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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.???

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Run Media....defined.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss.

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

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

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

Do you have the Death Penalty in the UK?

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

Hopefully they just do it in secret.

that's how the US Constitution works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It happened on more occasions than you would probably imagine during the troubles in Northern Ireland, maybe not directly by the state but indirectly through our collusion with loyalist paramilitaries.

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

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

Courtney Mil and SASless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Drone thing is not a simple issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A former Federal Judge offers his opinion.

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

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

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


President Obama gives himself permission to kill | Fox News

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

My point exactly.

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

Martin Niemöller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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