The administration does not appear to be putting appropriate guidelines/limits on the use of drones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... ostpopular

What about the administration allowing the attack of US civilians via drone strikes? What happened to those who supported due process?

It's ironic that torture is considered barbaric but murder is okay.

This topic is something that chills me to my core. It's more than just drones, it's about state ordered and condoned assassination (of citizens!) by any means. Perhaps Obama didn't want to look too closely at the past administration's crimes because they wanted to be held to the same standard by the next administration. He'd better hope so.

There is a great article on this topic in The Guardian yesterday. It's long, comprehensive and should make your blood boil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

where is the outrage from the Obama supporters?
Even if you support this position, (and I think I side mostly with it), it's most certainly a slippery slope and full of all sorts of legal issues yet the Obama supporters remain silent! (just like his promise to do away with Guantanamo Bay)

bbauska wrote:What about the administration allowing the attack of US civilians via drone strikes? What happened to those who supported due process?

Isn't that what the first post is about? Authorising the extra-judicial killing by drone of US citizens who are 'suspected' of being terrorists, meaning that they are not definitely terrorists and the chances that they are civilians increases. The definition of 'imminence' is also a major exercise in Newspeak.

Mind you, non-US civilians are civilians too, so let's not get all insular about it.

And I for one oppose it, and would do regardless of who was in the White House.

Tom - so far, before your post, two people I assume to be Obama supporters have expressed their opposition. So your question: "where is the outrage from the Obama supporters?" was totally unnecessary.

As was your "yet the Obama supporters remain silent!"

And then you tell us that you (mostly) agree with it? Them are pretty big blinders you are wearing!

This topic is something that chills me to my core. It's more than just drones, it's about state ordered and condoned assassination (of citizens!) by any means. Perhaps Obama didn't want to look too closely at the past administration's crimes because they wanted to be held to the same standard by the next administration. He'd better hope so.

You're right. the means of assassination is secondary.
The question is, when suspected terrorists are operating with impunity in states that ignore international law what does a nation do to protect itself?
If the US gains intelligence that there are potential terrorists in the UK, the SU works with the government of the UK to interdict the suspects and bring them to justice. In the UK the terrorists have the protections of the law....
Same for any other nation which respects international law, and which has genuine control over its territory.
What happens when a nation chooses to ignore international law and harbour terrorists. (Afghanistan ) Or is unable to police its territory effectively? (Yemen or Pakistan)
If a nation can't operate through the instruments of international law, or diplomacy OR can't count on a government to be able to act effectively should this lead to terrorist organization acting with impunity?
And that's the balance isn't it?
Isn't it true that the Drone program is restricted to nations that fall under the two categories I've listed? And isn't it also true that terrorist groups have strategically chosen failed states or states with limited control in which to operate specifically because they believe they are beyond the reach of laws?
I agree that the program is a problem. But it is a limited response, to a problem that can have enormous consequences. Its the old question of , What if you had a chance to assassinate Hitler before the war?"
One can never be certain that the intelligence is perfect... And I think we would always prefer that suspects be subject to arrest and a court of law.... But, if there are lawless lands..... assassination might be the only alternative to simply waiting for a terrorist act. Is it moral, to know that an act of terror is being planned against your nation and do nothing? Doesn't the government of a nation have the duty to act to protect its citizens?
If it can't do so through legal means, because they do not exist ....then surely illegal means are justified. (I see assassination as an act outside of law.... but an act that can be justified if conducted in areas where law does not exist.)
By the way, it doesn't matter if they are Americans or not. And the US government has certainly killed Americans committing treason before. There were 8 American volunteers in the Waffen SS killed in WWII I believe.

GMTom wrote:where is the outrage from the Obama supporters?

If you're outraged, you're not an Obama supporter.

Ricky essentially says that America has two choices: to use drones or to let suspected criminals and terrorists operate with impunity. That's a false choice, in my view. There are many other ways for the US to respond within our law. Those ways would be harder and less effective. They would also likely be legal.

geo

There are many other ways for the US to respond within our law. Those ways would be harder and less effective. They would also likely be legal.

