Comments on: The worst thing about those drone strikes is Obama’s moral preening and hypocrisy

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:26:46 +0000

Well, it looks like I found bad info. Or am I not the only one confused? I believe I’ve finally found the source white paper that generated all the discussion on targeted assassination by drones. The paper uses “imminent threat” throughout, and never “immanent threat”, so I’d found bad info. It also extensively discusses a Supreme Court case (Mathews vs Eldridge) in which the balancing concerns of Due Process and national security threat are to be used to determine the validity of killing an American on foreign soil.

Much more in that pdf file. Apologies for my bad info; I thought I’d done enough digging.
Here’s the link to the white paper that seems to have started most of the controversy:
http://reason.com/assets/db/1360033490458.pdf

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:18:02 +0000

I also have to admit I haven’t considered at all the issue of a drone assassination on US soil. I’m quite ignorant on any complexities here.

Suppose we could have targeted the 9-11 hijackers via drone before the attack, say if the four of them were in a Florida cabin together. Bomb the cabin? What’s the answer? Does the answer change if one of these 9-11 hijackers within the cabin had been a US citizen instead of being all foreigners?

Do the same rules apply for authorizing a sniper team that would apply to firing a drone bomb?

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:05:54 +0000

My take on this…

First, let’s take care of the issue of enemy combatants: They can always be killed, in just about any way possible. Period. Doesn’t matter if they’re state actors (military in uniform) or not (spies or terrorists).

There are rules governing the treatment of captured soldiers – military in uniform. If you’ve signed onto those rules, you’re supposed to honor them. There are no such rules governing non-state actors (terrorists). This means they are less protected, not more protected.

So finally we come to targeted assassination via drones, especially for terrorists. Current thought is that they are a legitimate target if they are an “immanent threat”. Note that “immanent” is not a misspelling of “imminent”. Immanent apparently means (in a militarily legal sense) that they are an active part of carrying out a current terrorist action and killing them would disrupt the action.

Seems to me that the military command structure should get to make this call on “immanent threat”, subject to all the usual military rules for getting it right. The military command structure includes the President. In my opinion, even if someone is part of the planning cycle in a terrorist plot, it is acceptable to assassinate them by drone. Even if they’re just in the discussion stage of how to logistically carry the action out.

I think we’re on shaky ground targeting family members of terrorists, including this sixteen year old American (the son of a terrorist) that was apparently targeted and killed by drone. I have no further information indicating the young man was a part of any terrorist action; if he was, I’d have no objection.

I have to admit I haven’t thought a *great* deal about the entire issue, though. Perhaps arguments exist that could move me off of these positions.

By: Les

Les — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:35:31 +0000

In principle I agree with there not being a need for a judicial process if a U.S. citizen takes up arms against the country. However, the implementation is tremendously flawed. In the justification for the drone strikes “imminent” doesn’t mean precisely (as stated in JAWA):

1) He must be an immanent (sic) threat. By immanent (sic), we don’t mean the threat is immediate. What we mean is that the person is involved in operations that will go forward unless he is killed. In other words, we don’t have to wait for a suicide bomber to get on the airplane before we kill him.

How it’s defined in the justification is that there is no need for clear evidence that an attack on U.S. persons or interests will take place in the near future. So what evidence is needed? What’s the time frame? What’s to prevent overreaching so that the killing is almost arbitrary?

Also, only one informed high level official is needed to make the assessment the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of a violent attack on the U.S. with imminent being defined as above. I’m not sure why anyone would think this high level official would be more competent than those who were responsible for our consulate in Benghazi.

I’m also concerned that it applies to U.S. citizens on foreign soil at this moment, but can a clever DOJ lawyer then use this as a basis to make the case for killing an alleged terrorist who’s a U.S. citizen while he’s in the U.S.? Can someone claim due process can be suspended because the threat was imminent, and (for some reason) capture was not feasible? There’s be an outcry some would say, but I don’t see this if the MSM is in love with the President as ours is with Obama.

I was concerned when the Patriot Act was passed that it would be used to consolidate and expand the power of the government. That may be fine when the President had some moral character (as I believe Bush had), but what if he had little (as I believe Obama does). The strategy and tactics for winning this war has to be thought through thoroughly with the important goal of not reducing our civil liberties, to keep us a nation of laws and not of men.

