U.S. Drones Killing Citizens Without Due Process

[JeffHardy4lifetttt]

Lately there has been some talk of whether the U.S. has a right to kill it's own citizens without judge or jury or any form of due process. This pretty much became a big issue after the drone attack that killed Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was supposedly quite effective at recruiting for Al Qaeda by using Facebook and other media and eventually moved to Yemen where he was killed.

The controversy was in no small part due to the fact that Awlaki's name was put on a CIA hit list by the POTUS. Basically a group of people showed the POTUS some evidence and he determined it was enough to kill the guy.

I can definitely see the problems this could cause in the future as presently the line between civilian and combatant is already blurry. I also can foresee that if they're using ti to kill citizens abroad under the umbrella of the War on Terror its not much of a stretch to assume that they could possibly start using drones to kill people at home as well.

That being said, if someone I loved was killed in a terrorist attack and I had learned that they could have killed the guy responsible days earlier with a drone and chose not to, I would be angry beyond measure.

I certainly feel that if a citizen has chosen to go overseas and fight against the nation of his birth then he is an enemy combatant and his right to due process under civilian law is forfeit but there is something devious about a group of people meeting in secret and putting a guy's name on a hit list based on info that can't be disputed until after the deed is done.

I'm kind of on the fence on this issue.

Any thoughts?

 

[homeward2008]

The use of drones to attack targets seems to make civilian casualities almost inevitable. Since killing innocent civilians inevitable provokes hatred against the perpetrators, I wonder if the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? And that is looking at it from a purely practical POV, without even touching on the moral position.

 

[JoshaS]

Why is due process forfeit if you are an enemy?

Ever heard of the Geneva Convention?

The length of time these presidential emergency powers have been allowed to continue is ridiculous. The way the US defines "combatants" is a sick joke. The practice of waiting for others to help the wounded, then firing missiles at them, is both illegal and morally repugnant.

Would you be on the fence if the Mexican government destroyed your block with hellfire missiles, because a drug cartel member was living there? Then they waited for other nearby residents to tentatively come and see if they could help any wounded, and they were killed too? What if they then declared every man between 14 and 60 an "enemy combatant", and gave a smug press release congratulating themselves about what a triumph of good over evil it was?

 

[osito_lover]

If you reread my last paragraph I said "due process under civilian law". If someone moves overseas and is actively recruiting people to fight against us or has joined a group that is attacking us then yes I consider them an enemy and I don't see the logic in trying to capture a guy just to fly him back here and give him his day in court.

 

[kelly26]

That's great. Until they decide you and yours are the enemy.

First they came for the Jews...

 

[BigDaddy]

Ok so if your family was killed by a terrorist and it could have been prevented by assassinating him earlier you wouldn't have preferred that option?

 

[Pernicious1]

It was illegal.

This guy posed a potentially far greater threat to US national security, but still got to experience due process: http://www.3ad.com/history/cold.war/feature.pages/svenson.affair.htm

Legality aside, would you be ok with foreign governments illegally assassinating people in the US? What if the Palestinian government started raining down hellfires on those who fund illegal Israeli settlements?

 

[unislamic]

What if you lived in Pakistan, and felt a terrorist attack might prevent more innocent people being killed by illegal US drone strikes?

 

[mreiano]

Courts of law are the places where guilt or not should be determined. There are rules and procedures for dealing with extradition issues. 'because some guy said so' should not be enough. That level of 'evidence' is what the war in Iraq got started over. And we all know how that turned out.

If your evidence could not withstand legal scrutiny, it is imo not good enough to start killing people over. And if it would withstand legal scrutiny... then just have a trial already. Otherwise bad things tend to happen. Like extraordinary rendition. And not only guilty people ended up in guantanamo base or some syrian 'interrogation' room.

For a country that so prides itself on freedom and founding principles, the US sure does like to run a KGB style government in all manners vaguely related to terrorism.

 

[countrysweetheart]

It still amazes me that there is such a relatively small uproar about this, yet you ask someone to undergo some extra steps before they own a gun and watch the fireworks fly

Probably reveals something, but I am not exactly sure what

 

[blksvr]

Of course not. I'm aware of the dangers of a government deciding for itself who deserves to die. I'm just saying there is no easy answers. I gave my opinions and right or wrong they are mine.

If one of these guys created a plan to bomb my brother's workplace next week and killing him today would prevent that I would be appreciative, however that doesn't detract from the weird Minority Report aspect of the whole thing.

How would you feel about that? If killing a guy would save someone you love would you be against it?

 

[Aries]

If it were known that a loved one of mine was a target for attack, I would prefer they were kept under safety. I would not want the innocent loved ones of others being killed to save my loved ones.

It's never ok to kill innocents in order to kill enemies. For me, anyway.

 

[Mrekool]

Yes, if it was going to save lives, I would be for it. What I am not for, and quite sick of is taking some burro in a suits word for it. Yes, if someone close had been killed by terrorists, I would want the responcible person dead. But I would want a trail, so I could hear it and know for myself the guilty person died. I don't think being ACCUSED of terrorism forfits any rights. Untill there is a trial (pulic NOT secret), it is only an accusation.

 

[ThatNigga]

I respect that David. I don't want innocents to be killed either. This is one of those issues in which we can mostly agree with how things should be. I just don't know if that will ever have any bearing on how things really are.

 

[Jenzyca]

That's not the issue. The CIA is judging people guilty without trial and sentencing them and anyone they happen to be near to death.

I'm probably more likely to be killed by a CIA drone strike than a terrorist.

 

[yummyt]

People care more about their guns than about brown people?

 

[seanturner30]

Sadly, I agree.

It's difficult for me not to come to the conclusion that the world is run by evil sociopaths, who care more about controlling resources than human lives.

But to whomever at GCHQ or the NSA is reading this; don't worry, I'm not going to do anything about it!

 

[GeorgeR]

To be fair a significant number of people want to retain their guns precisely because of things like drones in US airspace and the Presidents power to kill or detain without due process. (NDAA, patriot acts, kill lists etc..)

 

[floridasmiles74]

That's definitely how it comes across.

Just like the UK cares more about royal weddings or a mad woman putting a cat in a bin.

 

[newlywed24]

I would post the George Carlin "We love war" routine, but I'm pretty sure it violates ToS many times over.
"We love war! It's what we're good at, bombing brown people!"