Another U.S. citizen assassinated by military drone

[SemperFiUSMC]

My question is how we decide if they are enemy combatants. Who decides? What are the criteria? What keeps this power over American lives in check?

We elect a President who is empowered by the Constitution to execute war on behalf of this nation against those against American interests authorized by Congress, whose members we also elect for that and other purposes. The criteria are what is set by law. Elections keep the power in check. That is how the system is designed to work.

 

[Prometheus]

We elect a President who is empowered by the Constitution to execute war on behalf of this nation against those against American interests authorized by Congress, whose members we also elect for that and other purposes. The criteria are what is set by law. Elections keep the power in check. That is how the system is designed to work.

In reality one man points to another man in a photo or a name on a piece of paper and says "enemy combatant" and that's it. No checks, nothing. Absolute power.

Not much unlike Vietnamese observers in Vietnam who would fly in US choppers and with two letters end a persons life "VC" or save their life with "No VC".

Half a century later not much has changed... except now US citizens can get the same treatment...

 

[rugertoter]

This...

In Yemen a 17 year Old is Hardly a child...

Isn't that the truth.

 

[bigg cheese]

the article said he was 16.... of course he could be emancipated, but there's no evidence for that either.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

In reality one man points to another man in a photo or a name on a piece of paper and says "enemy combatant" and that's it. No checks, nothing. Absolute power.

Not much unlike Vietnamese observers in Vietnam who would fly in US choppers and with two letters end a persons life "VC" or save their life with "No VC".

Half a century later not much has changed... except now US citizens can get the same treatment...

Really, so the government lied when they said a team of analysts reviewed the information and recommended an action, that action was forwarded to a group of lawyers who approved it and forwarded it to a group of cabinet and suncabinet leaders who approved it and then forwarded it to the President who approved it? How did the government fake a judge ruling against his father? And in all those exchanges, who was really the one guy who pointed at the picture?

Your hatred of government clouds your vision sometimes.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Are you saying that we, as citizens, are responsible for investigating the government's actions in Yemen? Otherwise we just assume that the government is executing the right people with no oversight at all?

So should we hop on a flight over there and sift through the wreckage or...?

The logic being displayed in this thread is this: The government claims something. I disagree for some reason thus the Government has to prove that I am wrong and they are right. If reality worked that way then the government would have to prove that the CIA didn't kill MLK or Kennedy, that the moon landing happened, there are no Aliens, or that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Look at Rambone, there is nothing that the government could say or do to prove to him that they didn't intentionally target and kill this person. Nothing. The fact that his person was a "child" and an American Citizen is all the prove that he needs that they are trying to kill all American Citizens and want to take over the world.

Show me the evidence that the US intentionally targeted an underage American Citizen in this strike, and that this kid wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wrong. I'm using the only facts currently available. Currently available, the facts are:

He was killed
He was an american citizen
He was a child

The military has not said anything at all about it, in fact intentionally saying a complete nothing, so utilizing the facts at hand, I come to the conclusion hat justification is required in order for it to be legal. I do NOT trust our government to make decisions such as this for citizens and CHILDREN.

God forbid we have mercy on children, who are known to be irresponsible, because they are stupid and have been raised poorly. he comes of age as an american citizen, then he's on his own.

So they should have just waited a few day then, until he turned 18? Then it would have been 100% ok?

You forgot to mention the other fact that he was with militants at the time, or do you take the family's story that he was just at a BBQ?

 

[88GT]

I hope the president doesn't read INGO. I might become an enemy combatant overnight!

As a citizen living within the geopolitical boundaries of the U.S. , you are covered under the Geneva Conventions, even if you do make war on the U.S. No worries.

And who interprets the laws and applies them to actual cases? Is there any oversight or accountability?

Obtuse was spot on. I really don't like to use the tired old "go get educated" line, but seriously. This stuff isn't that hard to look up. Hell, Wiki has a decent write-up. These decisions aren't made on the fly.

The CFR is not a government agency whatsoever. They are a globalist thinktank that promotes foreign interventionism. Just saying.

Plus,

U.S. Justice Department Retires 'Enemy Combatant,' Keeps Broad Right to Detain

The retired the use of the phrase, NOT the legality of the status. We still operate on the status quo regarding combatant status.

I refuse to buy in and live in this kind of fear. Any individuals who stage an attack in this country will be promptly defeated. Think about it. Giving into the fear is exactly when you lose.

Do you really think it's fear that drives the hawkish approach?

In reality one man points to another man in a photo or a name on a piece of paper and says "enemy combatant" and that's it. No checks, nothing. Absolute power.


