but I have a great deal of angst over what is going on in the Drone Program when it targets US Citizens. It is not that I see the Alwaki guys exempt from the use of deadly force....quite the opposite but I insist the Law be followed and the Constitutional protections required by that foundation of our government and freedoms be strictly obeyed.

Let the Government collect its evidence, present it to a Judicial Panel using every rule of law appropriate, and upon the Judges issuing an Indictment, publish that indictment and issue a warning for the individuals surrender to competent US Authority, and upon a certain time limit expiring....locate, apprehend or kill the individual. It may be awkward to to carry out a Direct Action Raid but we should do that if possible if the individual refuses to surrender. If it is really impossible to apprehend the guy.....and he refuses to surrender....then I don't have much problem with smoking him outside the USA.

Inside the USA....we are stuck with going the standard law enforcement avenue as that is what the Constitution demands.

[SASless]

Obama's leaking of the Drone Memo to NBC News may have been a huge miscalculation.

Not only does it get the issue in front of the State Run Media in a manner that it cannot ignore it anymore, but it has caused Obama to finally release the "Classified" legal reasoning that the Government is using to justify the arbitrary killing of American Citizens in violation of the Constitution and Federal Law, but it also revives the Federal Civil Proceeding filed by the Father of the three Alwalaki's killed by Drone Strikes.

The Father had filed a Lawsuit in an effort to stop Obama from ordering the Strikes.....but a Federal Judge issued an Opinion saying he had not standing as the it dealt with a possible future act and the Court just did not have the power to intercede which would be an act of barring the President of a future act.

Obama ordered the strikes, the American Citizens were killed without benefit of any Judicial Proceeding.

That Law Suit has been revived as it is now about a past act which is in violation of the Constitution.

Several court cases have been heard by the Supreme Court which pointed out the requirement for the Government to use established and recognized Courts to try accused Terrorists.

If the Government is required to use a legal court to even try you for alleged crimes....common logic and law should require both a trial and conviction before they can Kill you.

As the good Judge says in the video.....Kings and Tyrants order killings of those he judges to be an enemy. Last time I checked.....Obama is not a King....but he sure is beginning to act like a Tyrant.

Napolitano On Obama Drone Program: "This Is The Power Claimed By Kings And Tyrants" | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/06/napolitano_on_obama_drone_program_this_is_the_power_claimed_ by_kings_and_tyrants.html)

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo)

[dead_pan]

That then comes down to the real meat of the discussion - do you trust your Government to behave ethically and with moral courage

Indeed, although I'm intrigued by what you mean by moral courage. Do you mean the courage not to act say when you're only 90% certain of the identity/intentions of the target and 90% sure there will be no collateral casualties? You wouldn't have got Geronimo if you'd operated at anywhere near these levels of certainty.

Two....there are a lot of Non-Liberal's concerned....and I would probably say a hell of a lot more Conservatives are deeply bothered by the concept of "An Informed Person" , unnamed and in secret, can issue a Kill Order on an American Citizen without any Judicial Review or approval.

What are the Conservatives views on Kill Orders issued in such a manner on non-US citizens?

provide for the kinds of protections that are being required for most law enforcement operations

Interesting you should raise this - I always believed the Long War (the War on Terror) would have been better framed as a law enforcement action supported by our combined militaries as opposed to a military-led campaign. Not only would this would have altered our conduct and the oversight of our actions, these actions may also have played better at home and less inflammatory in the countries which have 'hosted' our forces.

[orca]

Very interesting thread.

I am actually impressed by the likes of SASless who believe all their citizens deserve and should enjoy the same standing/ protection no matter where they are in the world, no matter what they're doing and no matter who they have allied themselves with. Having lived with/through a 'domestic terrorist' threat I find myself at odds with such thinking - but suspect I am wrong and he is right.

I wonder if one could explore how the three people mentioned in the article became US citizens. It may well be that the answer is 'at birth' but I would still like to know. Not that it has any legal implications.

Various states do, of course, have and use the death penalty - and one assumes that had these guys been successfully tried for murder no one would bat an eyelid about showing them 'the chair'. The point being there wasn't a trial I suppose.

As for anyone who thinks that there is any fundemental difference between a manned and unmanned vehicle employing kinetics...well, they are just plain wrong. The press loves talking about 'drones' because it portrays a UCAV/RPS (whatever the hell the drone drivers are calling them this week to try to sound better;)) as autonomous - which of course anyone of sound mind knows they aren't.

Neither are they deniable. They are cheap, persistent and easily supportable with all the assets you can't fit in a cockpit. PolAd, LegAd, coffee etc.

As a UK citizen - and as someone who grew up during 'the troubles' and still finds it hard to wear uniform in public, and still doesn't like talking out load about being military, and still wonders how that Canadian general certified the IRA weapons were beyond use - I have a far less noble view on this than some.

If you are a terrorist - of any colour, creed or persuasion, and have therefore taken up arms against what I consider to be right - one day I dearly hope a munition finds you. If there has been a trial so be it. If there hasn't - so long as there is PID, and CDE has been done, I really can't find anywhere in my heart that minds too much. I think it's immaterial whether the munition comes from a SF guy in a bush, or a hero in a AH-64, or from some geek in a cabin at Creech.

[Old RN]

Does US drone policy now mean ( under the reciprocity implicit in the rules of war) that if al qaeda kills US leadership (politicians) by drone attack in USA it is OK?

[SASless]

Orca,

I have been a City Police Officer, a Federal Special Agent, and a military officer. During that time I fought in combat against a very capable enemy, conducted investigations and participated in Protective Service Operations for US cabinet officials and very senior Foreign Dignitaries.

I have no problems with killing Terrorists of any Nationality in or out of the United States.

That being said, you can understand that I am not against taking out those particular three Terrorists to the extent they were involved in Terroristic Acts against American Citizens and property....and by doing so made themselves targets for Drone Strikes and other methods that would result in their arrest or death.

My problem is not with the intent, goal, or physical means of the killing of them.

it is all about doing it legally.

Let's start with this....the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which is part of what we call the "Bill of Rights".


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury], except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The current method of "Some Informed Person" using Secret Intelligence Information, using Secret extra-judicial methods and definitions of threats, imminence, and feasibility of arrest, under Secret Legal Justification, does in no way meet the requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

Our Constitutional rights are not limited by our location in the world, and go with the citizen where ever he might be.

President Obama has violated the Law in my view.

There has been no Due Process as required by the Constitution.

The Constitution can be an obstacle to the Government at times....as it was designed to be by the Founding Fathers who were very aware of the dangers of a Tyrannical and Oppressive government. It limits the Government....not the Citizen and was written for that very purpose.

Now if Obama wants to whack a US Citizen that has become a Terrortist and poses a threat to us....by all means go get the guy....arrest or kill them but only after giving the Due Process the Constitution demands.

For Wire Taps and other intercepts we have a FISA Court the government has to go through. As you might suspect.....the FISA Court pretty much rubber stamps the Governments Request but not always as they should. Thus, the Due Process requirement is complied with.

If the same government that has to go to court to listen in to your telephone calls....why should they not have to do the same if they want to kill you?

This is not direct combat where our Troops encounter enemy forces or combatants in standard combat venues.

Remember the Ruby Ridge disaster where the FBI issued a "Shoot On Sight" order to its Snipers should they see Randy Weaver....only to have Randy's Wife shot dead while she was holding an infant in her arms. The later investigation of that determined the Order was illegal and someone would have gone to jail had the FBI been able to identify just who it was that gave that order. Randy Weaver at that time had not convicted of any crime whatsoever.

Now if it was illegal to shoot Weaver as there had been no presentation of evidence, no trial or conviction for a crime....why is this any different.

What the Obama Administration has got to do (in my view), is use the DC Federal Court system, present its evidence, obtain and indictment, and publish that Indictment on every news channel possible and call for the Terrorist to Surrender himself to the nearest competent American Authority, or any nation's authority by date/time certain, or risk being taken by force.

Sounds a bit hokey really but if a genuine Due Process proceeding was done...then I would be fine with it. As it is now....we have Obama acting like a King. You get on his Kill list and the government kills you.

I maintain that is not what we are supposed to be doing as that really defies what our system of government is all about. If we don't require Obama to honor the requirements of the Constitution, something he has sworn to do, are we any different than Assad and Syria, Iraq and Saddam, and any number of third world tinpot dictatorships?

[Heathrow Harry]

SASLess - would you care to enlarge on "State Run Media" in the USA?

Are we talking FOX, Murdoch, The Washington Post, Huffington here or some other branch of the US Govt.???

[dead_pan]

If you are a terrorist - of any colour, creed or persuasion, and have therefore taken up arms against what I consider to be right - one day I dearly hope a munition finds you

I agree to a point - being caught in the act would justify said munition being despatched - even the huggy-fluffies would probably concede that. Where I get useasy is when you kill a suspect (by whatever means) going about his daily chores purely on the basis of intelligence, or an individual being sniped on the basis that he happened to be on his mobile with they were picking up hostile Icom (as featured in a recent TV doc on the UK Marine's deployment in Afghan); Suspicious? Definitely; Justification for killing? Certainly not.

[orca]

dead pan,

I don't think any of your points are invalid, your arguments are all sound. If we were talking about UK citizens my answer would be that I am simply glad that the government took steps to rid the world of these people.

We aren't talking about UK citizens - we are talking about US citizens and we are talking about your President, not mine. So maybe I am not even allowed an opinion in the debate. I would accept that as a valid point as well.

