Support NeoGAF

[foxtrot3d]

Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

No he has a right to due process, totally different.

I'm just gonna repost what I said in a similar thread a while back, it details the administrations process for targeting suspected terrorists with drone attacks as well as US citizens:

(DOJ White Paper on Drone Strikes/Targeted Killing)

...Lethal force will be used only 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. In particular, lethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met:

First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force, whether it is against a senior operational leader of a terrorist organization or the forces that organization is using or intends to use to conduct terrorist attacks.

Second, the U.S. will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the U.S. will not use lethal force.

Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken:

1) Near certainty that the terrorist target is present;

2) Near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed. (NC's are individuals who may not be made the object of attack under applicable international law. The term "non-combatant" does not include an individual who is part of a belligerent party to an armed conflict, an individual who is taking a direct part in hostilities, or an individual who is targetable in the exercise of national defense. Males of military age may be non-combatants; it is not the case that all military aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants.)

3) An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation;

4) An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and

5) An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exists to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.

Finally. whenever the U.S. uses force in foreign territories, international legal principles, including respect for sovereignty and the law of armed conflict, impose important constraints on the ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally and on the way in which the U.S. can use force. The U.S. respects national sovereignty and international law.

 

[Lambtron]

He's not guilty of crimes, he's guilty of being an enemy of the country. That's much much worse and needs to be dealt with ASAP.

That people actually believe this kind of stuff is exactly why I think the terrorists won.

 

[ICKE]

Not go around bombing people based on unreliable 'evidence' just because they can?

A high risk in the game of politics. Lets say he succeeds in killing someone, an American citizen, and media leaks information how the government willingly failed to take action.

Benghazi is still a talking point but would pale in comparison to political fallout from something like that.

 

[Axiology]

This individual can have his trial if he turns himself to the proper authorities. Obviously that's not going to happen as he is an extremist who is at war with the west and our way of life.

What do you expect the government to do in such a situation?

Considering they don't name who he is, he won't know they're suspecting him until he's meat chunks on the ground. Also, your assertion that he's an extremist who's "at war with our way of life" (really?) is pretty strong, considering we literally don't know jack about him.

 

[Guileless]

Pres. Obama gave a big speech on drone strike policy changes that addressed the concerns that have come up in this thread. It is an interesting area of the law.

For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.

 

[Cow Mengde]

So what's the process for removing an American's citizenship?

A drone strike.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Not go around bombing people based on unreliable 'evidence' just because they can?

Why are you assuming the evidence is unreliable?

 

[Oersted]

This individual can have his trial if he turns himself to the proper authorities. Obviously that's not going to happen as he is an extremist who is at war with the west and our way of life.

What do you expect the government to do in such a situation? It's an interesting dilemma.

You make it sound like guilty until proven innocent. Is that the west?

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Why are you assuming the evidence is unreliable?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-visualised

I really hope that's not what happens when the data is reliable.

 

[Oersted]

A high risk in the game of politics. Lets say he succeeds in killing someone, an American citizen, and media leaks information how the government willingly failed to take action.

Benghazi is still a talking point but would pale in comparison to political fallout from something like that.

Definetly killing an American because he could be plotting killing an American?

Why are you assuming the evidence is unreliable?

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-terrifying-surveillancecaseofbrandonmayfield.html

 

[foxtrot3d]

You make it sound like guilty until proven innocent. Is that the west?

Read my above post, due process does not require a trial. Due process requires some sort of administrative process before depriving you of one of your liberties, in an ideal scenario a trial is the solution in extreme cases such as an threat against the US a simple administrative review will suffice, and even further still if you are an immediately dangering someone then a simple decision by the person on the ground (aka the police) would be fine.

For example, the police don't have to give you a trial to prove your guilt when you are waving a gun around or holding someone hostage, they can shoot you dead right then and there. Another example would be during war, if an American is working with the enemy, let's say for instance an American decided to work with the Germans during WWII, you don't need a trial before depriving him of his life. If he's associated himself with an arm of the enemy he is free game, otherwise wars would be pretty difficult to wage if you had to ensure every bullet hit only non-US citizens.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

edit-nm

 

[Oersted]

Read my above post, due process does not require a trial. Due process requires some sort of administrative process before depriving you of one of your liberties, in an ideal scenario a trial is the solution in extreme cases such as an threat against the US a simple administrative review will suffice, and even further still if you are an immediately dangering someone then a simple decision by the person on the ground (aka the police) would be fine.

