Support NeoGAF

[jorma]

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


.

Just sentence him try him in absentia in a secret court. All is now legal and well!

 

[jakonovski]

Really sad how eager people are to throw away the basic tenets of lawful government just to sate their bloodlust.

 

[BGBW]

Why do we know about this?

When they were listening in to them plotting an attack he clapped afterwards.

 

[KPJZKC]

What? They've killed American citizens in drone strikes before, why should this one be any different?

EDIT
___
Yup, knew I hadn't imagined it!

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

This is far from the first time it's happened.

 

[Burt]

Honestly, I think it's much worse that none of the hesitation is stemming from using a drone in a country that refuses to give us permission to operate within its borders.

 

[D4Danger]

just wait for him to attend a wedding or something then bomb that. you know, like you normally do.

 

[Mesousa]

Where was this struggle when we blew away Anwar, or hell even his son who had fuck all to do with anything?

Either this is a PR piece, or the person in question is a well-connected white person who ran over there to fight against America.

 

[jay]

Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

You sound like a terrorist.

 

[empty vessel]

Either this is a PR piece, or the person in question is a well-connected white person who ran over there to fight against America.

If the latter were the case, an assassination wouldn't be considered at all.

 

[linsivvi]

What? They've killed American citizens in drone strikes before, why should this one be any different?

People keep saying this. Read the OP.

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.

Because after it happened the last time some people like Maddow brought this up and raised questions about the legality and so there are now new guidelines.

 

[Valnen]

It's sad that this is basically the way it works.

Why? I don't want people who are planning to attack the country I live in to walk free.

 

[Pagusas]

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

Absolutely not, I said if the court finds the evident to hold up.

 

[zma1013]

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

 

[RangerX]

"Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Kill him.

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

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

Article is way too long to quote in it's entirety but it's well worth reading. Some interesting/disturbing titbits:

The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.

According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.

The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely” been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic.

One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children, spouses and family members.

“Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is there,” he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it. It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it gets very shady.”

The former drone operator also says that he personally participated in drone strikes where the identity of the target was known, but other unknown people nearby were also killed.

“They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities.”

What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.

“People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”

The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations kill terrorists with the utmost precision.

In his speech at the National Defense University last May, President Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.” He added that, “by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.”

But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other fallible surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. A recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone strikes have taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties.

But remember, Snowden is the bad guy.

 

[kiunchbb]

Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

If he turn himself in, sure, other wise he can talk to the drone.

 

[boiled goose]

If an independent court agrees he is an imminent threat. Drop it.

The important thing is transparency and oversight. Not his citizenship. Every ambiguous non wartime target should be reviewed.

 

[besada]

It was wrong when they did it last time, and it will be wrong when they do it again.

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

If he's naturally born, there is no such process. Natural born citizens only lose their citizenship when they voluntarily give it up. Naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked.

 

[zma1013]

 

[Ken Masters]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/10/5...ith-possible-drone-strike-on-american-citizen



.

Pentagon approved legal force? Have they ever disapproved of lethal force?

 

[jorma]

Why? I don't want people who are planning to attack the country I live in to walk free.

Funny thing is, this is probably exactly what the taliban are thinking right now.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

Every single person, citizen or not, has the right to a fair trial.

Citizenship does NOT grant you extra protections under the law.

The ONLY things citizenship grants you are the right to vote, the right to hold office, and the right to serve in a jury.

Also, citizenship is determined by the government, anyways. Can be revoked, recognized, ignored, etc as they see fit, really.

A tourist has no less right to an attorney or due process than a citizen. That's ridiculous


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



The fact that the only controversy about the drone strike is the person's citizenship status is a sad commentary on how America, and Americans, show a complete disregard for anyone other than their own.

 

[captainnapalm]

The fact that the only controversy about the drone strike is the person's citizenship status is a sad commentary on how America, and Americans, show a complete disregard for anyone other than their own.

Yeah, it's like, you realise we're standing right here and can hear what you're saying. We'd like to not get stealth executed too.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Doesn't he have the right to a trial?

Do the Americans have the right to arrest him to bring him to one?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Yeah, it's like, you realise we're standing right here and can hear what you're saying. We'd like to not get stealth executed too.

Well maybe you should be opposing this whole stance of drone strikes on principle then, not based on who it targets.

Just saying.

 

[V_Arnold]

The fact that the only controversy about the drone strike is the person's citizenship status is a sad commentary on how America, and Americans, show a complete disregard for anyone other than their own.

Yep. I sometimes hope that 100-200 years later, our grandchildren's grandchildren will look back at this age, and wonder how it was possible to have such advanced technology and still the lack of basic respect towards each other. "You mean they felt justified in killing someone else who was born at the other side of that arbitrary line, grandpa? Or that they spoke a different language? Were Google(Overlord?) Translate not available to them, grandpa?". And let ust not even get to the part where our future generations look back on "political lobbying" in military/food/science/healthcare/human right situations mean today.

 

[Valnen]

Funny thing is, this is probably exactly what the taliban are thinking right now.