Not much unlike Vietnamese observers in Vietnam who would fly in US choppers and with two letters end a persons life "VC" or save their life with "No VC".

Half a century later not much has changed... except now US citizens can get the same treatment...

No, that's not how it works. But it doesn't really matter in this case as his citizenship issue became somewhat moot when he entered the unlawful combatant status.

 

[bigg cheese]

So they should have just waited a few day then, until he turned 18? Then it would have been 100% ok?

You forgot to mention the other fact that he was with militants at the time, or do you take the family's story that he was just at a BBQ?

We should tread VERY lightly when it concerns children -- always.

I didn't forget to mention his location. it was in the article. The thing is was he targeted? Since he's the only person we know so far who was killed (not having been told by our transparent and infallible government). Until the "target" is revealed (of which I have no expectation), he is the only one.

 

[steveh_131]

We elect a President who is empowered by the Constitution to execute war on behalf of this nation against those against American interests authorized by Congress, whose members we also elect for that and other purposes. The criteria are what is set by law. Elections keep the power in check. That is how the system is designed to work.

This system was designed for people who aren't citizens of the U.S.

The bill of rights was designed for people who ARE citizens of the U.S.

I accept the argument that he physically left the country, leaving us no better option than an execution from afar. There does come a point where you give up your rights. I just find the slippery slope to be worrisome, as more and more of us find ourselves on various lists as potential terrorists. Many of these same reasons you are all using to justify this action could realistically be used to justify actions that you probably wouldn't be ok with.

Obtuse was spot on. I really don't like to use the tired old "go get educated" line, but seriously. This stuff isn't that hard to look up. Hell, Wiki has a decent write-up. These decisions aren't made on the fly.

There's a page with a process that's followed to decide when a U.S. citizen should be executed without a trial? Please link me to that.

 

[Jeremiah]

We have been over this several times you and I...
But here it is for you again...
S.J. Res 23...

If you do not like what the Politicos are doing then Pressure them into repealing this....

if you have ever posted that, I forgot, or did not see it (if you find the time pm me a link to the thread)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/warpower/sj23.pdf reading that summation it is time to make a little noise. thanks for pointing it out

 

[Jeremiah]

Not trying to be nasty here, but perhaps you either aren't old enough to remember, or perhaps you weren't paying attention at the time, but after 9/11 the President was given the power by Congress to pursue armed response against terrorists and governments that empowered or aided them. This was called "The War on Terror". DoD even created a medal for participants. While the current President has forbidden the use of the term "War on Terror," the military actions are still underway.

Part of the strategy of fighting against an enemy employing asymmetrical warfare is to deny him the benefit of "sanctuary" - that is, a place where he can rest, regroup, recruit, and plan without fear of attack. Right now there are still a couple places in the world where terrorists can gather with relative impunity, but the wilds of Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, thanks to the use of armed drones, are no longer among them. As was pointed out upthread, innocents die in war, but with the advent of "smart" weapons, we no longer need napalm or carpet bombing (or even cluster bombs) to take out cells of terrorists and their supporters. It's a shame that people who have little-to-no say in the way their families are raised and educated end up getting killed because of their association with terrorists but look at it this way - we aren't using those Hellfires in crowded marketplaces like those in Baghdad, Kabul, Jerusalem, and Cairo - unlike the folks we are using them against.

So all I have to do is convinve someone that makes decisions that you are a terrorist. according to the MIAC report you (as I am assuming are a vertern) was already on a public list as a potential terrorist.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This system was designed for people who aren't citizens of the U.S.

The bill of rights was designed for people who ARE citizens of the U.S.

I accept the argument that he physically left the country, leaving us no better option than an execution from afar. There does come a point where you give up your rights. I just find the slippery slope to be worrisome, as more and more of us find ourselves on various lists as potential terrorists. Many of these same reasons you are all using to justify this action could realistically be used to justify actions that you probably wouldn't be ok with.



There's a page with a process that's followed to decide when a U.S. citizen should be executed without a trial? Please link me to that.

Then we are in complete agreement.

I don't think there is a slippery slope. There is a water feature. On US soil all rights are afforded. On other soil, while deference should be given citizenship it is not required.

Oh, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to citizens, nor are its protections excluded from non-citizens. It applies to all who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

We should tread VERY lightly when it concerns children -- always.

I didn't forget to mention his location. it was in the article. The thing is was he targeted? Since he's the only person we know so far who was killed (not having been told by our transparent and infallible government). Until the "target" is revealed (of which I have no expectation), he is the only one.

