Some people finally understand the reality behind drone strikes
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.
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.
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
) 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?
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
) 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?
Last edited by Mk 1; 11th Feb 2013 at 22:27.
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.
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?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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?
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?
Last edited by SASless; 12th Feb 2013 at 10:58.
As to those non-Americans receiving a close-up look of a Hellfire, well, that is different.
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.
dead pan, I think you miss the point.
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.
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 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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Feb 2013 at 14:02.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With such a divisive and xenophoic an attitude like this, why even bother
attempting to engage with the rest of the world?
attempting to engage with the rest of the world?
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?
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Illegal Combatant
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.
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.
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.
OK, brick, fair enough, he surrendered.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole thread reeks of Republican redneck politics.....
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.