pacino wrote:

allentown wrote:

Werthless wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

“I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

So are we going to extend this to all law enforcement? No one gets shot without first being found guilty by court?

Does anyone have a response to this? I'm struggling to see how drones are different, from the perspective of habeas corpus and the rights of the killed, from other killings of American citizens on US soil. Is it more fair if the presumed criminal has an opportunity to fight back?

This is in large measure a fear of new technology. 'It makes killing easier and doesn't put US soldiers at risk'. Isn't that the sort of thing that the Pentagon should be looking for? The critics of the drones do not limit their complaints to the kiling of American citizens or the what-ifs? of a future AMerican citizen terrorist. It is an objection to the use of drones even to kill Al Quaeda leaders in the Pakistan tribal areas and Yemen. The cry is against collateral damage, even though the drones are known to drastically reduce collateral damage, compared to say calling in a fighter bomber strike. This is basically Rand Paul plus the anti-any-military-action wing of the left, who were hoping that Obama would severely alter our foreign policy and military policy.

i'm not sure who you're responding to on this board with this line of strawman thinking. no one here has stated any of this, and it doesnt seem fair to paint it as such.

pacino wrote:this is a military weapon. use it through the military so there can be ways to control it and ways to approve that are legal and able to be reviewed. that's all most people are asking. this CIA #$!&@ and running by Congress is unnecessarily secretive and makes them look bad, like there they are hiding something. just show people you're not.

ted cruz's questioning of holder was moronic, though. him being behind any issue seems to be a liability.

pacino wrote:We have killed plenty of people who were not verified as being terrorists.

pacino wrote:it would seem we appear to disagree on what is considered being part of AQ.

drsmooth wrote:what's being missed in all the perspiring back&forth about the devices that various authorities may or may not use to kill people & when are the more stubborn, more difficult constitutional questions of how & when the head of a constitutionally governed political body may or may not go about carrying out the sanctioned murders that that state essentially exists TO sanction. It's all very easy when the murders are murders of agents of another nation-state. it quickly becomes #$!&@ murky when those 'agents' are 'free' - or at least only agents in their own mind, or their little local cell members' minds, or post hoc the minds of some loud-talking, responsibility-assuming rump political/ideological splinter group that has no nation to call home much less to officially boss around.

When they are citizens of the state doing the sanctioned murdering, who maybe haven't yet actually done the deeds they might legally be murdered for? Yeah, that's an even tougher one. You may as well be trying some guy for publicly fantasizing about barbequeing and eating his ex-girlfriend. You might win your case, but you've still got a pretty tricky case to make.

allentown wrote:

drsmooth wrote:what's being missed in all the perspiring back&forth about the devices that various authorities may or may not use to kill people & when are the more stubborn, more difficult constitutional questions of how & when the head of a constitutionally governed political body may or may not go about carrying out the sanctioned murders that that state essentially exists TO sanction. It's all very easy when the murders are murders of agents of another nation-state. it quickly becomes #$!&@ murky when those 'agents' are 'free' - or at least only agents in their own mind, or their little local cell members' minds, or post hoc the minds of some loud-talking, responsibility-assuming rump political/ideological splinter group that has no nation to call home much less to officially boss around.

When they are citizens of the state doing the sanctioned murdering, who maybe haven't yet actually done the deeds they might legally be murdered for? Yeah, that's an even tougher one. You may as well be trying some guy for publicly fantasizing about barbequeing and eating his ex-girlfriend. You might win your case, but you've still got a pretty tricky case to make.

The cop who fantasized about torturing, killing, and eating women was available for arrest and trial. The American killed in Yemen was in AQ controlled tribal area and not available for arrest. Nor would showing he was AQ be difficult, since he proclaimed as much on his website and all available intelligence confirmed that he was an AQ in Yemen leader who advocated attacks against the US and west. Nor was he some US tourist or Jane Fonda-type political protester overseas. While eligible for US citizenship due to birth in the US to foreign nationals, he considered himself a national of his parents home country. At best, he was a dual citizen with the US citizenship not primary.

allentown wrote:

pacino wrote:it would seem we appear to disagree on what is considered being part of AQ.

AQ or Taliban. What examples do you have of drones targetting people who aren't AQ or Taliban?

drsmooth wrote:

allentown wrote:

drsmooth wrote:what's being missed in all the perspiring back&forth about the devices that various authorities may or may not use to kill people & when are the more stubborn, more difficult constitutional questions of how & when the head of a constitutionally governed political body may or may not go about carrying out the sanctioned murders that that state essentially exists TO sanction. It's all very easy when the murders are murders of agents of another nation-state. it quickly becomes #$!&@ murky when those 'agents' are 'free' - or at least only agents in their own mind, or their little local cell members' minds, or post hoc the minds of some loud-talking, responsibility-assuming rump political/ideological splinter group that has no nation to call home much less to officially boss around.

When they are citizens of the state doing the sanctioned murdering, who maybe haven't yet actually done the deeds they might legally be murdered for? Yeah, that's an even tougher one. You may as well be trying some guy for publicly fantasizing about barbequeing and eating his ex-girlfriend. You might win your case, but you've still got a pretty tricky case to make.

The cop who fantasized about torturing, killing, and eating women was available for arrest and trial. The American killed in Yemen was in AQ controlled tribal area and not available for arrest. Nor would showing he was AQ be difficult, since he proclaimed as much on his website and all available intelligence confirmed that he was an AQ in Yemen leader who advocated attacks against the US and west. Nor was he some US tourist or Jane Fonda-type political protester overseas. While eligible for US citizenship due to birth in the US to foreign nationals, he considered himself a national of his parents home country. At best, he was a dual citizen with the US citizenship not primary.

thanks atown, but nothing you've included in your reply has fuckall to do with the constitution. The barbeque guy's case isn't about whether someone might be authorized to drone his ass; it's about whether a guy's hellish thoughts, even when expressed "in public", amount to hanging crimes (in my view the emeffer needs some psych help, and should never have any public safety role)

drsmooth wrote:

allentown wrote:

drsmooth wrote:what's being missed in all the perspiring back&forth about the devices that various authorities may or may not use to kill people & when are the more stubborn, more difficult constitutional questions of how & when the head of a constitutionally governed political body may or may not go about carrying out the sanctioned murders that that state essentially exists TO sanction. It's all very easy when the murders are murders of agents of another nation-state. it quickly becomes #$!&@ murky when those 'agents' are 'free' - or at least only agents in their own mind, or their little local cell members' minds, or post hoc the minds of some loud-talking, responsibility-assuming rump political/ideological splinter group that has no nation to call home much less to officially boss around.

When they are citizens of the state doing the sanctioned murdering, who maybe haven't yet actually done the deeds they might legally be murdered for? Yeah, that's an even tougher one. You may as well be trying some guy for publicly fantasizing about barbequeing and eating his ex-girlfriend. You might win your case, but you've still got a pretty tricky case to make.

The cop who fantasized about torturing, killing, and eating women was available for arrest and trial. The American killed in Yemen was in AQ controlled tribal area and not available for arrest. Nor would showing he was AQ be difficult, since he proclaimed as much on his website and all available intelligence confirmed that he was an AQ in Yemen leader who advocated attacks against the US and west. Nor was he some US tourist or Jane Fonda-type political protester overseas. While eligible for US citizenship due to birth in the US to foreign nationals, he considered himself a national of his parents home country. At best, he was a dual citizen with the US citizenship not primary.

I think it is directly on point as to why your example was a bad example. You confuse the rules of criminal prosecution/justice with the rules of warfare. The guy in Yemen was clearly an enemy combatant according to the law of war.
thanks atown, but nothing you've included in your reply has #$!&@ to do with the constitution. The barbeque guy's case isn't about whether someone might be authorized to drone his ass; it's about whether a guy's hellish thoughts, even when expressed "in public", amount to hanging crimes (in my view the emeffer needs some psych help, and should never have any public safety role)

pacino wrote:

allentown wrote:

pacino wrote:it would seem we appear to disagree on what is considered being part of AQ.

AQ or Taliban. What examples do you have of drones targetting people who aren't AQ or Taliban?

multiple wedding parties
first-responders
1/3 of those killed are explicitly labelled civilians
anyone who is of military-age and is a male is considered a target

it's too much of a wide-berth