By: Jose

Jose — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:11:51 +0000

Wolf H,
You refer to the rules of war, but they don’t apply to terrorists. The “Laws of War”, as I was taught during active service, require that combatants wear uniforms, and do not attack non-combatants or non-military targets.

Conversely, lawful combatants who are captured are entitled to treatment defined by the Geneva Convention.

Terrorists don’t meet these standards, so can’t be compared to Confederate soldiers.

IF they are US citizens they should be entitled to, or subject to, the judicial process, although I acknowledge it might be impractical. If it is applicable to the Tucson or Aurora shooters, it applies to Anwar Awlaki. I didn’t shed any tears over him, but I don’t like the executive branch making the decision.

As for non-US citizens, it is open season, as far as I am concerned. They can rely on their home nation for protection.

And I’m with you on the intelligence value of captives. But again, is the executive branch basing it’s kill orders on the inconvenience of dealing with prisoners?

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:18:59 +0000

A couple of thoughts.

1. I have no problem with Obama’s drone strikes to kill Americans who are active combatants against the U.S. I don’t think that doing so requires any sort of special consideration beyond the rules of war. In that, I am in complete agreement with the Jawa post you cite. Moreover, let’s be clear about this, Americans have been killing Americans on the opposing side in wartime since 1776. If we had to get a court order before charging a hill, than its no longer warfare, its lawfare – a 21st century construct of the left that I think will ultimately be suicidal.

2. Why should this be a judicial process when we are talking about wartime decisions? I would rather trust the man ultimately charged with protecting our nation to make that decision. He is not above the rules of warfare or other laws, so if he makes an abusive decision, such as to deliberately target a non-combatant, he is theoretically responsible at law for his decisions.

3. In all fairness to Obama, the two Americans targeted for drone strikes by the Obama administration to date were both legitimate military targets. Much more problematic was the drone strike that killed al-Alwaki’s 16 years old son, purported by the administration to be collateral damage. If he was the target, than that might very well violate the rules of war. I am far more concerned about the specifics of that attack than about Obama’s seemingly well grounded policy on targeting Americans who are fighting against our nation.

4. Far and away my biggest concern of all is not the drone policy itself, but that drones are now a substitute for gathering human intelligence. We are killing because Obama has stripped us of our ability to gather intelligence from these source, and he made it such a centerpiece of his campaign that he cannot back track upon it. I would much rather have Osama bin Laden in custody at a black site getting water boarded for every bit of intel we could gather than have him feeding the fishes.

5. That we have been relatively safe since the end of the Bush administration is not something for which I give much credit to Obama. The lack of intel from high level sources places the U.S. in a far more precarious position in the long term.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:05:18 +0000

“Any legal minds here care to comment?”

Since most of the LEft is guilty of the same thing, they would be advised not to trump up charges that could in the future be used against them, drones or no drones.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:59:07 +0000

Who here bought into the Leftist cant that they opposed the US wars under Bush because of humanitarian concerns, civilian deaths, and US casualties?

I feel sorry for you. Just a little bit.

For the LEft has never cared about human rights, only using it as a gateway to conquering a nation.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:09:20 +0000

For the record, sgmstv, I crossed “The Rubicon” during the Age of Reagan. Book crossed the Rubicon after 9/11.

I don’t think that you will find many commentators on this blog that disagree with you, disparage Bush and the Republicans, or minimize the conduct of the Obama administration. Several of us (me included) represent military families.

By: sgmstv

sgmstv — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:01:25 +0000

The “you” is anyone who minimizes this as conduct of “a little stinker.”
I see you have crossed the rubicon from liberal to conservative. Maybe the accusation is unwarranted…but, I spent 8 years, 2 of them as boots on the ground, defending Bush policies that were mild were compared to Obama’s. I have been called every bad name in the book by both friends and family as a result.
Now to hear it called being a little stinker is too much. It wass a blatant lie and merely a manipulation of simple minded liberals. If anything, liberals should be offended that not only were they confused and tricked so easily but that Barack Obama knew they would fall for it so easily.
Liberals are like farts, as soon as you trust them, they crap on you.