For example, the police don't have to give you a trial to prove your guilt when you are waving a gun around or holding someone hostage, they can shoot you dead right then and there. Another example would be during war, if an American is working with the enemy, let's say for instance an American decided to work with the Germans during WWII, you don't need a trial before depriving him of his life. If he's associated himself with an arm of the enemy he is free game, otherwise wars would be pretty difficult to wage if you had to ensure every bullet hit only non-US citizens.

Could we talk about the topic at hand? He isn't collaborating with Nazis, he isn't holding a gun to someone's head. He is allegedly plotting a crime.

 

[WalkMan]

This is what I don't get. So we have "proof" that he's "plotting" attacks, and that's a justification for killing someone? Something that hasn't happened yet and we can kill the person just like that.

What proof do you want? It's an ongoing covert operation and what the public knows - he also knows, jeopardizing the op. It's going to be the same as any other person of interest, you won't know until he's been secured. I guess in your world we should have a nightly 1 hour special where we broadcast out the life story of a terrorist and his involvements, test the public perception then we can finally follow through with the op.

 

[foxtrot3d]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-visualised

I really hope that's not what happens when the data is reliable.

I've seen that before and I don't trust the information, the sources are spotty and I don't know how they are calculating these figures. For example, if they are striking a high-value target and that ends up taking out 10 people, but all of those people were his bodyguards are they counted as civilians or valid targets? Without any such distinction you can easily balloon the figure out to make it seem as though the program is an utter failure when in fact it is doing it's job.

Also, while civilian casualties are tragic they are unavoidable during war, unfortunately we have yet to develop bombs or bullets that only kill bad guys. So, a certain number of civilian casualties are to be expected the only thing you can do is try your best to minimize such incidents.

Could we talk about the topic at hand? He isn't collaborating with Nazis, he isn't holding a gun to someone's head. He is allegedly plotting a crime.

If he is collaborating with Al-Qaeda then he is associating himself with a declared enemy of the United States, and according to officials actively plotting attacks against the US. That is in essence holding a gun to someone's head, the only difference is you have no idea when or where he is going to pull the trigger.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Dumb question but don't drone strikes count as military action?

 

[Valnen]

Could we talk about the topic at hand? He isn't collaborating with Nazis

He's collaborating with the enemy, which is the exact same thing.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Dumb question but don't drone strikes count as military action?

Probably a loop-hole in there or something.

 

[NullPointer]

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

And here we see the frictionless slope.

The next Waco will involve some kind of friendly-branded hellfires fired from a friendly-branded police drone.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

I've seen that before and I don't trust the information, the sources are spotty and I don't know how they are calculating these figures. For example, if they are striking a high-value target and that ends up taking out 10 people, but all of those people were his bodyguards are they counted as civilians or valid targets? Without any such distinction you can easily balloon the figure out to make it seem as though the program is an utter failure when in fact it is doing it's job.

Given the administrations method of classifying enemy combatants this is a depressingly hilarious post.

 

[Oersted]

He's collaborating with the enemy, which is the exact same thing.

You Americans remind me of good old communists. Always trusting the state despite the reality.


But regardless, lets make the argument worthwhile. Could you point out Americans who collaborated with Nazis, and therefore have been preemptively murdered?

 

[Guileless]

The Nazi propagandist Lord Haw Haw was tried for treason and hanged I think.

 

[foxtrot3d]

You Americans remind me of good old communists. Always trusting the state despite the reality.


But regardless, lets make the argument worthwhile. Could you point out Americans who collaborated with Nazis, and therefore have been preemptively murdered?

Yes, it was called WWII...

 

[Beardz]

Minority Report type of justice is more than a reality in the near future.

"Our advanced algorithms are showing this man is potentially a threat for our freedom, the solution: kill him"

 

[SpyGuy239]

He ain't lie

Everybody suddenly becomes Liam Neeson from Taken when they hear that the government finds someone who might be a terrorist, based on evidence no one who's not in the military has seen. I'm not saying these people are necessarily innocent, or not planning an attack on US soil, but to back the claims of the US army so wholeheartedly in spite of not knowing anything about this guy, while also having previous knowledge of the government's "shaky" categorization of who is and isn't a terrorist (as well as disturbing accounts of civilians being "accidentally targeted" at functions like weddings, or "sitting peacefully") is extremely unsettling, and really indicative of the blinding patriotism that informs our perception of and our actions against terrorism.

