• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US officials struggle with possible drone strike on American citizen

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/5...ith-possible-drone-strike-on-american-citizen

An American member of al-Qaeda has been identified and located in a hostile nation, and according to a new report by the Associated Press, the Obama administration is struggling with the legal implications of killing him. According to the report, the CIA has determined the suspect is actively plotting attacks in a nation that refuses US military action on its soil, but is waiting on a Justice Department review before taking any action. The Pentagon has already approved the use of lethal force.

The idea of a drone strike on an American citizen has faced challenges before, both from Congress and from federal judges, under claims that the program would circumvent the constitutional right to due process. In May, the president issued new oversight for drone strikes and a higher standard for the use of lethal force, both of which will be tested in the current case. The case also mirrors a 2009 strike against cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the only previous American citizen to have been targeted and killed by drone strike.

.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...argeted-drone-attack-22438384?singlePage=true


An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

But one U.S. official said the Defense Department was divided over whether the man is dangerous enough to merit the potential domestic fallout of killing an American without charging him with a crime or trying him, and the potential international fallout of such an operation in a country that has been resistant to U.S. action.

Another of the U.S. officials said the Pentagon did ultimately decide to recommend lethal action.

The officials said the suspected terrorist is well-guarded and in a fairly remote location, so any unilateral attempt by U.S. troops to capture him would be risky and even more politically explosive than a U.S. missile strike.

Under new guidelines Obama addressed in a speech last year to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" — the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.

The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly.

House Intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., complained last week that a number of terrorist suspects were all but out of reach under the administration's new rules that limit drone strikes based on the target's nationality or location. Two of the U.S. officials said the Justice Department review of the American suspected terrorist started last fall.

The senior administration official confirmed that the Justice Department was working to build a case for the president to review and decide the man's fate. The official said, however, the legal procedure being followed is the same as when the U.S. killed militant cleric and former Virginia resident Anwar al-Awlaki by drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect.

The official said the president could make an exception to his policy and authorize the CIA to strike on a onetime basis or authorize the Pentagon to act despite the possible objections of the country in question.

The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA declined to comment.

If the target is an American citizen, the Justice Department is required to show that killing the person through military action is "legal and constitutional"— in this case, that the Pentagon can take action against the American, as the administration has ruled him an enemy combatant under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a resolution Congress passed a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida.

Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame, said there is a school of thought that the Obama administration's drone policy is "lawless."

"Why should the Justice Department issue the execution warrant for anyone abroad? The fact that they give extra scrutiny only because he's an American exacerbates this negative impression," O'Connell said.

U.S. drones have killed four Americans since 2009, including al-Awlaki, who the administration said was actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the three other Americans were killed by drones, but were not targeted. The three are Samir Khan, who was killed in the same drone strike as al-Awlaki; al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, a native of Denver who was killed in Yemen two weeks later; and Jude Kenan Mohammed, who was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.

The case has galvanized congressional opponents of Obama's plan to transfer drones from the CIA to the Defense Department. Before the plan was announced, either CIA or Pentagon drones could go after terrorist targets, even if they were U.S. citizens. The CIA could also fly drones in areas where host countries might object. But by law, the Pentagon can only strike in war zones, in countries that agree to U.S. counterterrorism action or in lawless areas like parts of Somalia where that government's security forces cannot reach. Even then only al-Qaida-linked suspects can be targeted.

"It is very clear that there have been missed opportunities that I believe increase the risk of the lives of our soldiers and for disrupting operations underway," Rogers said last week.

U.S. officials said both Senate and House appropriators have blocked funding to transfer the CIA's stealth RQ-170 drone fleet to the Pentagon. Some lawmakers want the White House to come up with a fix for targeting suspects in areas where the Pentagon is banned from operating — either by leaving some part of the CIA operation running or by granting the Pentagon authority to strike covertly despite the location — meaning they could legally deny the operation.

Lawmakers including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have also objected to the shift to the Pentagon, arguing that the CIA has more experience flying drones.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
If he's actively plotting and they have proof that will hold up under a court review, it sounds like a pretty easy choice to make.

If he really is working as a terrorist to kill americans, then I think thats adequate cause to revoke his citizenship.
 

Koppai

Member
But what do they do at home when someone threatens someone elses life or is gonna commit a terrorist act? We shoot them to death.

I don't see what's wrong with it honestly.
 
We have no qualms about killing non American citizens with these things, so why should the fact that he was born in the US make any difference
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

How can he get that trial if the defendant cant be captured due to being in a hostile nation? I guess they could do that thing where they have the trial anyway without him (I forget the term)

Its collateral damage and lack of transparency which are worrisome. If they can avoid both of those, they should go for it imho.
 

Viewt

Member
More transparency is definitely a good thing here, I suppose.

