How do you know he's done what he's charged with?

I don't, I was talking in general terms.

Let's go into conspiracy mode.

 

Let's say there's an American overseas who knows the US govt has committed illegal acts and these go to very high levels in the govt.

 

The govt needs to get rid of him before he spills the beans to Glenn Greenwald and it goes world-wide and before charges can be filed.

 

They simply say he's working with the enemy. No due process.

 

That's why this is a really dangerous action to take. Makes it too easy to do again when someone needs to end an embarrassing/illegal situation.

So true.

Could you imagine Nixon with a drone?

Here's a very intersting article on how the NSA works with the military to carry out these operations: The NSA's Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program

Slippery slope that I don't like one bit.

 

To (attempt to) clarify.

 

I'm not all that crazy about the death penalty with​ due process.

I guess the biggest difference in how people look at this is, are these people criminals or enemy combatants.

 

Criminals: Get due process before being sentenced.

Enemy Combatants: In simple terms, You attack them before they get a chance to attack you.

 

FWIW an American Citizen can be an Enemy Combatant

I don't see any legitmate argument to use a drone on a U.S. citizen unless there is sufficent evidence he is about to commit an act of terror on the U.S. . In America you are innocent until proven guilty, if you are a citizen of this country the executive branch can not strip your rights away without a trial.

Criminals: Get due process before being sentenced.

Enemy Combatants: In simple terms, You attack them before they get a chance to attack you.

 

No doubt about that. But it's a tough distinction to make in the field. Even traitors get a trial.

 

The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable from a rule of law standpoint. Trying to determine when an American has waived his constitutional rights is a tricky business. My position has always been to err on the side of expansive protections to make sure the things we want protected, stay protected.

 

Nobody wants to be the one accused of protecting turncoats and traitors but for the same reason I want the First Amendment to cover Klansmen and flag-burners, I think I'd like to make sure the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments apply to guys like this.

No doubt about that. But it's a tough distinction to make in the field. Even traitors get a trial.

 

The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable from a rule of law standpoint. Trying to determine when an American has waived his constitutional rights is a tricky business. My position has always been to err on the side of expansive protections to make sure the things we want protected, stay protected.

 

Nobody wants to be the one accused of protecting turncoats and traitors but for the same reason I want the First Amendment to cover Klansmen and flag-burners, I think I'd like to make sure the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments apply to guys like this.

 

I guess I look at it this way, if this guy was doing the exact same thing and was from Yemen would it bother anyone if given the chance the US took him out? I just don't see committing crimes (acts of war) as these against your country, citizens or militarry on foreign soil giving him much if any protection from the constitution. Legally I may be wrong, but that's the way I look at it.

I guess the biggest difference in how people look at this is, are these people criminals or enemy combatants.

 

Criminals: Get due process before being sentenced.

Enemy Combatants: In simple terms, You attack them before they get a chance to attack you.

 

FWIW an American Citizen can be an Enemy Combatant

 

The criminal/combatant dichotomy is arbitrary in itself. The government decides that "enemy combatants" fall into a different category than who the constitution protects, the governments gets to decide who is a combatant, and then the government can act in any manner it wants. Where is the restriction on the power of the government in this?

 

To use a hypothetical, what if the government decides that people who want to bring an end to NSA mass surveillance are attempting to attack the security of the country and are therefore combatants against the United States and the government can thus arrest surveillance critics, hold them indefinitely, and strip them of their assets, all without trial? I'm not meaning to say this is going to happen, but I'm using a hypothetical to demonstrate the logic. A government that gets to determine when it is constrained by the constitution and when it isn't has unlimited power.

I guess I look at it this way, if this guy was doing the exact same thing and was from Yemen would it bother anyone if given the chance the US took him out? I just don't see committing crimes (acts of war) as these against your country, citizens or militarry on foreign soil giving him much if any protection from the constitution. Legally I may be wrong, but that's the way I look at it.

 

I'm not crazy about the drone strikes anyway, but I have a longstanding issue with the unchecked military power that's been handed to the executive office over the last 60+ years, an issue that goes far beyond this particular discussion.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but if the constitution has provisions in it for people who are designated as traitors right there in Article III, don't we have an obligation to abide by the terms of those provisions or are we just like everyone else in Washington over the last 100 years, unilaterally and unofficially amending the constitution when it suits our needs?

The criminal/combatant dichotomy is arbitrary in itself. The government decides that "enemy combatants" fall into a different category than who the constitution protects, the governments gets to decide who is a combatant, and then the government can act in any manner it wants. Where is the restriction on the power of the government in this?