In fact, the only reason we're talking about this is because he's an American. They don't write an article every time we drone strike someone who's brown and male. It's been a fact of life for a good long time that as a country, we don't care about people who ain't us. This thread is just the latest iteration of that fact.

Also, while I recognize that 9/11 was a horrific event that destroyed a great many lives, I don't think it would be unreasonable to consider the possibility that our 12 year war has terrorized and damaged the civilian populace over there many many times more. Considering the vengeful fervor with which Americans respond to reports of potential terrorism, wouldn't it then figure that in the minds of civilians living in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as those not colored by their allegiance to their flag worldwide) "the overwhelming majority" of Americans plotting to do bad stuff "reside in US military bases"?





This is what I'm talking about. Sure, it's possible this guy isn't nice, but when it comes to his murder, why not just let the government handle it? The way they've been handling it all this time without any resistance or questioning by the American people. Instead, you make up your mind that he's gotta go, based on information that no one has seen.
Instead of just saying "I don't know whether or not the information is accurate, like everyone else in this conversation, so I'm going to reserve my judgment until I know more of the facts," you immediately take the army at their word, based on what is, quite literally, nothing.

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who noticed that this is happening only because the target is an American Citizen. What about all those killed who weren't American Citizens? Are they not human too? Were they really guilty?

Something's gotta give man. We really can't go on like this 12 years after 9/11.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who noticed that this is happening only because the target is an American Citizen. What about all those killed who weren't American Citizens?

The Constitution protects American citizens, that's why. Same reason the CIA or NSA can spy on any foreign target they want as long as they aren't a US citizen. That's why way the world works.

Minority Report type of justice is more than a reality in the near future.

"Our advanced algorithms are showing this man is potentially a threat for our freedom, the solution: kill him"

Yes, this is exactly the same situation. Exactly...

 

[BeerSnob]

Dumb question but don't drone strikes count as military action?

Without a pre-existing agreement by the country the drone is operating in, yes. Thus why drone operations in Pakistan and Yemen are not considered acts of war. With an agreement in place, the operations are considered a joint operation thus with the local government's approval.

I would say yes and no. They are military action. The subjects, however, are not military targets. They are alleged criminal targets.

That is actually a fun debate if you can get Law and PoliSci professors in one place. Much waling and gnashing of teeth is had by all. Ultimately the argument breaks down into, are Terrorist/Insurgents criminals or political actors like soldiers in a adversarial foreign army. Which of course dives into how one defines terrorism and so forth. The U.S official policy seems to be that joining an Insurgent/Terrorist group is akin to joining an opposing army. Now, whether this is because we excel at making hammers and thus see all our problems as nails is debatable.

 

[empty vessel]

Dumb question but don't drone strikes count as military action?

I would say yes and no. They are military action. The subjects, however, are not military targets. They are alleged criminal targets.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Do they have proof that he's part of AQ? If so, fuck him and his due process.

 

[empty vessel]

Do they have proof that he's part of AQ? If so, fuck him and his due process.

This an argument to dispense with all judicial trials.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

This an argument to dispense with all judicial trials.

Hardly. He joined an organization calling for the death of America. If that isn't treason I don't know what is.

 

[Jacob]

Hardly. He joined an organization calling for the death of America. If that isn't treason I don't know what is.

The Constitution defines the crime of treason and lays out the circumstances under which one can be convicted of it. Even if they accused the guy of some other crime with looser burdens of legal proof, though, how to you plan to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's actually a member of al-Qaeda, much less that he is actively plotting against America, without a trial? It's not like al-Qaeda has public membership records or a unified command system. There are no "card-carrying" terrorists.

 

[Des0lar]

They have proof, it says so in the article.

I'll just take the governments word for it.... Especially after all the NSA stuff.

 

[Fusebox]

Are any other western countries currently trying to kill one of their citizens in another country with a remote control plane? Or is this exclusively an American thing now?

 

[Daria]

I find this a somewhat bizarre complaint. Is there any country that doesn't have special treatment for their own citizens? France isn't going to invade the Ivory Coast because of British citizens trapped there.

