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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The RAF Forum.....Cerebral?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

They who can give up essential... at BrainyQuote :hmm:

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.

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.

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?;)

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.:)

@ 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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Back to the real issue.....

Brennan: Due Process Not Necessary to Kill Americans for Potential Future Actions

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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?