 

To use a hypothetical, what if the government decides that people who want to bring an end to NSA mass surveillance are attempting to attack the security of the country and are therefore combatants against the United States and the government can thus arrest surveillance critics, hold them indefinitely, and strip them of their assets, all without trial? I'm not meaning to say this is going to happen, but I'm using a hypothetical to demonstrate the logic. A government that gets to determine when it is constrained by the constitution and when it isn't has unlimited power.

 

You can hypothetical any law to death and look for unintended consequences so I'll give you one. This guys is under surveillance and is seen packing a car with explosives, a phone call is intercepted and they determine he is on his way to blow up a school...would it be OK to blow him up with a drone strike while he's on a deserted piece of road if there wasn't time to stop him any other way?

 

I don't want drone strikes being carried out from the WH either and I understand what you are saying.

 

Surely no one is opposed to using drones to take out tanks from Iran that could roll across the border and start shelling our troops in Afghanistan, are they. Well "Set Piece" battles IMO are a thing of the past, the battle field of the 21st century is the battle field determined by terrorist and IMO we can not let them continue to strike at the US and other civilians world wide with impunity without fear of reprisal from the US.

 

Would anyone be more comfortable if it was a sniper on a hill a mile away that took him out or a CIA "Wet Team" that took him out...in a perfect world he could be swooped up and returned to the USA for trial and I would 100% support that.

You can hypothetical any law to death and look for unintended consequences so I'll give you one. This guys is under surveillance and is seen packing a car with explosives, a phone call is intercepted and they determine he is on his way to blow up a school...would it be OK to blow him up with a drone strike while he's on a deserted piece of road if there wasn't time to stop him any other way?

 

I don't want drone strikes being carried out from the WH either and I understand what you are saying.

 

Surely no one is opposed to using drones to take out tanks from Iran that could roll across the border and start shelling our troops in Afghanistan, are they. Well "Set Piece" battles IMO are a thing of the past, the battle field of the 21st century is the battle field determined by terrorist and IMO we can not let them continue to strike at the US and other civilians world wide with impunity without fear of reprisal from the US.

 

Would anyone be more comfortable if it was a sniper on a hill a mile away that took him out or a CIA "Wet Team" that took him out...in a perfect world he could be swooped up and returned to the USA for trial and I would 100% support that.

 

The issue with drones isn't that they are a modern tool of war, but that they 1) have become synonymous with the executive's self-legalized assassinations and 2) these assassinations have produced collateral damage that is not conducive to the interests of the US, i.e. drone missile attacks often take out "good guys" or innocents as well as the targets and that does more harm than good in the long-term.

 

And again, I'm certain there are some Very Bad People the government has killed in this manner that I have no interest in defending. The issue is that the government is able to determine who it can kill without restriction. If the constitution is seen as a document that restrains the power of the government over its citizens then where is the restraint?

The issue with drones isn't that they are a modern tool of war, but that they 1) have become synonymous with the executive's self-legalized assassinations and 2) these assassinations have produced collateral damage that is not conducive to the interests of the US, i.e. drone missile attacks often take out "good guys" or innocents as well as the targets and that does more harm than good in the long-term.

 

And again, I'm certain there are some Very Bad People the government has killed in this manner that I have no interest in defending. The issue is that the government is able to determine who it can kill without restriction. If the constitution is seen as a document that restrains the power of the government over its citizens then where is the restraint?

I agree with what your saying but is there never a situation where you would condone the US using drone strikes to kill someone that was waging war against the US? We can't arrest everyone wanting to kill our citizens, at some point these people need to be dealt with the same way we would deal with a foriegn army that was attacking us.

 

Drone strikes makes a lot less collateral damage than carpet bombing them with a B52

I agree with what your saying but is there never a situation where you would condone the US using drone strikes to kill someone that was waging war against the US?

 

There are those situations, but by and large drone strikes are used in countries that the United States is not at war with - Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc - and are by and large used against people who aren't direct threats; they aren't the people driving a car bomb toward a base, for example.

There are those situations, but by and large drone strikes are used in countries that the United States is not at war with - Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc - and are by and large used against people who aren't direct threats; they aren't the people driving a car bomb toward a base, for example.

A guy blows up a restaurant then hides in Pakistan, blows up a hotel then hides in Pakistan again, facilitates the bombing of US soldiers then hides in Pakistan. We locate him and he's in Pakistan playing Cornhole, he is no direct threat, just throwing bean bags at plywood so we do nothing...a few days later he blows up a theater and goes back and hides in Pakistan. How exactly do we deal with this guy?