[ralphmalph]

Nobody seemed that concerned when scores were killed in recent years in Africa and Yemen......

[brickhistory]

If an American is engaged in direct combat with American (or Allied) forces, i.e, pulling a trigger, laying an IED, etc, and gets a lead headache, then I'm fine with that.

An American being rocketed riding in a pick-up several hundred miles from any action and it starts to become more difficult if such an action is taken. Intel has been mentioned. Is it correct?

al Alawaki (sp?) is dead. No problem for me personally that he got offed. But did his 16 year old son deserve it?

The implications of an "informed high official" making the decision without due process is a very steep, slippery slope.

Prior to it being done overseas, it hadn't been done.

What's to stop the action from occurring inside the U.S., say along the wide open Southern border? Again, the goal posts get continually moved, so I don't think that outcome is a stretch.

The President is not a judge. He doesn't get the power to execute an American because he says so. Or shouldn't anyway.

If this one is allowed to continue, why can't the next one take it just another step? And so on.

[SASless]

State Run Media....defined.

MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, NYT, WaPo, LATimes....for a start.

Fox News (not the Commentary shows) at least ask the questions unlike the State Run Media who guard and protect Obama and the Progressive Agenda.

You folks have the Guardian and BBC who cling very tightly to the Left in your country.


As ya'll may recall.....we had "Slam Dunk!" intelligence on WMD in Iraq.....right?

You want the same people that said that deciding whether to put their Thumb pointing up or down?

That is why the Due Process requirement is in the Bill of Rights folks.

Sometimes we may not like it....but that concept goes to the very core of our Freedom. If we give this up....where does it end?

[Courtney Mil]

It's impossible. Obama couldn't have ordered an assassination. Executive Order 12333, signed by President Regan in 1981 states that 'No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination'. That's on my web site so it must be true. So it can't have been an assassination.

Unitary action might be a different thing. I should Google that. :cool:

[dead_pan]

Its a tad depressing that certain our brethren seem to have afforded themselves greater rights and protections purely as a consequence through their birthright. They get lawyered up with their Bill of Rights etc etc, whilst everyone else has to make do frontier law.

S'funny how everthing all seemed fine and dandy right up until the point a few of their countrymen got killed.

[Courtney Mil]

Whilst I admire people standing up for their rights, I do also tire of hearing the continuous "it's my rights" bleat. Not necessarily aimed at any comments here, but taken to excess, it starts to look like a lot of people expect so much on a plate.

Yeah, good people shouldn't be killed or tortured, but at the other end of the spectrum Human Rights is becoming a sheild for all sorts of bad guys to abuse.

Discuss.

[SASless]

Having a set of laws that limits government can be awkward at times but I would not want it any other way.

If you read the posts....the angst is over the lack of Due Process....not the objective of whacking Terrorists.

We do have the Death Penalty in most States and under Federal Law as well....so whacking some of our own goes on frequently but only after a Fair Trial and Automatic Appeal to a higher Court.

Do you have the Death Penalty in the UK?

Does your government whack your own if they are considered Terrorists....or does that only happen on Sunday's?

[Courtney Mil]

Hopefully they just do it in secret.

[ORAC]

S'funny how everthing all seemed fine and dandy right up until the point a few of their countrymen got killed. that's how the US Constitution works.

There were cases, IIRC correctly during WWII, where challenges on the way foreign nationals were treated went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Verdict, non-US citizens have no rights or protection under the Constitution.

However US citizens do, And the courts zealously protect them.

BO and his administration may regret both playing fast and loose with their rights - and talking about it.

This isn't just inditement territory, looked what happened to Nixon, and that just a burglary of a dentist's office.

[SASless]

After Roosevelt ordered the Internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry at the start of WWII....the Supreme Court ruled he was in violation of the law. Roosevelt ignored the Ruling.

Sadly, the Supreme Court does not have the ability to enforce its decisions....the system relies upon the President to ensure the Nation's Laws are enforced.

There is the real stumbling block....when the President thumbs his nose at the court....only the People can force him to obey the law....but that would require the reason for the ignoring of the Court be of sufficient alarm to the People that the Military or some capable force act to remove the President from Office.

We really don't want to go there....as it with Obama being who and what he is....that would the start of the Second American Revolution.

[dead_pan]

Does your government whack your own if they are considered Terrorists.It happened on more occasions than you would probably imagine during the troubles in Northern Ireland, maybe not directly by the state but indirectly through our collusion with loyalist paramilitaries.

More recently, in 2005 a Brazilian citizen was mistakenly shot dead by police the day after the bombings in London. Suffice to say it provoked a considerable furore in the media and across the political spectrum. I believe he was afforded roughly the same rights in death (independent enquiry, criminal proceedings against the police service involved, public inquest, apology & compensation to the family etc) as a Brit would have in such circumstances.

As in the US there are strict checks and balances here regarding domestic terrorist operations. Unlike the US, its evident we have a higher threshold regarding operations outside our borders, as those more closely involved have already noted on this thread. I also think we are more circumspect in discussing operations (with the possible exception of one of our more famous Apache pilots of Las Vegas fame), and may have better opsec (few if any kill videos from UK forces come to light on Ytube). People can't complain about what they don't know about.

[John Farley]

Courtney Mil and SASless

How super to see some really meaningful posts from both of you.

The problem I have is that given today's arms technology being so easily available to the bad guys I don't see how really well organised, trained and equipped terrorists can be dealt with by the good guys if said good guys are restricted to trying to bring them to court.

[SASless]

Points to ponder....the current main issue is the fact the Government is classifying everything to do with the Drone program including the Legal Justification Document that sets forth the Government's recording the Legal basis for them to be able to Kill a US Citizen without Judicial Due Process as required by the Constitution.

After that small hurtle they have to then justify killing anyone else.

Congress has the duty of oversight over the Executive Branch and Military and as the Obama Administration up until last night has steadfastly refused to produce that Document for the review by Congress. The President has the duty to report Presidential Findings that authorize Covert Activities to Congress under the existing Federal Law. It is not voluntary....it is mandatory he do this. He has not and refuses yet today.

The Senate Intelligence Committee held the Confirmation hearing for the new CIA Director today and a great deal of time was spent discussing the Drone program and its legal justification.

The Senators stated that only a select few of the Committee were granted access to the Legal Document and that other supporting documents had not been provided by the Department of Justice despite President Obama's assurance that all documents re the Legal Justification would be provided. So it appears the Obama Administration is still playing games with Congress.

The Nominee said before the committee it is his belief that Prosecution in Court is the best method of handling the Terrorists as it sets a higher moral standard than merely killing them and thus losing advantage of being able to interrogate them for actionable intelligence.

This Drone thing is not a simple issue.

The legal issues alone are quite significant, the image presented to the World by using extra-judicial means to dispatch suspected or known Terrorists causes problems with public opinion and tends to serve as a recruiting incentive to many that would otherwise not take up arms against us.

There are Operational benefits to the Drones but there are down sides to be considered as well.

The World has changed since the Geneva Accords were adopted and technology has allowed us an advantage over Terrorist groups what would otherwise be safe from attack due to their location in safe havens beyond our reach by other more conventional means. As the Terrorists are generally non-state illegal combatants utilizing Law Enforcement procedures and Courts does not tend to be very feasible in every case.

Over the next year or so we shall see a lot of attention to the Drone Program as the current Administration has lost their normal blind support by fellow Democrats....and for sure have little support by the Republicans on certain aspects of the program and absolutely none on how it has refused to cooperate in meeting legal obligations to report to Congress.

That problem is purely Obama's own making along with his Attorney General who remember is in Criminal and Civil Contempt of Congress over his false testimony and refusal to provide documents to Congress dealing with the ATF Fast and Furious Operation that involved the Feral Guvmint running guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels in a program that has resulted in hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least one if not more US Law Enforcement Officers.

[Momoe]

It's not about bringing them to court, it's about BO's administration allegedly contravening the 'Bill of Rights'.

This matters a lot more to our colonial friends, the Bill of Rights is enshrined in the American consciousness - it's what America was built on and it's considered as immutable by most.

This has the potential to open other cupboards with unwelcome contents, Sh!tstorm coming methinks.

[SASless]

A former Federal Judge offers his opinion.

A recent Poll shows more than 63% of those polled reject the notion Killing American Citizens by Drone Attack as was done is wrong. As the Obama Administration is forced to provide their Justification issued by the OLC...one which they have Classified and refused to give to Congress or the Public...they are going to look very bad. No one, Liberal or Conservative, likes the idea of a government ignoring the Fifth Amendment protections that require Due Process.

For a guy that is all concerned about Social Justice....Mr. Obama sure doesn't give a **** about it when he gives himself the power to kill Americans, and others as well.

I wonder if the Nobel folks regret granting him the Peace Prize?:rolleyes:


President Obama gives himself permission to kill | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/07/obama-gives-himself-permission-to-kill/)

[teeteringhead]

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." – Winston Churchill .... does it really matter how, where and to whom they administer that violence?

[Courtney Mil]

My point exactly.

[ORAC]

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." – Winston Churchill

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller)

[Heathrow Harry]

SASLess wrote "State Run Media....defined.

MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, NYT, WaPo, LATimes....for a start".

do you mean the US Govt actually owns these mdia companies, or appoints their boards or their staff or has a secret way (Black Helicopters!!) of orderingthem what to do

Or is it just thatyou don't agree with their opinions?

just curious as your definition seems raving lunacy to the rest of us

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, if you give a kid his high school diploma cum laude at age 12 it's pretty naiive to expect him to carry on working for the next 6 years as though he still had to earn it on merit.

Can't imagine what the Ñobel people were smoking when they came up with that!

[SASless]

No...it doesn't matter....not at all.

If you don't mind being who you are killing.



Did we really have to kill the 16 year old Brother of Alwaki?

He was in a remote place in Yemen...was he that much of an "imminent threat" that we needed to drop a Hellfire Missile on his head?

He was an American Citizen and was not granted Due Process as he was entitled to by the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

If we ignore the Rules of War....we face prosecution for War Crimes, Murder, and other charges.

So how do we treat the Drone Pilots here....take the view that "Orders are Orders!"?

We are asking the President to prove he is giving Legal Orders....and why should he refuse to show Congress how he came up with the idea that the Fifth Amendment does not apply. Why is that OLC Justification so sensitive that it cannot be published for the entire World to read?

If you are righteous, complying with the Law of the Land, then what have you got to hide?

They know their case will not bear scrutiny and that is why they do not want it examined by the Judicial System.

That should scare the pants off you....as how do you know your name might not pop up on the list someday? You won't know it until you get whacked....as they Feral Guvmint isn't going to tell you, they won't haul you into a Court, they won't advertise their decision.

We elect Presidents....not coronate a King every four years.

[dead_pan]

does it really matter how, where and to whom they administer that violence?

As long as they strive to adhere the same standards when doing so.

[Lonewolf_50]

Did we really have to kill the 16 year old Brother of Alwaki?

I don't understand why that bothers you. He is hanging out with terrorists, why should he get a free pass?

See my issues with teenagers who kill: age is no defense.

[SASless]

What about the Due Process demands of the Fifth Amendment?

When you get past that.....and a Court agrees with you....Doom on them!

Until you do....like it or not...he is fully entitled to that protection under the law.

If he is in a combat zone...say Afghanistan or Pakistan, is caught carrying a weapon, planting an IED, or conducting an armed attack...do him in anyway you can. If you catch in the act inside the USA...again pop him. If not in the act....arrest and prosecution in court is the right way...if he resists with a weapon....pop him. I am old time law enforcement....I have no hang up over dusting a bad guy but you have to do it legally.

As cold as it sounds, a Non-US citizen in exactly the same situation....riding in a car in the desert does not enjoy that same protection as they are not US Citizens....granting them that might be a consideration.

Riding in a car, in the middle of the Yemeni desert lands, I feel you have not reached a threshold that allows you to pop him.

[dead_pan]

He is hanging out with terrorists

Is that a capital crime under American law? If so, many of those of Irish descent living in the likes of Boston and New York should watch out.

[Andu]

I went to see "Oh Dark Thirty" yesterday and couldn't help but think of how much hatred must have been engendered in all those family members the Seals went to great pains not to kill when they assaulted OBL's compound.

If the children weren't hate-filled on the night of the attack, you can be sure there'll be a small army of family retainers revving them up on a daily basis. I think it would be about the safest bet in town that ten to twenty years from now, our side will be hunting for one and probably more of OLB's many offspring.

Unpalatable as it may be to us today, there was a good reason why, up until medieval times, rivals ensured they killed off all the sons of their enemies as well as the enemy himself. It was a matter of survival, because if they remained alive, those sons would surely come after you to exact revenge. But of course, we don't do anything like that anymore - which might say something of how long our current society will endure, because the people we're fighting sure as hell still do!

[500N]

Andu

I agree, however that raid, the fact it was behind enemy lines,
all evidence would be left behind, I don't think they had a choice.

Even taking them all with them wasn't really an option it seems.

[mini]

Sod the various constitutional amendments.

The US has shown it will act regardless. Whatever suits the politics of the day, facts on the ground are ignored.

Iraq '03 anyone?

[SASless]

Mind explaining what you are talking about....Iraq 2003?

[A A Gruntpuddock]

"extrajudicial strikes on suspected terrorists"

There was a video of a night attack by a helicopter on "terrorists" in a convoy of stationary vehicles, it looked strange to me so I watched it several times.

I then realised that it was the body language which was odd.

Felt ill when I saw that it was most likely an old man, an old woman and a teenage girl trying to rescue a tractor.

[SASless]

You probably missed the one where two pair of Apaches hunt down over 20 Taliban fighters. They discuss amongst themselves the fact there are Women and Children in the area and they very carefully go about their bloody business making every effort to correctly ID Weapons in the hands of the Taliban before doing ANY shooting.

Mistakes are made in war time....and before you get too carried away...remember Dresden?

[Mk 1]

SASLess, Having read all your comments, I wonder if your opinion would be different if the incumbent in the oval office was a Republican?

One thing I have picked up with American politics is that if 'your' team is in office they can do very little wrong - if the other team has the ball then even the way the president puts his socks on is wrong - it tends to be a fairly simplistic one eyed view. This has its strengths - election volunteers seem to be everywhere - in Australia - frankly we wouldn't volunteer - 'It just encourages the barstewards". Then again, when your man doesn't win, here we go down to the pub and and think that things would be pretty much the same anyway. In the US - how many presidents have you had assassinated or attempted assasinated? I suspect that this debate is along party lines.

I suspect in the UK as with Australia we tend to view all politicians with a large degree of skepticism - both sides of politics stuff things up, no side gets everything right.

[SASless]

You did not read my comments very closely then.

My complete rejection of the policy is based upon Constitutional issues....not politics.

I am clearly supportive of bringing Terrorists to Justice or bringing Justice to the Terrorists. I am quite clear on that in my posts.

As I have said....I have no problem whacking Bad Guys....I have done that.

But...I also insist it be done legally. Key word "Legally".

US Citizens anywhere in the World and anyone citizen or not, within the borders of the USA are protected by the Fifth Amendment that demands "Due Process"....meaning a Judicial Proceeding before the Government can deprive one of property, freedom, and life.

There is no Left or Right when it comes to that.

When you add the Secrecy that the Obama Administration has applied to this Drone Program and the Killing of US Citizens....and in effect making Obama (or any President) the Accuser, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Executioner and all done in Secret even including the Office of Legal Counsel Legal Justification....why am I wrong to challenge this?

Do you trust your government to that degree?

Should I trust mine?

Should I just ignore the Constitution as it appears Obama is doing?

If you answer yes to any of those last four questions....I would have to question your ability to reason effectively.

I am a Conservative....actually more a Libertarian under our political definitions and have a background in law enforcement in both the City and Federal Levels.

During my Federal Service with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), an agency that can be described as being the Navy's FBI, I was shocked to listen to stories the older Agents told of doing Bag Jobs on homes during the Vietnam War era and shortly afterwards.

By Bag Job, I mean what they called "warrantless covert entries into people's homes to search for incriminating information". The excuse was "National Security" which did allow for that. This was during the time when Homosexuality was a mortal sin in the Military and if found out....the Person would be tried in a Courts-martial and be discharged at the minimum if not imprisoned if found to have been engaged in actual sexual activity. Mind you....there was no requirement for the individual to hold a Security Clearance of any kind, they did not have to have access to Classified Material, or in any way be suspected of anything but being Homosexual.

When I took issue with the old guys, reminding them about the Fourth Amendment Protections re Unlawful Search and the Right to Privacy, they scoffed. As a City Police Officer, we were schooled very well about the laws on Search and Seizure and in no way what the Federal Government was doing in that regard as described by the very guys doing those searches, remotely respect those Rights.

Congress very harshly stepped down on the Federal Government and Federal Intelligence Agencies for those kinds of Abuses.

If our Society is to survive....we have to resist any encroachment upon our Constitutional freedoms and I see this latest Obama action as something that cannot be allowed to happen.

Already, the Congress is talking about the equivalent of a FISA Court which is in use for National Security Wire Tapping and Intercepts. It is not just me that is against what is going on.

We are seeing a despotic regime trying to take hold here....one that rejects the Constitution as evidenced by repeated breaches of Federal Laws that they are sworn to uphold and enforce. The Federal Courts have slammed Obama over his appointments to the NLRB in what was a gross act of misconduct by him.

The Drone Program is just one of many problems the Obama Administration have brought upon themselves. If you may recall, Obama was very much against anything Bush did after 9-11. He was all incensed about Water Boarding and called it Torture.....yet here we have the same guy issuing orders to KILL the same kinds of People that he objected to being Water Boarded plus they are American Citizens that are afforded Constitutional Protections against exactly what he is doing.

Don't you find it a bit odd that he does this?

As to being silent when your side is in office....how about the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and the fecking Media in my country....where the hell are they? Remember how they raised hell over AbuGrahib, Gitmo, Water Boarding? You heard anything out them on Obama ordering Killings?

Don't accuse me of being hypocritical on this issue as that just isn't true.

[Two's in]

One thing I have picked up with American politics is that if 'your' team is in office they can do very little wrong - if the other team has the ball then even the way the president puts his socks on is wrong - it tends to be a fairly simplistic one eyed view

Mk1 - Not only is it a very simplistic view, it is underpinned by the electoral system that only allows the electoral colleges to vote for a Republican or a Democratic candidate (yes, yes, I know if there was enough of a "popular" vote things are different, but that's never happening).