Tread lightly with children? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Oh, so his is the only name you know about, so thus he was the one being targeted? That is not a logical argument in any sense, but here is another name:

US drone strike kills 9 al-Qaida militants in Yemen, clashes in Sanaa leaves 12 dead - The Washington Post

Also dead in the Friday airstrike in the southeastern province of Shabwa was Egyptian-born Ibrahim al-Banna, identified by the nation’s Defense Ministry as the media chief of the Yemeni branch of the al-Qaida.

In Yemen, the legal marriage age is 15, so in his society he is already considered an adult, or do you want to apply American cultural norms on the rest of the world?

 

[bigg cheese]

illogical to draw a conclusion from the available facts? Others simply choose to draw no conclusion and stick their fingers in their ears, singing "la la la la la" when the government does something they like but not necessarily legal. The government should never have the presumption of innocence when there is no accountability.

I only want to apply american law to americans. I'm sorry you don't see that. I'm even more sorry that people rejoice and rationalize that which is potentially murder.

That said, thanks for posting the second name. Now that we have that, there is only a 50% chance that the child was the target. Sure would be nice if our government would put out some kind of a statement.

 

[steveh_131]

Then we are in complete agreement.

I don't think there is a slippery slope. There is a water feature. On US soil all rights are afforded. On other soil, while deference should be given citizenship it is not required.

So all enemy combatants who are on U.S. soil should be afforded a fair trial and their civil liberties protected?

That does make more sense to me than arguing about whether or not he was still a citizen.

Oh, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to citizens, nor are its protections excluded from non-citizens. It applies to all who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And by jurisdiction you mean on U.S. soil?

 

[badwolf.usmc]

bigg cheese, you prove my point. Nothing is good enough for you, so i'm not even going to try anymore.

 

[rambone]

Do you really think it's fear that drives the hawkish approach?

Good question! What drives a hawk? I've been thinking about this lately.

1. Fear. I think fear drives the majority of people with that stance. They'll remind us why freedom just isn't feasible in a post-9/11 world. They'll tell us that Muslims/Mexicans/Iranians/Afghanis/Iraqis/Jihadists/LaRaza/Communists/VietCong/Whatever will be on our front porch the day after we stopped hawking. (If we didn't blow up that kid, he would have flown a jetliner into the statue of liberty. Lets kill his family too in case they ever talked about it. Eeeek!)

2. Greed. The group that profits and lobbies for war; the Military-Industrial Complex. The corporations and contractors who's livelihood depends on keeping America at war; primarily so the taxdollars keep flowing into their coffers. They make sure that the best congressmen that money can buy are elected to promote their cause. I would lump some of the media here as well; who are always looking for more dragons for America to slay.

3. Hate. The genocide crowd. The folks who genuinely hate other cultures/countries/religions so badly that they want to cause them as much suffering as possible. They can make excuses about which side started the crusade/jihad a millennium ago, but the bottom line is that they will not rest until their "enemy" is wiped off the earth.

4. The Status Quo. The people who are hawks without knowing why they are hawks; they just accept the status quo as the only option. We have always been at war with Eastasia. More Fluoride please!

5. Sacred Cow Worship. They think that any discussion of cuts to the military is an attack on the soldiers. They love the military so much that they are blind to the excess and waste in it, even though the U.S. spends about as much money as the rest of the world combined on its military.

6. Uber-Nationalism. They think the world is America's to rule. America's interests trump all else. Our enemies need to learn to respect our American Exceptionalism by watching us kick the Third World's ass. Controlling resources and installing puppet dictators are great reasons for war. (The Roman Empire was bad ass!! If only it weren't for those welfare leeches!)

7. Israel. The 51st U.S. State. Her interests are holier than our own. (America's broke? Who cares! Here's a few billion U.S. taxdollars! Which Arab country do you want us to attack next?)

8. Globalism. The world cannot be ruled under a One World Government until the Third World is tamed, and modern, functional, & U.N.-compliant dictatorships can be installed. (What good are global carbon taxes if some countries are disorganized or consider themselves sovereign? Crush the rebel scum!)

9. Other?

 

[GBuck]

What, you guys don't go rolling around the countryside in Yemen with your friends?

 

[jeremy]

What, you guys don't go rolling around the countryside in Yemen with your friends?

Yes I have...

 

[GBuck]

What, you guys don't go rolling around the countryside in Yemen with your friends?

Yes I have...

Let me rephrase...

As an every day, normal US citizen, you don't go rolling around the countryside in Yemen with your friends?