Yeah, wanting to protect myself totally makes me the same as the Taliban. Okay buddy.

You're crazy if you think enemies who are plotting to kill us should just be left alone. Like seriously, you're not even right in the head if that's how you feel.

 

[Bear]

Really sad how eager people are to throw away the basic tenets of lawful government just to sate their bloodlust.

I don't disagree, but it bothers me how much less attention drone strikes get without the Americentric angle. Targeting a legitimate terrorist with citizenship tends to be treated with much greater concern than killing hundreds of innocent foreigners who had the audacity to look suspicious from hundreds of meters above.

 

[captainnapalm]

Well maybe you should be opposing this whole stance of drone strikes on principle then, not based on who it targets.

Just saying.

I do, though.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't disagree, but it bothers me how much less attention drone strikes get without the Americentric angle. Targeting a legitimate terrorist with citizenship tends to be treated with much greater concern than killing hundreds of innocent foreigners who had the audacity to look suspicious from hundreds of meters above.

Or who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Or who happened to be collateral damage.

 

[pants]

"He's an American sir, we can't just kill him like the hundreds of other people."

this bullshit here

 

[Valhelm]

The United States government has no right to do this. Try him in absentia.

"He's an American sir, we can't just kill him like the hundreds of other people."

While this attitude is reprehensible, the United States government government is dedicated to serve and protect this man. A trial is necessary.

 

[Valnen]

The United States government has no right to do this. Try him in absentia.

The United States government has no right to protect it's citizens? That's some bullshit.

 

[Valhelm]

The United States government has no right to protect it's citizens? That's some bullshit.

Killing an American in a hostile nation doesn't necessarily protect further American lives.

 

[Valnen]

Killing an American in a hostile nation doesn't necessarily protect further American lives.

It does when he's planning to attack Americans. He's a threat, and threats should be dealt with.

 

[zma1013]

I don't disagree, but it bothers me how much less attention drone strikes get without the Americentric angle. Targeting a legitimate terrorist with citizenship tends to be treated with much greater concern than killing hundreds of innocent foreigners who had the audacity to look suspicious from hundreds of meters above.

Yep, pretty sad. Flip it around and let's say Russia drone killed someone in the USA they believed to be a terrorist plotting against them and watch the shit storm that sets off. I don't think it will get much recognition from the populace of the USA until it hits closer to home or we somehow drone strike a bus full of American tourists or something.

 

[Valhelm]

It does when he's planning to attack Americans. He's a threat, and threats should be dealt with.

Regardless, the United States government does not have the authority to kill this man. Because there's no trial, we can't determine if he's guilty of any crimes.

 

[Valnen]

Because there's no trial, we can't determine if he's guilty of any crimes.

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.

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

So what are they going to do about this part?

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.

 

[pants]

So what are they going to do about this part?

Start WWIII

 

[BBboy20]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

Article is way too long to quote in it's entirety but it's well worth reading. Some interesting/disturbing titbits:

Is this fucking why we've been spilling more innocent blood then the enemy itself?

 

[Valhelm]

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.

If he's guilty of treason or conspiracy to commit murder, that's a crime. Try him, sentence him, kill him.

 

[Pandaman]

Jesus christ, some of you people are savages.

Every single person, citizen or not, has the right to a fair trial.

Citizenship does NOT grant you extra protections under the law.

The ONLY things citizenship grants you are the right to vote, the right to hold office, and the right to serve in a jury.

Also, citizenship is determined by the government, anyways. Can be revoked, recognized, ignored, etc as they see fit, really.

A tourist has no less right to an attorney or due process than a citizen. That's ridiculous


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



The fact that the only controversy about the drone strike is the person's citizenship status is a sad commentary on how America, and Americans, show a complete disregard for anyone other than their own.

Bravo.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

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.

Suspect = guilty?

 

[Muppet of a Man]

.

 

[dripdripsplash]

Article doesn't mention his target.

Don't get your panties in a twist, only an observation.

 

[Valnen]

Suspect = guilty?

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.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Yep. I sometimes hope that 100-200 years later, our grandchildren's grandchildren will look back at this age, and wonder how it was possible to have such advanced technology and still the lack of basic respect towards each other. "You mean they felt justified in killing someone else who was born at the other side of that arbitrary line, grandpa? Or that they spoke a different language? Were Google(Overlord?) Translate not available to them, grandpa?". And let ust not even get to the part where our future generations look back on "political lobbying" in military/food/science/healthcare/human right situations mean today.

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.

Not just the US though

 

[Parch]

What? They've killed American citizens in drone strikes before, why should this one be any different?
This is far from the first time it's happened.

That's why this story reeks of fabrication. These US officials "struggling" with this decision are just trying to make their drone strike program look like some sort of heart wrenching ethical choice. Sympathy fishing, and I don't buy it for a second.

 

[Aaron]

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.

You realize you're assigning guilt without proof or a fair trial. Do you really want the government to have the power to declare someone an enemy of the state without anything but their say so?