What are those ways, in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen etc.
If International Law is not recognized, then how can a legal process be followed?
And if "less effective" is "ineffective" is this responsible?
I don't think there are 2 choices. I think there is a range of responses that are tempered by where the threat resides, what the threat is, and what physical options exist for interdiction.

Example: Extraordinary rendition to me is criminal when conducted in nation states like Macedonia or Italy. As it was. There were obvious legal options available in those nations. Furthermore, once a suspect was in custody, they are no longer a threat and they should have the opportunity to face their accusations and defend themselves in a court of laws. Preferably a World Court, since the crime is taking place across borders... Of course, for the US, who refuse to participate in the World Court...this is a problem.

However, if a terrorist is hiding in a jurisdiction where the national authority will not, or is unable to respond to legal requests ..... is there an option? Please explain what the options are in the frontier states in Pakistan....

Ricky, before I sit down and respond fully, let me just point out that there are several issues with your 'defence' or at least fence-sitting on drone policy that annoyed me immensely.

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:where is the outrage from the Obama supporters?

If you're outraged, you're not an Obama supporter.

Well, you can be a supporter of Obama in general, indeed on all issues other than this, and be outraged about it.

I do so hate false dichotomies.

OMG I agree with Ricky, I may have to rethink my position!
(in lawless areas you sometimes need to take the law into your own hands, I hope these are RARE occurrences but yeah, I can see the need in some cases)
but the real truth may be worse than you thought...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sweati ... app,31219/

Even If you think that the drone program is appropriate there are several issues: (1) lack of oversight by Congress, (2) the appropriateness of having the CIA oversee the program rather than the military, and (3) how do you define imminent threat?, (4 ) how do you define membership in a terrorist group? and (5) the appropriateness of violating the sovereignty of another country to kill terrorists (how would we feel if another country sent a drone to kill someone within our borders).

rickyp wrote:You're right. the means of assassination is secondary.

About the most sensible thing in your post, but it's all downhill from there...

The question is, when suspected terrorists are operating with impunity in states that ignore international law what does a nation do to protect itself?

Well, quite, except there are very interesting issues with this line:
1) what does 'suspected' mean? Clearly it means that we haven't proven they are terrorists yet. So action against them is extra-judicial
2) what are they doing in these states, thousands of miles away from the USA, that requires protection from? If they have access to ICBMs, I can see the issue of imminent danger to the homeland. If they are operating in those states with targets in those states, that's a different thing
3) Aren't there means of protection other than 'blowing shit up'?

If the US gains intelligence that there are potential terrorists in the UK, the SU works with the government of the UK to interdict the suspects and bring them to justice. In the UK the terrorists have the protections of the law....
Same for any other nation which respects international law, and which has genuine control over its territory.

Remember the key point - we are talking about 'suspected' terrorists. Not definite terrorists. You sound like Dick Cheney.

What happens when a nation chooses to ignore international law and harbour terrorists. (Afghanistan ) Or is unable to police its territory effectively? (Yemen or Pakistan)
If a nation can't operate through the instruments of international law, or diplomacy OR can't count on a government to be able to act effectively should this lead to terrorist organization acting with impunity?

I suppose the question is, should the US be the international policeman?

And that's the balance isn't it?
Isn't it true that the Drone program is restricted to nations that fall under the two categories I've listed? And isn't it also true that terrorist groups have strategically chosen failed states or states with limited control in which to operate specifically because they believe they are beyond the reach of laws?

I'm not sure if that is true yet - so far not all of the information regarding the use of drones has been released. Do you have access to it, or are you just guessing?

I agree that the program is a problem. But it is a limited response, to a problem that can have enormous consequences. Its the old question of , What if you had a chance to assassinate Hitler before the war?"

Well, there are two problems with the comparison. One is that we have the gift of hindsight. In the 1930s we did not know what would happen later. We did not know, for example, whether or not assassinating him would stop the Nazis and what it would actually prevent, or whether it would lead to a reaction under a successor (Boorman?) who would be as bad, if not worse than we thought?

The other is that assassinating people is murder. Even if they are nasty people, I've never understood the idea that two wrongs suddenly make a right when it suits.

One can never be certain that the intelligence is perfect... And I think we would always prefer that suspects be subject to arrest and a court of law.... But, if there are lawless lands..... assassination might be the only alternative to simply waiting for a terrorist act. Is it moral, to know that an act of terror is being planned against your nation and do nothing? Doesn't the government of a nation have the duty to act to protect its citizens?

Yes, it does. But it has a choice of actions - and while in your later post you deny it, this is clearly alluding to the false dichotomy of 'use drones to kill civilians suspected of being terrorists who may at some undefined time in the future launch an attack on the US or it's citizens' vs 'do nothing'

If it can't do so through legal means, because they do not exist ....then surely illegal means are justified. (I see assassination as an act outside of law.... but an act that can be justified if conducted in areas where law does not exist.)

Why? Why are illegal means suddenly justified? Why are all legal means non-existent or completely unusable?

By the way, it doesn't matter if they are Americans or not. And the US government has certainly killed Americans committing treason before. There were 8 American volunteers in the Waffen SS killed in WWII I believe.

The second WWII analogy, and this one is just as stupid. The Americans in the Waffen SS were not civilians, they were soldiers. The Waffen SS was a military unit. Yes there were 8 Americans who died fighting on the Nazi side - probably on the Eastern Front as that's where much of the Waffen SS casualties occurred, but what does that have to do with targeting people who are not handily wearing a uniform with a death's head on it?

and on to post 2...

What are those ways, in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen etc.
If International Law is not recognized, then how can a legal process be followed?
And if "less effective" is "ineffective" is this responsible?
I don't think there are 2 choices. I think there is a range of responses that are tempered by where the threat resides, what the threat is, and what physical options exist for interdiction.

Firstly, why only 'physical' options? Secondly, it's incorrect to claim that there is no legal framework or process at all in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan. There are. There are governments there, there are forces within those governments who uphold the laws. For a start, we could work with them. Sending drones in without even their permission or knowledge seems to be to likely to reduce the chances that those who could be our allies will work with us - and that is really when the issue of law breaks down.

Example: Extraordinary rendition to me is criminal when conducted in nation states like Macedonia or Italy. As it was. There were obvious legal options available in those nations. Furthermore, once a suspect was in custody, they are no longer a threat and they should have the opportunity to face their accusations and defend themselves in a court of laws. Preferably a World Court, since the crime is taking place across borders... Of course, for the US, who refuse to participate in the World Court...this is a problem.

However, if a terrorist is hiding in a jurisdiction where the national authority will not, or is unable to respond to legal requests ..... is there an option? Please explain what the options are in the frontier states in Pakistan....

I find this just stunningly ignorant of the reality of extraordinary rendition as actually happened. The people concerned were captured in those countries by our forces, or often by local forces and usually held in facilities in the countries themselves, with the home nation involved. Certainly some of the cases I've seen show that people were 'rendered' from Pakistani to US custody (and thence to some dodgy middle-eastern country where they didn't have the qualms we do about torture).

Frankly, Ricky, I am stunned. If it was Bush doing this, you'd be jumping up and down, showing how immoral it was, attacking Republicans and anyone who shows support for it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember just that a few years ago on similar debates.

Tom may be trying to use it as a 'gotcha' against Democrats, but at least his position is consistent - he was pretty much not opposed to the kinds of methods like rendition, second-hand torture (or just 'enhanced interrogation' by the US) etc way back. I may disagree with him fundamentally, but at least he's not switching positions.

I can only conclude it's because Obama is doing it. I don't get it, you aren't even from the US, why are you willing to cut a Democrat slack on something you'd never condone in a Republican? Partisanship doesn't mean having to actually be there, I guess.