As a consequence politics here are the very definition of the word "Polarized" although over the last 20 or so years, this has shifted to become more bi-polar than polarized. There is no subtlety, no nuance, no understanding that most issues on this planet have degrees, and not absolutes. "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists" is a great example of trying to polarize an issue for party political purposes instead of trying to understand it. But although that one belongs to George W, there are just as many trite, over simplistic banalities spouted by the Democrats every day.

If you can corral the masses into 2 camps - us and them - you're job as a politician just got really easy. Once you know who to woo, you can hate and despise the rest. Of course having multiple political parties and a broad spectrum of philosophies to draw from produces indecision and procrastination at times, but fundamentally it produces more well-rounded and consistent national policies, not the constant flip-flopping tag game of "my dick is bigger than yours" that passes for politics here in the US.

Apologies all, this nonsense really belongs in Jetblast, away from the more cerebral aspects of life.

[SASless]

The RAF Forum.....Cerebral?

Now that is funny....I don't care who you are!:ok:

[Mk 1]

The RAF Forum.....Cerebral?

Now that is funny....I don't care who you are!

X2!

SASLess: Getting back to your reply: So, from your post, you believe the liberal media covered the other issues that were against the law (military, constitutional whatever) when the Republican was at the helm such as Abu Ghraib et al. As you point out this isn't an issue of politics but law breaking by the pres.

So I guess you were equally outspoken about George Bush on items such as AbuGhraib, water boarding etc? If I search your posts will I find an equal measure of indignation against the Republican incumbent?

[Mk 1]

Two's In - I can sort of relate - our political system is basically a two horse race with daylight third. Our versions are The Liberal party (our version of the Republicans) that would probably be on a policy basis in recent times similar to your Dems, and the Labor party similar also to a slightly further to the left dems. The traditional divide of the Libs being close to the Tea party and the Labor party being basically an arm of the trade unions is long gone.

Our pollies and parties lack only a few small things such as vision, leadership an understanding of the average voter and standards. All told, it's pretty difficult to respect any of 'em. Which is why our prime minister isn't addressed in deferential tones, rather when members of the public meet her its usually on a first name basis. We do not fawn over our leaders, they put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

If you gave an option to an Aussie to vote for:

A. Liberal candidate
B. Labor candidate
or...
C. Tying both of the pollies to a pole because they are all thieving lying bar stewards, setting fire to both of them and going for a good p1ss up, I guarantee most Aussies will take option C.

[SASless]

You can search all you want.

You will see I was quite vocal about Paul Bremer/Bush and their decisions that so badly affected the Iraq War.

You will see that I do not consider Water Boarding Torture as defined by most conventions and think using such techniques on three individuals helped in chasing down Bin Liner. You will also read that I consider such measures are much less reliable and in the long term less effective than "Soft" techniques. Recall my Law Enforcement background...I have done lots of interviewing and interrogations.

You will find I reference conversations with a Mate of mine that worked at Gitmo and supervised DOD Investigators and that he and I both agreed that Soft beat Harsh.

I am sure you will find that I objected to what went on at Abu Grahib....and you also should note those guilty of crimes were punished, well those of junior rank anyway....as the Colonels on up skated.

You can find plenty of places I have called for the end of the Afghan War as well.

Your search will find I objected to some provisions of the Patriot Act....but as Bush is blamed for it...it was Congress that passed the Law.

The issue at hand is not what Bush did...or what the media did then as it is about what Obama is doing now and what the media is not doing now. The one thing your search will find...in many places is my disgust at how the Media in this Country has failed its duty to serve the People by being the "purveyors of truth" as the Founding Fathers thought they should be. They knew an informed Citizenry was the absolute bed rock of a successful Democracy or Representative Republic as we have. Bias in media reporting is bad....but the "not reporting" is evil.

You started this whole exchange by framing it as a Republican/Democrat thing and seemed intent to keep after that idea despite being told my reasons for saying what I do about this.

So....you care to respond to those questions I asked you or you just going to act like you are running a Winkle Stand.

[dead_pan]

I agree, however that raid, the fact it was behind enemy lines,
all evidence would be left behind, I don't think they had a choice.


I'm sorry, are you honestly bemoaning the fact the SEAL team were unable to kill the offspring of OBL? Exactly how low are you prepared to stoop?

As for the various kill videos on Ytube and the like, there is some truly stomach-churning footage where individuals are literally obliterated when it is clear they have already been put out of the game, probably for good (limbs blown off etc). The lack of restraint and/or level of hatred exhibited by western forces in these events is deeply unsettling. Its a small mercy we generally only see the footage in monochrome.

[TacomaSailor]

Two quotes:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Santayana

“And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.” ORAC / Niemöller

The trampling of US constitutional rights that has occurred since September 11, 2001 is exactly what the authors of the US constitution feared most:

Good men trying to do justifiable things in the name of honorable ends which lead to a temporary and subsequently permanent expansion of federal authority and limitations on individual rights and liberties.

Those men, in 1787, anticipated the moral dilemmas so carefully described in this forum and thousands of publications. How do we protect US citizens while ensuring the continuation of liberty and freedom?

The answer, clearly stated with no ambiguity, in the Bill of Rights, is that NO US citizen may be deprived of their life, liberty, or property absent due process. The Bill of Rights contains NO exceptions.

The Bill of Rights was an addition to the original constitution which had to be added to gain public support and ratification of the constitution. The first United States citizens refused to approve the original constitution without the added protections of the Bill of Rights.

The United States has survived through several times of stress without abrogation of the Bill of Rights and those rights should not now be “avoided” or eliminated in the name of “protecting US citizens.”

We need to re-read the original debates regarding constitutional ratification and see that the topic being discussed here is exactly what the Bill of Rights authors most feared.

History - it can teach a lot!

[SASless]

DP.....War is an ugly thing is it not?

When the Old Men kick one off for Young Men to fight perhaps they might think about what they are doing and then hopefully find a peaceful way to work out their differences.

Mankind has been warring since almost the beginning of time.

The only thing that changes is the methods and weapons.

How does one bring an end to it all?

[Heathrow Harry]

Sometimes there is no absolute right or wrong

I have no issues with killing people who are planning to kill others (often innocents) if you can't apprehend them

The nature of violence (legal or not) is that innocent people often suffer as well by just being near-by or due to mis-identification

It is a difficult balance and we have to hope that those who have to take the decisions get them right most of the time

[Agaricus bisporus]

often innocents

I love the way this irrational and emotive expression always seems to crop up.

Who, then, are the "guilty"?

If we use the expression "innocent" in this context we must ipso facto acknowledge that there are also "guilty" parties involved. Who are thy? And since when in history was death in conflict ever restricted to these "guilty"? Equally it implies a value judgement in each death, some deserved it, some didn't. What are those values and who sets them? The Daily Mail perhaps? (I guess the DM at least thinks so...)

Does this really mean "combatants"? Are they "guilty"? Of what? Doing what the politicos made them do? What the Generals ordered? Is the Mess Steward, as a non-combatant - "guilty"? Or merely by belonging to one of the nations/tribes/factions/ideologies involved. Its a strange way of defining innocence and guilt.

Are the wife and kids who support and feed Mohammed Taliban innocent or guilty?
What defines these phrases?
We frequently hear about "innocent women and children" despite both being sometimes used as combatants - but never of "innocent men". Why not? It ain't rational, that's for sure. Perhaps its a gender thing?

War is all-consuming and has nothing whatsoever to do with innocence and guilt, just involvement - and that can be a very loose connection in that if you are just present you are at least peripherally involved. Not necessarily actively or willingly, but still involved by mere proximity, even as a distant onlooker or neighbour.

[yotty]

They who can give up essential... at BrainyQuote (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html) :hmm:

[SASless]

Just watched Fox News Sunday....Senator John McCain was on as a guest. When asked about the Drone Program and the controversy that is going on about it currently....his view was transfer the CIA's operations to the DOD. He dismissed any idea of creating the FISA type Court that has been offered by some.

Yes...the Republic is at great risk.

John Boy should have retired a long time ago.

[susanlikescats]

The nature of violence (legal or not) is that innocent people often suffer as well by just being near-by or due to mis-identification

A perfect example of the skewed logic which led you into places like Afghanistan in the first place, and which has led to you leaving having achieved... well... not very much. That's unless you're doing the body count thing again, and I thought the west had learned the futility of using that as your measure of military success back in the 60's.

Much as I disagree with almost everything SASless has ever written, on this subject he's making some very valid points.

[SASless]

Susan,

I am quite pleased to see you are coming around to my point of view finally.

Which is it....am I mellowing or are you?;)

[susanlikescats]

SASless,

Given the number of posts you upload, you were destined - sooner or later - to offer something incredibly insightful.

Enjoy your moment in the sun.:)

[Mk 1]

@ SASLess:

From the winkle stand: these questions?

Don't you find it a bit odd that he does this?

The number of US citizens killed was 3 wasn't it? 3 citizens who were associating with the enemy - the old expression if you lay down with dogs, don't be surprised when you end up with fleas comes to mind. So in some respects I don't have a massive amount of sympathy for those three. If you would rather them being captured and tried (justice) - how many casualties would have been acceptable to achieve that? Heathrow Harry hit the nail on the head in post 61. So do I find it odd that in a conflict where tens of thousands have been killed that Obama has taken a decision to kill 3 US citizens associating with the bad guys without trial? No.

As to being silent when your side is in office....how about the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and the fecking Media in my country....where the hell are they? Remember how they raised hell over AbuGrahib, Gitmo, Water Boarding? You heard anything out them on Obama ordering Killings?

