Back by unpopular demand... US drone program

[Human Bass]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... gislation-

City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation

Resolution bans all municipal agencies from buying or leasing drones

[E.H. Ruddock]

Just to be clear, this drone legislation that everyone is up in arms about is regarding American citizens who have flipped sides and are now operating overseas, right? Not people who are here in the U.S.?

[Norah]

Just to be clear, this drone legislation that everyone is up in arms about is regarding American citizens who have flipped sides and are now operating overseas, right? Not people who are here in the U.S.?

That's how I understand it. But to be fair, I could do more research on the topic. I'd maybe click one of those links Man in Black posted if they weren't presented in a way that made me immediately disregard his argument.

[Man in Black]

Just to be clear, this drone legislation that everyone is up in arms about is regarding American citizens who have flipped sides and are now operating overseas, right? Not people who are here in the U.S.?

“I am not a lawyer and these are the kinds of things that are probably best expressed and explained by lawyers,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters when asked why the administration’s argument for killing Americans overseas doesn’t also allow Obama to order strikes within the country

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-lee- ... le/2520916

[simple schoolboy]

It seems that if a suspect is sufficiently remote they could use the same justification for drone strikes here. How much more control does the Federal government have over Idaho or Montana than Pakistan has over Waziristan?

[Man in Black]

Just to be clear, this drone legislation that everyone is up in arms about is regarding American citizens who have flipped sides and are now operating overseas, right? Not people who are here in the U.S.?

That's how I understand it. But to be fair, I could do more research on the topic. I'd maybe click one of those links Man in Black posted if they weren't presented in a way that made me immediately disregard his argument.

Brah, I feel ya. It's a lot for an Obama fellator to swallow, so to speak.

[E.H. Ruddock]

So, those that are against this; are you against it because of the drone strike in general or are you against it because it is an American citizen? (I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

[4/5]

Their definition of "imminent"...the fact that the U.S. does not need to have clear evidence of any specific attack...who are the "high level" officials who can make this decision?...what activities does the person have to have been engaged in to be eligible for death by drone?

The fact that they can carry them out against American citizens is obviously blatantly unconstitutional, but that's just a bonus.

[4/5]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

[E.H. Ruddock]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

That's just it. I'm not making that decision. It's just my opinion that if you choose to live outside of the country that you are a citizen of, and take up arms against that country, then you don't agree with it's ideals and laws, including due process. I disagree with many laws in this country, but part of me being a citizen is following them anyway. I don't train with Al Qaida because I don't agree with some laws.

[4/5]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

That's just it. I'm not making that decision. It's just my opinion that if you choose to live outside of the country that you are a citizen of, and take up arms against that country, then you don't agree with it's ideals and laws, including due process. I disagree with many laws in this country, but part of me being a citizen is following them anyway. I don't train with Al Qaida because I don't agree with some laws.

That's fine. But aren't there plenty of other actions people take that show they don't agree with the ideals and laws of this country? Do they lose their due process rights, too?

[E.H. Ruddock]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

That's just it. I'm not making that decision. It's just my opinion that if you choose to live outside of the country that you are a citizen of, and take up arms against that country, then you don't agree with it's ideals and laws, including due process. I disagree with many laws in this country, but part of me being a citizen is following them anyway. I don't train with Al Qaida because I don't agree with some laws.

That's fine. But aren't there plenty of other actions people take that show they don't agree with the ideals and laws of this country? Do they lose their due process rights, too?

I guess personally I draw the line at taking up arms with a known foreign enemy against the country that gives you those rights. But that's just me.

[4/5]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

That's just it. I'm not making that decision. It's just my opinion that if you choose to live outside of the country that you are a citizen of, and take up arms against that country, then you don't agree with it's ideals and laws, including due process. I disagree with many laws in this country, but part of me being a citizen is following them anyway. I don't train with Al Qaida because I don't agree with some laws.

That's fine. But aren't there plenty of other actions people take that show they don't agree with the ideals and laws of this country? Do they lose their due process rights, too?

I guess personally I draw the line at taking up arms with a known foreign enemy against the country that gives you those rights. But that's just me.