Can someone clear something up for me, though? The article makes it sound as if this is the first time an American's been attacked via drone. Were the previous instances only cases (or even a single case, I'm not sure) where it was done accidentally or they were only found to be American after the fact?
 
Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

He presumably falls under America's incredibly loose legal definition of 'enemy combatant' and therefore has the right to be blown to fucking pieces upon their whim regardless of where he now resides.

Legal implications my arse. Political implications.
 
Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

I guess it's like the old witch trials.

If he survived, structurally intact he was guilty because his terrorist powers protected him and will be targeted again.

If he exploded into a shower of pulped yams, he was innocent after all.
 
If this person ends up dying via drone strike and is identified, literally all we will know is that he was bombed to bits by the US government. Everything else is just unproven allegations.
 
How are you going to catch him alive? You're gonna risk the lives of SEALs or other SpecOPs for this trash?

I didn't express an opinion on how to deal with such a person. I was responding to someone asking why the Obama Administration would be "struggling" with such a thing.
 

ultron87

Member
More transparency is definitely a good thing here, I suppose.

Can someone clear something up for me, though? The article makes it sound as if this is the first time an American's been attacked via drone. Were the previous instances only cases (or even a single case, I'm not sure) where it was done accidentally or they were only found to be American after the fact?

It says they are following the same legal precedents for the last time they targeted an American with a drone strike.

From the AP story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...argeted-drone-attack-22438384?singlePage=true

The senior administration official confirmed that the Justice Department was working to build a case for the president to review and decide the man's fate. The official said, however, the legal procedure being followed is the same as when the U.S. killed militant cleric and former Virginia resident Anwar al-Awlaki by drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect. . .

If the target is an American citizen, the Justice Department is required to show that killing the person through military action is "legal and constitutional"— in this case, that the Pentagon can take action against the American, as the administration has ruled him an enemy combatant under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a resolution Congress passed a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.

jorma

is now taking requests
I guess it's like the old witch trials.

If he survived, structurally intact he was guilty because his terrorist powers protected him and will be targeted again.

If he exploded into a shower of pulped yams, he was innocent after all.

America makes it even easier on themselves. If you are a male adult and you die, you were guilty of being a terrorist out to destroy america. If you didn't die - hey, no harm no foul. right?

And if you turn out to be female or a child, why the fuck were you hanging about with adutl males known terrorists to begin with? You only have yourself to blame.
 
If he's actively plotting and they have proof that will hold up under a court review, it sounds like a pretty easy choice to make.

If he really is working as a terrorist to kill americans, then I think thats adequate cause to revoke his citizenship.

All on the president's say-so? That's fundamentally anti-American. Also illegal.

How are you going to catch him alive? You're gonna risk the lives of SEALs or other SpecOPs for this trash?

Absolutely. Or most likely work with the foreign government to help secure his arrest and extradition.
 

collige

Banned
That was a couple years back tho, the administration has to carefully step in glass in bare toes when it comes to thos sort of thing I would imagine due to notable public outcry. Article mentions something about wanting more oversight since last May. Maybe just fronting, I dunno
I think it was more outcry from human rights groups than the general public. I think people were more upset that they killed his 16 year old son too and then said "lol should've had a better dad" when asked about it.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
I think it was more outcry from human rights groups than the general public. I think people were more upset that they killed his 16 year old son too and then said "lol should've had a better dad" when asked about it.

Yea it seems like average citizen doesn't care too much. They will say they dislike it and that might factor into a vote, but there is minimal protesting. Good thing we have advocacy groups...
 

Red Mage

Member

mrklaw

MrArseFace
It's an act of treason. It would be very easy for the government to revoke his citizenship.

surely it is only an act of treason if he is found guilty after due process? Isn't that the question being asked?



They could get around it by not targetting the American, but the ground 1' to his right.
 

jimi_dini

Member
America makes it even easier on themselves. If you are a male adult and you die, you were guilty of being a terrorist out to destroy america. If you didn't die - hey, no harm no foul. right?

Adult? Try 4 year old boy.

If 'murica considers a 4 year to be "the enemy" and a terrorist, then of course he totally deserves to die.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/10/nato-two-service-members-killed-afghanistan

"As the weather was dusty, the marine forces based there thought he was an enemy and opened fire. As result of mistaken fire, he was killed,"

You see? The weather was at fault. It was too dusty to see straight.
 
surely it is only an act of treason if he is found guilty after due process? Isn't that the question being asked?



They could get around it by not targetting the American, but the ground 1' to his right.

Yes, I suppose if we want to get technical that would be true. However, I find it hard to believe that in extreme cases that could potentially harm the rest of American society, citizenship can be revoked.

There's also the issue that there is no way to have him actually stand trial in person. I doubt the government would use their resources to capture one American in an enemy base. If anything they could hold a trial for him in his absence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom