[quote]Chushin wrote:
Related to what someone above wrote, couldn’t such an American be tried in abstentia for treason, and then sentenced to death (by whatever means possible)?[/quote]
Great question. Wish I had a definitive answer.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Related to what someone above wrote, couldn’t such an American be tried in abstentia for treason, and then sentenced to death (by whatever means possible)?[/quote]
I am not a lawyer and I know not to underestimate the number of exceptions and loopholes in US law, but I do know that the Supreme Court has declared in absentia trials to be violations of due process.
Though I’d argue that more rights are violated when a citizen is executed without trial.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]b89 wrote:
I can see it for what it’s, I don’t think someone exercising their First Amendment rights is what they’ve in mind either. If an American is getting trained by or acting on behalf of one of those organizations a capture or kill mission might not be feasible or the best course of action. I don’t think a Reaper is going to fly over my house and blow up an F350 because they caught Bobby on the move and he’s been doing a lot of talking on Facebook.[/quote]
I mean shit, we apparently don’t need the 2nd, I believe the scribbles out a couple more.
Fuck it, lets just rip up the Bill of Rights now and save the drama. Billy Bob in his Ford will be okay. [/quote]
I live in a rural area. I could only hope the guys out here would be some guerilla force fighting the US government. I think Obama would just waive the white flag of surrender when they see my neighbor cleaning a pig he just killed in his front yard while barefoot and shirtless.
Personally, I see this being dependent on how it’s applied. Let’s say some guy travels to Pakistan then goes to the tribal area and receives training. After receiving that training he’s then employed by that organization. The United States gets reliable intelligence and observes him doing things on behalf of that organization countless times. If they could kill a high value target with a drone strike and that person is present they would no longer be able to use a drone strike, they would have to hope they could raid that location on short notice. There wouldn’t be sufficient time to do something like that. Applying it to American citizens on American soil that pose only a perceived threat is significantly different.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, and it is very rational, but the point still stands.
These are Americans. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. If one of our own goes off into crazyworld and starts working for the wrong team, we don’t turn into savages because it is convenient.
I refuse to rationalize it or accept it, because if I do, others will, and once they do, there won’t be anyone left to stand up against it when it IS allowed on US soil…[/quote]
They lose the legal protections of American citizens when they take up arms against the United States and its allies and actively work to further the cause of terrorist organizations. Savagery? Hardly. Idealism has its place but it certainly isn’t in the realm of national security.
[/quote]
If the guy is an active enemny and taking up arms at the very moment he is sniped by a drone, fine. Still grinds my gears but at least I can justify that.
If dude is walking to the local market… No.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you saying the only time you feel a drone strike is justified is in the event of the individual actively engaging in small-arms combat? And that a known high value target (i.e. financier, propagandist, enemy commander, ect.) shouldn’t be targeted if he is merely coordinating operations from a known militant stronghold? I agree that all efforts should be made to minimize civilian casualties if that’s what you meant.[/quote]
What you don’t understand is that a US citizen has the constitutional right to due process, whether through civilian court or military tribunal. An example of the first would be John Walker Lindh. There is an example of the second where a US citizen was captured within the US after being discovered a saboteur. He was tried in a military tribunal (due process) and executed.
The methodology of how the government captures and secures said citizens is not mine to define. [/quote]
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the national security apparatus, the difficulties associated with the operations themselves, and the operational environment. A terrorist operating on American soil is a poor example, being located within the United States and the jurisdiction and capability of law enforcement. A militant stronghold in a volatile place such as Yemen is another matter entirely. Targeted killings, of which drones do not have a monopoly, are not a reflexive protocol in the administrations counter-terrorism strategy. This is especially true in the case of an American citizen engaging in acts of war against the United States. They are usually an option of last resort when other means prove impractical or pose unacceptable risks to American personnel.
A look inside the Disposition Matrix. The title is theatrical but the content is solid.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Which is why ground operations by special operations forces are preferable if they are appropriate to the situation. This has long been a component of the administration’s counter-terrorism strategy and an example of CIA and State Department cooperation in recognition of the complex geo-political implications of combating asymmetrical non-state actors.