Not locally (Australia). AbuGrahib, Gitmo and waterboarding were three things that would have a direct impact on the soldier in the field and indirectly on the US and western pro US populations. The propaganda effect of radical Muslims using these three incidents as a recruiting tool and or a rallying call cannot be underestimated. Apart from three more bodies in a country already littered with bodies virtually no impact on the US. That's the difference.

Don't accuse me of being hypocritical on this issue as that just isn't true.

Have you considered you may be too close to the situation to make that appraisal dispassionately?

[SASless]

These were the questions I was referring to......and pose them as the current Policy of the Obama Administration makes everything about the Drone Program a "Classified" document including the very Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Justification Letter. Remember the Fifth Amendment that demands Due Process before the Government can deprive a Citizen of property, freedom, or life....and that it applies to every Citizen no matter where in the World he might be. As there is no Judicial Proceeding in the Drone program process beyond a Lawyer acting as a third crew member in the Control Cab, I would suggest there is very real threat to the Constitutional foundation of government if left unchallenged.


When you add the Secrecy that the Obama Administration has applied to this Drone Program and the Killing of US Citizens....and in effect making Obama (or any President) the Accuser, Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Executioner and all done in Secret even including the Office of Legal Counsel Legal Justification....why am I wrong to challenge this?

Do you trust your government to that degree?

Should I trust mine?

Should I just ignore the Constitution as it appears Obama is doing?

[yotty]

We have convinced over one... at BrainyQuote (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/theodorec413172.html) I'm sure this is not what America intended but I'm sure the Muslims see it this way.

[SASless]

i agree...The Islamists are so tolerant of other Religions and strive for compromise with other faiths and seek peaceful ways to resolve any differences with them.

Yeah....sure....like there has been no conflict for the past Thousand or so years with the Muslims so all this current strife is because of the Drones.

How did I fail to see that?

[GrahamO]

We have convinced over one... at BrainyQuote I'm sure this is not what America intended but I'm sure the Muslims see it this way.

No, their dogma teaches them that this is the only conclusion and therefore they believe. No alternatives are permitted in their belief system which is broadly 'all else is bad, so defend us without thought or consequences'

There is no reasoning with some people (in all walks of life) so don't expect rational reasoning from them. Its like trying to explain to a PETA activist how lovely bacon is - you're wasting your breath. Its not that you don't explain, but that they are not interested in hearing.

[SASless]

Back to the real issue.....

Brennan: Due Process Not Necessary to Kill Americans for Potential Future Actions (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/02/07/Brennan-Killing-Americans-Without-Due-Process-Not-Because-of-What-They-Did-But-What-They%20Might%20Do)

[500N]

SaS

The current US Gov't picks and chooses which laws it
will abide by and when.

I sometimes wonder where or even if it will stop.


What's next, taking out fugitives with drones within the US ????

I don't see that as too far fetched based on what is currently
going on.

After all, they are already using drones to try to track
that rogue cop down, lets just say he is in a very remote area,
well armed, the choice is send in people who may get wounded
or killed or pop him with a missile where no one has to go into
harms way ???

Again, I don't see that as too far fetched based on what is
currently going on.

[SASless]

As I mentioned before....in my State we have an "Outlaw" statute which when used makes the individual made an "Outlaw"....authorizes any citizen to arrest or kill the Outlaw. The two occasions I remember it being used....the "Outlaws" walked into Police Stations and surrendered very politely.

It takes a Court to determine whether that status is to be applied....and if the Court agrees....then the Outlaw becomes an open target to anyone that sees him. The old saying of "Dead or Alive" applies.

[Snafu351]

As a Brit i find it both amusing and deeply sad that US citizens can get so upset about "one of their own" being killed in this fashion but not give a tinkers cuss about anybody else.
How can they wonder why so many look down on the US and its activities and sometimes rightly or wrongly take violent objection to such, when such contempt for others is routinely displayed?

[SASless]

What we care about is seeing the Law is complied with....not the end result.

If you care to check it....within the borders of the USA everyone is afforded those same rights no matter the Nationality or Immigration status.

What I find odd is how a supposedly civilized people could not see the importance of the government being required to comply with the law.

We all know one Man's Terrorist is another Man's Freedom Fighter and I can see where that would apply to Drones and other killing done by Governments.

During the Nuremberg Trials....one of our Jurists stated clearly that War Crimes applied to any Nation or Individual who committed them. I suppose the SAS Op in Gibraltar all those years ago could have been one of those acts that gave rise to questions about Process too.

How many extra -Judicial killings were British Forces, Security Organizations, and Police forces involved with in Northern Ireland?

Can we say it is only the US Drone program that has engendered some hard feelings around the World?

People harp about Gitmo.....and conveniently forget the UK's actions along the same line.

If one wishes to argue from the Higher Moral Ground it helps if you are in fact standing upon a Hill and not down in the gutter where you put the other folks.

[Snafu351]

To complain re due process only when the target is a US citizen or is within the borders of the US may seem to be somewhat self indulgent to those non US citizens within the borders of other countries, who through no fault of their own are impacted by US action.

It is not lawful due process being observed that i take issue with. To acknowledge your last, perhaps having "been there done it" as you claim and somewhat suffered the consequences of said actions the British view may offer a useful insight into why displaying a certain distain for others is not healthy.

PS i do like your rather partisan "water boarding is not torture" to justify a lack of similar enthusiastic pursuit of Bush et al.

[barnstormer1968]

Sasless

Your country an mine are both firmly in the gutter. I think we call it the special relationship :E

There are sad things, funny things and ironies on both sides.

Is it funny or sad that many of the folks on your side of the water who are desperate for the rule of law to prevail are the very same folks who funded The IRA for at least two decades..........so they could murder police, soldiers and civilians as democracy wasn't in their favour!
I wonder how many of the same people also believed the Brits 'invaded' the Falklands in '82' and that the Falklanders all spoke Spanish.

Although I believe you to not be in the above group, I do feel it took 911 to make many Americans wake up to reality (the last of the IRA support dried up at this point), and now for various reasons you have 'upset' folks from my side of the pond trying to to kill folks on your side (and mine).

[SASless]

As Water Boarding does not result in permanent injury, physical injury, or damage to limbs, eyes, or internal organs....I see it falling short of Torture. I also have stated clearly that I would use standard interrogation methods rather than harsh methods.

An example, my Mate who supervised DOD Investigators in Gitmo, related an account of observing a pair of Interrogators telling a hard core Al Qaeda Terrorist...."I am your worst nightmare!". Now recall, the Terrorist had been fighting against Coalition Troops for years, had lived in absolute squalor, hidden in Caves, walked all over the desert and mountains of Afghanistan, endured bombings, being hunted by Drones, Apaches, AC-130's, the CIA, SpecOps forces, and opposing local forces. The Terrorist knew the limits the Gitmo staff could go to, had been trained in coping with interrogations, stress positions, loss of sleep and all that.

That Interrogator really thought he was the guy's worst nightmare?

Don't waste your time with the "Ya'll supported the IRA!" horse ****. In Boston and places like that it happened....just as it did in most anywhere there was a strong Irish Community around the World. That your side was supporting the other side seems not an issue to you so lets move on to the issues at hand. You also recall we made it illegal to do so and prosecuted those that got caught. The law was slow in changing and the prosecutions may not have been as we would have liked....but the law did change. It changed before 9-11 as I seem to recall.

I know I did reporting on anything to do with the IRA when I worked for the Government as it was on our list of interests. You also have to recall the entire US Government was very negligent in understanding the potential Terrorist organizations had right on up to 911 which was a great shock to almost every Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agency in the country.



It took 9-11 to wake us up.

Think back over all the attacks we had suffered and how pitiful our response was to those that had attacked us.

The IRA sadly was just another group that was not targeting US interests and thus had a lower priority than some others.

I absolutely agree about the downsides to the killing of people and the public opinion damage it can do. I also suggest that is a false premise as well....to the extent we have to apply the same standard to the Terrorists, Islamists, and others who butcher innocents as a method of furthering their goals.

At least we do attempt to target the Terrorists and not the Innocent. That innocent people get killed is just a sad reality of warfare. We cannot ever eliminate that from happening.

Again, if you want to point fingers about killing the innocent....remember Bloody Sunday then tell me about how the collective British hands are clean.

When you try for a Tit for Tat small minded fight....nothing gets accomplished....which pretty much sums up the current war on Terrorism. They hit us....we hit them....they hit us again....we hit them again.

Perhaps we can all agree the current strategy just isn't working for any number of reason.

You have any better ideas on how to do it....and end the World of the scourge of Islamic Terrorism?

A quick aside....read the news about the killing of Medical Aid workers in Nigeria? People working to end Polio in Northern Nigeria being murdered by radical Islamists with ties to other Terrorist groups to include Al Qaeda.

How do you deal with that.....group hugs and a chorus of Kumbaya?

[dead_pan]

One things for sure is that militant Islam will not be contained my means of force alone. Whilst some peoples maybe too far gone and will forever fall back into its thrall, regions such as Africa (at least the black part) will be fairly resilient to its advance, given the right support and resources. Militant Islam thrives in areas where education and opportunity are lacking - this is something we can (are are) directly influence in Africa. The continent's saving grace is I believe the fact the majority of its peoples are very pro-Western and aspire a a western lifestyle.

