Some people finally understand the reality behind drone strikes
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
Some people finally understand the reality behind drone strikes
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
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.
Congress considers putting limits on drone strikes - US News and World Report
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.
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.
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.
there is a dawning realization that when the bad guys won't follow the rules, you might need to change the rules
At this point you have to hope your ratio of definite bad guys to unlucky pizza delivery guys eviscerated is suitably compelling.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 6th Feb 2013 at 19:34.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by SASless; 7th Feb 2013 at 01:54.
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
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
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
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Last edited by SASless; 7th Feb 2013 at 12:55.
That then comes down to the real meat of the discussion - do you trust your Government to behave ethically and with moral courage
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.
provide for the kinds of protections that are being required for most law enforcement operations
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by orca; 7th Feb 2013 at 15:48.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: South Africa
Age: 70
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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".
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?
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.
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?
Last edited by SASless; 7th Feb 2013 at 16:29.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.???
Are we talking FOX, Murdoch, The Washington Post, Huffington here or some other branch of the US Govt.???
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
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by orca; 7th Feb 2013 at 16:56.