The link I already provided.
http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627#p4
“Since President Obama assumed office, the Pentagon has also increased the use of special operations raids (aka kill/capture missions) from 675 covert raids in 2009 to roughly 2,200 in 2011.”
These kill/capture missions are simply another form of targeted killings.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the national security apparatus, the difficulties associated with the operations themselves, and the operational environment. A terrorist operating on American soil is a poor example, being located within the United States and the jurisdiction and capability of law enforcement. A militant stronghold in a volatile place such as Yemen is another matter entirely. Targeted killings, of which drones do not have a monopoly, are not a reflexive protocol in the administrations counter-terrorism strategy. This is especially true in the case of an American citizen engaging in acts of war against the United States. They are usually an option of last resort when other means prove impractical or pose unacceptable risks to American personnel.
A look inside the Disposition Matrix. The title is theatrical but the content is solid.
[/quote]
Look, you have a very reasonable and logical position here, and very well may be 100% more correct than I am. That said:
The problem is two fold. One being, I don’t trust this president, the prior president or very many career politicains to make these judgement calls. It gives that more power than any one person should have. And are there even checks on that power? What if a mistake is made and my Uncle the hippie tourist is targeted by accident, human error and blasted while on a trip? Does the presdient go to prision for murder? Does anyone ever even find out?
Secondly, you see this from a perspective with practicality, we are arguing from a postion of ideaology. It is going to be a long road bringing the two to a point of compromise.
To put it bluntly and plainly: We should expect better than this.
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. [/quote]
A man of principle. Fair enough. I will say this, though–if this were to actually happen to you, it would not be a fun decision to make.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. [/quote]
A man of principle. Fair enough. I will say this, though–if this were to actually happen to you, it would not be a fun decision to make.[/quote]
Hell no it wouldn’t easy. I would lose sleep over it for a long time. It would eat away at me.
But when it comes down to it, even if it means I would lose the popularity contest that is our current election system, I’d rather lose and be able to look myself in the eye, than do something I believe to be very wrong and win.
I like to believe it is things like this, on the daily, are why presidents look about 15 years older than they did after each term.
War is suppose to be messy. It is suppose to cause pain, starvation, poverty, and pestilence. As soon as someone [anyone] can conduct it without having to directly engage their enemy the reasons to avoid/end conflicts evaporate. From there anything becomes an excuse to attack. IMO…snatch & grab is the way to go if it is important enough.
FTR-I am a veteran.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. A hammer is not always the best tool, if you catch my drift. Killing him and turning him into a martyr while he’s in hiding is counterproductive to the main goal.
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
You really think this?
What is preferable to killing him? Capturing him and having to figure out what to do with him?
Leaving aside the “American citizen” hypothetical for a moment, I’d say we had a hammer and he was a nail.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
War is suppose to be messy. It is suppose to cause pain, starvation, poverty, and pestilence. As soon as someone [anyone] can conduct it without having to directly engage their enemy the reasons to avoid/end conflicts evaporate. From there anything becomes an excuse to attack. IMO…snatch & grab is the way to go if it is important enough.
FTR-I am a veteran. [/quote]
This is a another good point. With risk increasingly absent from these decisions, it will take effort to avoid a corresponding diminution of prudence.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
No. [/quote]
Ten drones
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
That sounds nice, but it has very little in common with the reality of American counter-terrorism strategy.
After seeing this, I never want to hear anyone oppose the Death Penalty ever again.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Here is a hypothetical that stretches the boundaries of ideology in this instance: all other things being equal, what if Osama bin Laden had been born an American citizen. You’re the President and you have his location. No raid possible. Do you send a drone?[/quote]
Our biggest problem with radical Islam and our foreign policy in general is the blowback caused by viewing every problem as a nail just because we have the biggest hammer.[/quote]
That sounds nice, but it has very little in common with the reality of American counter-terrorism strategy. [/quote]
Indeed, and in the case of AQ, they really are just a bunch of nails.