Of course, any good work could be undone through heavy-handed military interventions. Lets try and not make the Islamicist recruiter's job too easy.

[Mk 1]

SASLess: As I mentioned before....in my State we have an "Outlaw" statute which when used makes the individual made an "Outlaw"....authorizes any citizen to arrest or kill the Outlaw. The two occasions I remember it being used....the "Outlaws" walked into Police Stations and surrendered very politely.

It takes a Court to determine whether that status is to be applied....and if the Court agrees....then the Outlaw becomes an open target to anyone that sees him. The old saying of "Dead or Alive" applies.

You yarp on about 'justice' and then regale us with this tale? So without the accused being given a chance to give his side of the story (y'know - the defence part of innocent until proven guilty?) he is consigned (legally so that makes it OK:suspect:) a death penalty effectively.

Great civilisation you have there - a witch hunt followed by a citizen taking the 'dead or alive' too seriously and killing some poor barsteward. Maybe the condemned deserved it - maybe not, or maybe it was a case of mistaken identity...

How many people have been killed then proven innocent?

[SASless]

It takes a Court to determine whether that status is to be applied....and if the Court agrees....then the Outlaw becomes an open target to anyone that sees him. The old saying of "Dead or Alive" applies.

The Outlaw Status is then broadcast by all possible means...Radio, TV, Poster, Newspaper.....informing the "Outlaw" of his status...the fact he can be arrested by any Citizen and a call for him to surrender to the nearest Police Officer.

Try again....very much different than being put on a Secret List, by People whose identity is kept Secret, using criteria that is kept Secret, based upon legal Justification that is kept......Secret.

Chalk and Cheese don't you think?

[brickhistory]

Folks, while I can see, without agreeing with necessarily, your point about the US rocketing lots of folks via UAVs and we don't raise our voices, this is essentially about a US President deciding on his own to kill American citizens. Nor is it about waterboarding, as as far as I know, no American was subjected to that by American forces.

It, Presidentially ordered murder against an American, is not how we do it and is addressed in our society's founding document.

Americans, not directly engaged in armed conflict against American or allied forces, are entitled to due process of law.

Simply by being an American, they were born or acquired via naturalization, that protection.

This is about an American President ordering the killing of Americans.

It is most assuredly a slippery slope.

As to those non-Americans receiving a close-up look of a Hellfire, well, that is different. :E

[BEagle]

It takes a Court to determine whether that status is to be applied....and if the Court agrees....then the Outlaw becomes an open target to anyone that sees him. The old saying of "Dead or Alive" applies.

Good grief - whatever century are these people living in?

This whole thread reeks of Republican redneck politics.....

Re. the oft-touted 'IRA' support claim, there was once a rumour that a well-known US business was paying 'IRA contributions' on behalf of its employees.

It was true.

But 'IRA' referred to 'Individual Retirement Account' payments! Nothing to do with the Irish troubles.

[L J R]

Is the issue that this thread has developed into to about Drone Strikes, or unlawful killing of US citizens....The 'unlawful' killing could be performed by another platform or weapon system.
I know that the events in question was undertaken by Remotely Piloted Aircraft, but is is not the RPAS (per se) that is at fault here, but the system approving/authorising such action (if there is a fault).

[SASless]

Brick,

There are some here who only wish to repeat old whines....IRA support, serving as a recruitment tool, and other lame offerings.

The discussion is about Obama ordering the extra-judicial killings of American Citizens, and doing so all the while refusing to provide any....repeat any....Justification to Congress who holds oversight authority or to the American People in general. That is not the way the American Government is supposed to operate.

Other countries and governments have different laws, attitudes, and beliefs re Individual Freedom and Liberty. If they are so brainwashed by centuries of subjugation by their Government and cannot grasp the dictates of the US Constitution by this point in the discussion then we might as well howl at the Moon as engage in debate with them.

If we as a Nation are unprepared to force Obama to bring forth his Justification that he keeps hidden from view....then what hope do we have to address the other real issues that are of interest to the rest of the World?

There are real issues with the Drone Program and the War on Terror.....the Progressives in this World are always against the use of force until they get hold of the reins then it is full speed ahead.

When we attempt to pull him up short....the ones that whined about the program are whining about our wanting to put limits on the program.

If we cannot stop the extra-legal killing of our own Citizens....then how do we get the rest of the program under control?

[dead_pan]

As to those non-Americans receiving a close-up look of a Hellfire, well, that is different.

With such a divisive and xenophoic an attitude like this, why even bother attempting to engage with the rest of the world? You might as well shut up shop as Rumsfield suggested immediately post-911.

It does seem strange you expend so much effort and angst in dealing with the merest hint of a terrorist threat, yet you are happy let all manner of your fellow citizens to bear arms and mow down your compatriots in their tens of thousands.

[Lonewolf_50]

dead pan, I think you miss the point.
Is that a capital crime under American law? If so, many of those of Irish descent living in the likes of Boston and New York should watch out.
Scenario 1. American joins in with a tank platoon of Wehrmacht soldiers in Italy, 1943. He does not get special protection, as he is now operating with and consorting with an enemy.

Scenario 2. American joins in and hangs with an Al Qaeda cell. He does not get special protection, as he is not operating with and consroting with the enemy.

You seem to misunderstand profoundly: Al Qaeda chose to declare war on the US in 1998. A state of belligerancy already exists, and has for fifteen years.

Some of you old farts need to understand that War in 2013 isn't the game of chess that the treaty of Westphalia set up in 1648. Fourth Generation Warfare is alive and well.

Do catch up, will you?

As to those who support the IRA from our shores, I daresay the Brits would be in their rights to hunt them down and kill them. If you'd rather try and capture and make a show of it, do so as well.

If you figure that you can.

You could also pursue more vigorously via the American government pursuit and capture or neutralization of same.

This is similar to how the US works with the government in Yemen to try and find those Al Q goons. And kill them.

[brickhistory]

With such a divisive and xenophoic an attitude like this, why even bother
attempting to engage with the rest of the world?


You did fail to post :E with the rest of my quote. Which was to acknowledge both the hypocrisy and the reality of my intent.

As this is a military aircrew-related forum, and most of those who frequent have or had something to do with carrying out the aggresive will of our respective government's policy, death of the enemy, or unfortunately, a civilian not engaged in conflict, is not a taboo topic nor one to shy away from.

However, as far as I know, no Western country makes a habit of killing its own citizens without some sort of due process.

Which is the point I am after. Obama's orders to kill American citizens not directly engaging - firing, laying IEDs, other active, imminent armed violence - is prohibited by the due process section of our Constitution and our U.S. society.

He does NOT get to decide who lives and dies without Congress and/or the Courts agreeing.

He does get to decide if non-U.S. citizens are for it. Other Western governments make those determinations as well regarding non-citizens and national interests.

Nothing new or remarkable about the concept.

We tried traitors in past wars. We tried Lindh in this one, among others.

But an American President ordering the deaths of Americans without being declared traitors, or not engaging in immediate armed conflict with American or Allied forces, is new.

And very serious to me.

What's to stop this one, or the next, from deciding that the suspicious truck on a dark, lonely highway in Arizona is a "threat" and worth a Hellfire?

[Lonewolf_50]

brick, from whre I sit, we should have put a bullet in Lind's head. He was actively participating with Al Q, who had declared war on us. His choice, not anybody else's.

[brickhistory]

We don't kill our own if they aren't shooting at us.

Lind had surrendered/quit fighting, therefore he's a POW.

True,a bullet would've been less expensive and I'd have no problem if he'd beed killed while fighting.

That said, if he was tried after being caught actively engaging in combat with US forces, why does Obama get a pass in killing al Alawaki's (sp?) kid without that 16 yr old having due process? Or the others? Obama's orders are not due process.

Barry deciding which Americans are to live or die at his direction is a broad step toward a dictator. If he raised the bar to this, why can't he raise the bar again?

Or the next President expanding on this precedent?

This is big, scary stuff to me.

[West Coast]

I agree lonewolf, but after a fair trail. It's not about Lind or others who operate outside the law. It's about protection for you and me. Protecting our rights starts with protecting the rights of those on the fringes. If we make the rights of a US citizen optional, then a layer has been pealed back from my rights or perhaps better stated, my expectations. There's a nuke plant in San Diego that happens to have some really good fishing around it. I don't want to have to scan the skies looking for an inbound hellfire because the boat I'm on drifted to close to it.

[SASless]

Lone,

You better start reading up on your UCMJ and your Service's Orders/Instructions on the care of Prisoners of War. Not that shooting them out of hand has never occurred and will probably happen in the future.....that is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law and YOU KNOW IT!.

Had he been shot through the Head during the combat action he was eventually captured in....Fair Dinkum.

Alas, once he dropped his weapon and surrendered or was unconscious and disarmed....he is protected by our Rules....if not necessarily the Rules of War or the Geneva Accords.

Am I right it still takes a Military Tribunal of some sort according to the Geneva Accords before an Illegal Combatant can be executed?

[dead_pan]

Lonewolf - I think you missed my point. The quote you posted related to a comment made on the killing of Americans consorting with known terrorists. I wondered where exactly on the US statute book, which you and your compatriots hold in such high esteem, does it define this as a capital crime? Or is it just a capital crime if you do it outside the US, where your law enforcement reach is limited - again, is this expressed in law or do your authorities just decide this as they go?