Governments exist to serve their citizens.

Let me rephrase that then: They don't hesitate to send drones that kill innocent people in Yemen or Pakistan.

Just because every country has ties to certain regions and won't invade doesn't automatically justify the killing of non-citizens. The proof that the military uses are nothing more than a guess at best. I'm sure you watched the collateral murder video, right? The Reuters reporters who were shot down for holding a camera which they believed we're weapons. Another drone strike was based on the same idea. Target X had "something" in his hands, couldn't confirm it was a weapon but continued to fire. Whenever they see them holding something, they automatically assume it's a terrorist and a weapon and then begin to fire upon command. How is that protecting citizens? It's only killing them.

 

[BeerSnob]

I'll just take the governments word for it.... Especially after all the NSA stuff.

How does one relate to the other?

 

[Guileless]

France has used drones in Mali. Not sure about Libya. Western countries participate in a system that mostly relies on the US military to project force.

 

[Daria]

How does one relate to the other?

It was a joke. They lied about the NSA. They lied about a lot of other stuff. But they have proof of this one so we'll take their word for it.

Get it? Ha, ha.

 

[empty vessel]

Hardly. He joined an organization calling for the death of America. If that isn't treason I don't know what is.

I don't think you understand the purpose of trials.

 

[besada]

Let me rephrase that then: They don't hesitate to send drones that kill innocent people in Yemen or Pakistan.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand. The U.S., and virtually every other country, have a different standard of treatment for their own citizens, as opposed to non-citizens.

That doesn't mean I approve of drone strikes, nor the killing of innocent non-citizens, but it does make the argument "Why is okay to kill non-citizens but not citizens?" a pointless and incredibly naive one.

 

[BlackJet]

The most interesting fact is that the host country is unwillingly to allow US military within its borders. My understanding is that Pakistan government allows drone strikes because of a mutual agreement between them and the American government.

I'm thinking that maybe this isn't taking place in the Middle East.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Just crash the drone itself into him and say it was an "accident"

You get your man, the Army gets to claim the cost of an additional drone or two

Spoiler

hundred

in next year's budget due to unforeseen complications. Everybody wins. well besides guy in Afghanistan

 

[Devolution]

I think some people in here should really read up on the CIA and its role in bullshit assassinations past and present and American Hegemony around the globe. In fact just read Blowback.

 

[Kajigger]

You really are a complete and utter right wing loon are'nt you.

No. He's an enemy of the state. Kill him.

 

[dripdripsplash]

Do you have a link for that skit ? Looks funny.

 

[Dryk]

No one sees themselves as a citizen of the world. Just the country. The fact that some people outright are proud of this and practice xenophobia and nationalism shows this completely.

I try to aspire to it... but I don't quite make it.

They have proof, it says so in the article.

Their track record isn't fantastic on this front

 

[casmith07]

I extensively studied national security in law school.

Long story short, this is a sticky situation. There are also no such thing as advisory opinions from the Hague about citizens who purposefully avail themselves to the benefits/warm embrace of terrorist organizations.

COA 1 is you kill him - as a member of Al Qaeda in a foreign land during a common article 2 non-international armed conflict, according to the Geneva Conventions, he is an unprivileged belligerent and is not afforded the same rights as an American citizen on US soil.

COA 2 is you get someone else to do it.

COA 3 is just leave it alone, because he's non-essential anyway, and hope you capture his ass at some point and bring him home to face the music.

 

[Metaphoreus]

We know he's plotting attacks. That's enough. It's the equivalent of holding a gun to an innocent person's head. Of course the authorities have the right to shoot that person without a trial.

If it's a certainty that you are doing so, absolutely.

No, no, no, no, no.

Planning a murder and committing a murder are not the same thing, and the government can't kill a person (without first obtaining a conviction) simply because he is planning one or more murders. How certain the government is that such planning is going on makes no difference to the rights of the accused.

 

[Dany]

Drones on US soil? Fucking christ. I don't know if I'm okay with it.

 

[Sub_Level]

Drones on US soil? Fucking christ. I don't know if I'm okay with it.

I was under the impression that the story was about someone in ANOTHER country where apprehension or a more conventional method of assassination would be difficult.

If (s)he was in this country we wouldn't have to use drones and they probably actually would get a trial (re: Richard Reid)