It's not just you. But I'm wondering if you're okay with drone strikes against alleged domestic terrorists who are not in the midst of carrying out an attack as well?

Honestly, the whole American citizen = due process rights isn't the biggest issue here. If you are an active combatant in a war then you are tacitly acknowledging the "right" of the other side to make war against you. I'm struggling with the very broad definitions of words like imminent and activities.

[E.H. Ruddock]

It's not just you. But I'm wondering if you're okay with drone strikes against alleged domestic terrorists who are not in the midst of carrying out an attack as well?

We really haven't had a situation domestically where people would be "ok" with attacking citizens, enemies, or both on our home soil. I think the majority of Americans would currently be against it, but if things such as suicide bombings became a somewhat frequent event here, I wonder how the opinion would change?

[Fuck You Jobu]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

That's just it. I'm not making that decision. It's just my opinion that if you choose to live outside of the country that you are a citizen of, and take up arms against that country, then you don't agree with it's ideals and laws, including due process. I disagree with many laws in this country, but part of me being a citizen is following them anyway. I don't train with Al Qaida because I don't agree with some laws.

That's fine. But aren't there plenty of other actions people take that show they don't agree with the ideals and laws of this country? Do they lose their due process rights, too?

Are these "other" actions resulting in drone attacks?

[Fuck You Jobu]

(I would argue if they are a known terrorist fighting against the U.S. they are not really a 'citizen'.)

But who are you to make that decision? They are legally considered citizens. Citizens have due process rights.

That's just it. I'm not making that decision. It's just my opinion that if you choose to live outside of the country that you are a citizen of, and take up arms against that country, then you don't agree with it's ideals and laws, including due process. I disagree with many laws in this country, but part of me being a citizen is following them anyway. I don't train with Al Qaida because I don't agree with some laws.

That's fine. But aren't there plenty of other actions people take that show they don't agree with the ideals and laws of this country? Do they lose their due process rights, too?

I guess personally I draw the line at taking up arms with a known foreign enemy against the country that gives you those rights. But that's just me.

It's not just you. But I'm wondering if you're okay with drone strikes against alleged domestic terrorists who are not in the midst of carrying out an attack as well?

Honestly, the whole American citizen = due process rights isn't the biggest issue here. If you are an active combatant in a war then you are tacitly acknowledging the "right" of the other side to make war against you. I'm struggling with the very broad definitions of words like imminent and activities.

I don't see why they have to be in the midst of an attack. Planning for an attack is enough. Being a member of AQ or their subsidiaries is enough. Those activities warrant it and I'd think most activities do. But I can understand your concern about imminent.

[nyquillyn]

I'm not taking a side with this question, but wonder why it is "liberals" seem to be defending drone strikes after years of decrying GOP "warmongering" and torture tactics.

[broken iris]

I'm not taking a side with this question, but wonder why it is "liberals" seem to be defending drone strikes after years of decrying GOP "warmongering" and torture tactics.

Liberals have spent so long suggesting that criticisms of Obama were quiet racism, they are stuck in a catch 22.

[broken iris]

I guess personally I draw the line at taking up arms with a known foreign enemy against the country that gives you those rights. But that's just me.

It's not just you. But I'm wondering if you're okay with drone strikes against alleged domestic terrorists who are not in the midst of carrying out an attack as well?

Honestly, the whole American citizen = due process rights isn't the biggest issue here. If you are an active combatant in a war then you are tacitly acknowledging the "right" of the other side to make war against you. I'm struggling with the very broad definitions of words like imminent and activities.

I still think due process is a big part of it, since we have no idea who the "high ranking officials" that are allowed to determine that someone is no longer entitled their rights (without a trial) actual are. Is it a $30k/year watch floor chief in Tampa? The CIA? Ben Bernanke?

[surfndestroy]

This article does a nice job capturing how the Obama administration has slowly been trying to tilt the playing field and interpretation of law to suit their drone campaign. I like that it doesn't get bogged down in constitutional arguement at all, just how the administration is justifying their actions.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... stify.html