As for your comment on on-going operations in Yemen, I'd be really interested to know what bar your personnel have to achieve to determine someone's guilt with all its attendant consequences. Is it determined by intelligence alone, and if so what sort of intelligence (is humint heresay sufficient, as it has been the case in Afghan)? Is this intel red-teamed or cross-checked before you act on it? I mean, human lives are at stake (albeit in most instances not Americans). My concern is that operations in this country take place in very remote areas away from any media coverage or civilian oversight hence any mistakes which are made will never come to light - you can blat people to you heart's content without anyone even being aware of it. Its only when a couple of Yanks get smoked that everyone wakes up and starts asking questions.

[dead_pan]

Illegal Combatant

Oh, how you twist and turn with your lawyer-speak. He's not just an enemy combatant, he's an illegal combatant, just like its not torture, its enhanced interrogation. It is deeply hypocritical when one your political creed bend the letter of the law to suit its purposes, yet complain bitterly when others of a different political persuasion subvert it to suit theirs.

Lindh was a very unusual case - a West coast oddball who was in absolutely the wrong place at the wrong time. He certainly didn't pose any threat to the US, and to try and pin the murder of that CIA man on him was purely vengeful. I believe he has been imprisoned for so long in part for his protection. He has unwittingly become a hate figure and probably wouldn't survive for long outside, save for some costly witness-protection arrangement, which I doubt the US taxpayer would be too keen to fund.

I employed a Muslim student in the late 1990s who was probably not unlike Lindh i.e. a socially inept but essentially harmless loner. He expressed a wish to go to Afghanistan to quote "get some religion" (I know...) which at the time didn't seem a particularly unusual thing for someone of his ilk or age to do. Suffice to say we didn't keep in touch after he left but I wouldn't have been at all surprised if he did make it to one of the camps, and, if he didn't get killed, is now probably lying very low hoping his past doesn't catch up with him.

[Lonewolf_50]

dead pan, you are again confusing war with a courtroom proceeding. I described quite clearly to you what constitutes a target.

I find that tendency to that deliberate conflation and confusion to be indicative of someone who doesn't understand that war evolves over time.

Best wishes.

[Lonewolf_50]

OK, brick, fair enough, he surrendered.

[US Herk]

There is no due process under the current administration's legal 'justification' of killing US citizens via drone strikes.

What amazes me more is that it would be so simple to implement. Simply set up a tribunal, try him for treason in abstentia, if convicted, sentence him to death, and execute with a drone. Due process is served, the outcome is the same, and there is no legal issue.

And as simple as that would be, it's not being done. Why not? Is it that it's easier to simply pick people from a list after an intel briefing? Is it the lack of interest? Is it simply a power trip? Or is it an ends-justify-the-means outlook on all things terror related?

More worrisome is where does it stop?

These are enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens. If these enemy combatants are employing weapons against US interests, it's a nice clear decision. It can be a very murky line when they're not actively engaged in combat.

Imminent threat and immediate threat are lawyer-ese for justification of illegal acts, IMO. Neither imminent nor immediate are actions, therefore, the due process needs to occur before he is offed.

Make no mistake, I couldn't care less that Al-Awalki is dead, in fact, insofar as he was a known terrorist actively plotting against the US, I'm almost happy he's dead.

But that's not the point.

The fact his legal status at that moment was not 'enemy combatant', but 'US citizen', is of utmost importance to me. His due process under the various Amendments to our Constitution was violated. Period. The fact that few in our media or government seem to care or even understand that concerns me greatly.

I don't think he needed to be captured and put on trial, I think I've outlined a very reasonable method for due process when capture is not feasible, but he does require his due process.

Had that drone discovered him planting an IED - different story. But killing him whilst driving to the grocery store requires due process to be complied with.

[con-pilot]

This whole thread reeks of Republican redneck politics.....


Really? We are talking about the most liberal, left wing orientated President* in US History ordering the assassinations of US Citizens without due process, including a 16 year old kid.

And this Republican "redneck" (thanks for the insult), is dead set against such action. As it is un-Constitutional and against at least three Rights guaranteed to US Citizens by the original ten Bill of Rights.

These people were not engaged in active combat against their fellow citizens and were killed in action, no, they were targeted and specifically assassinated by direct orders of the President in a US military operation that was specifically ordered and planned to assasssinate these people.



* That you people in the UK and Europe just love.

[SASless]

DP,

There is no oversight of the entire program back in Washington. That is the point of our argument here. Obama refuses to release anything to the Congress....at least up and until someone leaked a Letter that discussed the Office of Legal Counsel Legal Opinion that formed the Justification Letter. To date...no one outside the White House has seen the actual Justification Letter or they have it has only been in the past two or three days and access was limited to a very few Members of the Intelligence Over Sight Committee.

You worry about the lack of oversight in far off Yemen.....our concern is about the entire program.

Thus, it would appear you have joined those of us who are in favor of all of this being examined by those our system of government says are supposed to be doing that oversight.....the Congress.

As to "Redneck Politics".....this comes pretty close to defining that term.

All About Rednecks (http://theredneckplayground.com/All_About_Rednecks.html)

[dead_pan]

our concern is about the entire program

Only inasmuch at it impinges on the rights of US citizens. You collectively couldn't care less who else gets trampled along the way.

Yemen and Afghanistan are one thing, Pakistan quite another. Your unilateral and unlawful actions in this country have provoked deep resentment from the population at large and may even have undermined the country's fragile leadership. These myopic and incremental military gains may actually end up widening the instability in the region (and bring some bona fide WMDs into play).

Talking of Rednecks, if GWB had ordered these strikes during his term in office, would you have complained so vehemently? Or would you have cut the good ol' boy some slack, let him do what he thunk was right?

[SASless]

How much more clear can one be.....when I post right here for you to read.....several occasions where I said something along the lines of ..."President Obama (or any other President)....".

It does appear you don't read anything you disagree with or you would not be asking the questions you just did.

Either that or you are so prejudiced in your views that nothing said is going to breach that firewall you have against comments anyone who holds even a slightly different view of things than you do.

Just like in discussing Gun Control with a Brit....who cannot grasp the fact UK Law and US Law are very much different...there is no way to penetrate that kind of hard head. Must be the same with this Drone thing.

What is it with you Bush haters.....you still hurting over the way "English Bob" got his ass kicked by the Sheriff?

[brickhistory]

Only inasmuch at it impinges on the rights of US citizens.


Essentially, yes.

As this is what the thread seemed to be about. Certainly what it has become about.

Happy to discuss the drone campaign in another thread if you'd like. But for now, I am discussing an American President ordering the state-committed murders of American citizens with no more than a "trust me."


The attempts to bring up and blame Bush seem to be futile as, to the best of my knowledge, he didn't order the killing of Americans via RPAs.

Those Americans who weren't killed while fighting against US or Allied forces seem to have gotten a trial.

Obama, on the other hand, has been trigger happy via Executive Order, against US citizens.

And Europe loves him. Yet the ghost of Bush is resurrected.

[dead_pan]

Either that or you are so prejudiced in your views that nothing said is going to breach that firewall you have against comments anyone who holds even a slightly different view of things than you do.

Now where's that mirror?

Is this 'Europe Loves Obama' a story Fox has been running of late? (I jest). I think its fair to say our love affair with the man is long over, certainly here in the UK. We like you have finally sussed him out - a mouth + trousers ex-lawyer, just like Blair. I'm a firm believer that a country gets the leader it deserves...

[SASless]

Brick,

Of course the Brits are having some of the very same exact concerns and controversy as we are in the USA.

They have been thrashing this around for at least two years while they have doubled the size of their Drone Fleet and have carried out 350 strikes of their own.

Naturally, they don't mention this but I am quite sure it is only because we have been discussing the US Drone Program.

I guess Dead Pan and the others who are so critical of the US program have absolutely no concerns about their own Drone Program or they would have brought them up.

I guess they see no problem with their killing people with their Drones despite having so much problem with our doing so. I guess there is no danger of their strikes causing resentment by those targeted or supporting those who were the targets as the Brits have a very effective PR program to undercut such reactions to the attacks.

Now I know....since I have broached this UK thing....we shall be told how perfect their program works, how they only hit the intended target and never cause collateral killings of innocent people.

I find it very interesting the concerns about lack of over sight should be mentioned in the linked article.....damn where have I heard that recently?

The MoD’s culture of secrecy and its refusal to accept scrutiny and public accountability is another disaster waiting to happen. It is not enough for the MoD to write about the need for public debate and understanding in policy documents on the one hand, and then refuse information to allow such understanding on the other. There is a great deal of public interest in the use of armed drones and the MoD must release information that would allow such debate and understanding to happen.


Yet more drone secrets « Drone Wars UK (http://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/yet-more-drone-secrects/)

[dead_pan]

Oh come on - you're going to have to better than this. Its not exactly the most incisive of investigative journalism:


Over the past few years we have seen plenty of examples of the disastrous consequences when certain groups claim the privilege of exemption from scrutiny and accountability - bankers and their profligate ‘sub-prime’ loans policy, MPs and their expenses, being just two that jump to mind

Perhaps you should heed your own advice and actually read some of the earlier posts on this thread from those who are evidently more closely involved with UK UAV ops:

Two's In, you are correct that ROE documents will not see the light of day but the broad principals of UK UAV / RPAS operation are in open forum. In essence the UK operates armed UAVs in an identical manner to manned platforms. Primary mission remains ISTAR with the ability to provide an armed response if required and only when strict conditions are met.

At all times the absolute avoidance of non-combatant deaths is paramount - even if that means dumping the weapon in an empty field if the situation changes mid-flight. 'Courageous Restraint' means our guys on the ground may have to fend for themselves if the correct conditions are not met. The level of scrutiny is incredible.

The UK only conducts live missions above Afghanistan. It does not participate, co-operate or facilitate any other type of operation. UK law means that it cannot participate in any 'kill-chain' that its own RoE would preclude.

(my highlights BTW)

For my money a more informed and believable source than some half-ar5ed Wordpress site.

[SASless]

So where you doing these 350 hits then DP.....Belfast?

[dead_pan]

I believe Afghanistan was mentioned in the post. Sounds plausible to me - there has been a bit of a 'to-do' there of late.:rolleyes:

[SASless]

So....the locals really don't know who sent the Hell Fire missile as a wedding party gift then?

[West Coast]

Belfast SAS, you are dead nuts on as far as eliminating the opposition by means other than accepted norms of the day. Or perhaps their actions were the accepted norms of the day.

Residents of ole blightymstealing the high ground to pontificate from is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

[HrkDrvr]

Nearly 450 British military drones lost in Iraq and Afghanistan | Atlantic Council (http://www.acus.org/natosource/nearly-450-british-military-drones-lost-iraq-and-afghanistan)

[Lonewolf_50]

From a Bruce Feirstein article ... it's title begins "Mr. July ..." if you are interested in the whole thing.
But at the same time, I'm reminded of an interview I did in the summer of 1999 with a B-2 Stealth bomber pilot at Whiteman Air Force Base near Knob Noster, Mo.
Noting the seeming invincibility of the B-2, I asked what he thought would be the Air Force's greatest challenge in the future.

Well before the age of drones, the bomber pilot's answer was prescient. "I
worry about antiseptic warfare, when you remove the blood component and can wage war without fear of taking any casualties.

I'm concerned that our leaders won't fully understand the consequences of what they're doing, because what seems cheap and clean is anything but."

Our enemies are real. But so are the moral questions and long-term political implications of drone strikes.
This is the standard "silver bullet" dilemma that's been with us since the first ICBM went operational.

But there really is no dilemma. Hunt down the enemy and kill him.

[SASless]

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/042.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Your unilateral and unlawful actions
In re Pakistan, the term "unilateral" is utterly untrue. So too (untrue) are the many noises coming from the various lying Pakistani officials who have fooled you into making that false statement. I forgive you your ignorance, but I do not have such forebearance regarding those scumbags in Pakistan. With allies like them, who needs enemies?

That you have bought the line the Paki politicos are selling awards you the "I wear a dunce cap as a fashion statement" prize for the week.

I have a bit of experience in this matter, and in that theater of operations.

There was a huge difference betweeen the extremely tight RoE and restrictions on armed UAV's in play when Musharaffef was in charge, and the significantly looser rules in place since he left. The Pakistani government is complicit in every single UAV strike the US makes in Pakistan, absente one or two that were gross errors along the Afghan border where Pakistani troops got hit, based on the evolving agreements on acceptable use of their airspace. Were old Musharref still in office, we'd not even be having this discussion.

I am not sure how recently you were in theater, dead pan. How much mil/pol work have you done with the Pakistanis?

As to "redneck" politicos, the use of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan has increased four or five fold since I was in theater back in the first Bush administration. I don't know if one should "blame" President Obama, but it is a signature of recent Democratic Party presidents that use of silver bullets appeals to them. (Mind you, Rummy was of a like mind in his day, working for Bush).

Clinton and his use of high tech yet politically lame cruise missiles, in the 90's, and Obama's continued endorsement, and expansion, of armed UAV's strike me as no mere coincidence.

Some of you folks are talking out your arses, and noisily at that.

[SASless]

Tea and Medals all around.....next thing you know some Pentagon Gophers will be picking up Gongs for serving the frigging Tea to the Lawyers monitoring the Drone Program under the reasoning the drones (the people....not the aircraft) were combat essential and gallantly stayed awake while on shift directly due the efforts of the Tea Brigade.


Pentagon creates new medal for cyber, drone wars - Business - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/02/13/pentagon-creates-new-medal-for-cyber-drone-wars/D265C91RrHasLVzjFNdz6J/story.html)

[dead_pan]

There was a huge difference betweeen the extremely tight RoE and restrictions on armed UAV's in play when Musharaffef was in charge, and the significantly looser rules in place since he left.
Yes, but they're your RoE. Its not like the Pakistanis asked you to loosen them.

Did I detect a hint in one of your earlier posts that you felt the RoE had be loosened too far? Be honest now.

The Pakistani government is complicit in every single UAV strike the US makes in Pakistan
Complicit in what sense? Do they sign off targets beforehand? Do they have personnel sitting alongside drone operators pointing out hen a group of individuals look awfully like a wedding party or whatever? I didn't think so. What you really mean is that it that they grudgingly take your billion Dollars or so of military aid and let you get on with it, and try their best to manage public opinion or just sit on their hands when you get things horribly wrong.

BTW you didn't answer the unlawful bit.

Interesting comment by the B2 pilot, although UAVs ops are yet another world apart. UAV actions are at the micro level - one missile for one man, or at most a couple of individuals if they happen to be near to each other. At this level intelligence and target identification are absolutely key. UAV operators can only do so much when they are staring down the equivalent of a straw (your words - or something similar - I believe).

[SASless]

DP,

Careful....you don't want to violate OpSec here......that is always a red hot concern amongst your colleagues who attend this forum.

[dead_pan]

Something else to chew on. Not a crummy Wordpress blog this time:

Killing Civilians: Obama’s Drone War in Pakistan | Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/killing-civilians-obamas-drone-war-in-pakistan/5315661)

[SASless]

DP,

Trying to talk sense to Obama is a Fool's Errand as the egotistical SOB just isn't going to listen to anyone that differs with him. That holds true on Foreign and Domestic Policy.


Pew Polls is singing your song now too.

Pakistani Disapproval of U.S. Leadership Soars in 2012 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160439/2012-pakistani-disapproval-leadership-soars.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20USA)

[SASless]

Well now we have it.....the Obama Regime's Attorney General, who is in Civil and Criminal Contempt of Congress, said Drone Attacks could be executed inside the United States, against US Citizens, without any Legal Proceeding whatsoever.:mad:

This coming from a pair of deuces that raised Holy Hell over Wire Tapping and Eavesdropping without a Warrant and who also raised Holy Hell over Water Boarding.

If ever one rationally considered a US President would even consider doing such a thing much less adopt such a Policy....this qualifies as the Inmates Running the Asylum.

So now....we have trouble in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela along with the other usual hot spots and we have a President who thinks he can snuff "potential threats" without any Due Process......Wunderbar!

He just got caught lying through his teeth about Sequestration....along with Benghazi, and the Fast and Furious Debacle....and out of the Media we hear.....Hosannas for the One!:ugh:

What's Ireland like for permanent residence?

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-holder-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-u.s.-soil-are-legal/article/2523319)

[lj101]

Don't you think it's ironic that its deemed acceptable to 'obliterate' the perceived enemy from afar (with a drone), but not from within?

[Lonewolf_50]

No, not ironic in the least. The enemy are "them" and the citizens are "we" in pretty much every nation on earth.

Welcome to the human race, nice to have you drop by for a chat.

[lj101]

But what if your citizens are the 'enemy' within?

[Justanopinion]

The enemy are "them" and the citizens are "we"

But entirely possible to have terrorists ("them") on your own soil, even in America therefore entirely ironic.

[SASless]

Rand Paul filibustering Brennan Nomination!

Good on him!:ok:

Finally a Senator that will stand up to Obama and Holder!:D:D

[SASless]

Three Judge Appeals Court hammers the Obama Administration about the CIA's attempt to deny it holds any records pertaining to its Armed Drone Programs.

The Court cited the public testimony of the new CIA Director and others in the Obama Administration, and Obama's own public statements as removing any justification for the refusal of the Obama Regime to discuss even the existence of CIA/DOD records re Armed Drones.


Court deals blow to CIA drone secrecy - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/court-deal-blow-to-cia-drone-secrecy-88918.html)

Senator Rand Paul's 13 Hour Filibuster was successful....and forced Obama to answer the question about Legal Basis for the Federal Government to use Armed Drone Attacks against American Citizens in particular and all others who enjoy the protections of the US Constitution by their Legal Status while in US Sovereign Territory.

That was a huge Victory by Senator Paul and for the American People.:ok::D

The Answer....is they cannot without Due Process or during an active on-going attack.

[SASless]

Major shift in US Public's approval of Drone Strikes.

The Tide is Turning....for the good.

Drones poll: More people oppose drones killing U.S. citizens. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_of_u_s_citi zens.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

Not ironic.

21st century reality.

Domestic terrorists, like that McVeigh fella, are not news either.

[SASless]

The Government killing Citizens is not new either....recall Waco and Ruby Ridge?

[500N]

"basically the same question:"

Why didn't they ask exactly the same question
and remove one of the variables ?

[Roland Pulfrew]

How ironic then that according to The Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/26/britons-back-assassination-poll-finds) UK subjects are in favour of "drone" strikes.

[SASless]

Some new Graphics on Drone Strikes......

Drones Visualization: Every U.S. Drone Strike In Pakistan Since 2004 (GRAPHIC) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drone-visualization-pakistan_n_2957779.html?ref=topbar)