• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge

Bob0627 said:
"War is a Racket" - U.S. General Smedley Butler

And in all wars, over 90% of the casualties are innocent civilians. Those who dream of waging war via "remote control machines" should stick to Xbox games to satisfy their lust for remote control war, no one gets hurt.
Click to expand...

so it goes
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

I believe drone strikes should require letters of marque or reprisal.
 
joG said:
One of the main problems in politics is that so many people think that things are well understood and the consequences known, when as here the thing is still developing. I don't know if you ever researched Yoo's work, did a comparative evaluation on handling of the topic in other countries or even read the texts. As a first step in a long evolution of domestic and international legal thinking it was maybe not brilliant and probably not what you would like, but it was also not so bad as you seem to think. At least the Administration thought about things, weighed them and came to understandable decisions. This is much more honest and methodologically correct, than you will find in most of the capitols of our allies.
Click to expand...

No, I have not read the work of Charles Manson or John Yoo, and I don't need to. Their public statements make it very clear that they are criminals, and Yoo's public statements make it clear he is a domestic enemy of the US Constitution and an immoral person.

There is nothing that can redeem either of them in my view, except for a public retraction and apology from Yoo. That ain't gonna happen. Those "Constitutional Law Professors" have a way of getting elected POTUS. :(
 
Bob0627 said:
"War is a Racket" - U.S. General Smedley Butler

And in all wars, over 90% of the casualties are innocent civilians. Those who dream of waging war via "remote control machines" should stick to Xbox games to satisfy their lust for remote control war, no one gets hurt.
Click to expand...

lol what is your logic here? War shouldn't be safer for soldiers because...war is bad?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol what is your logic here? War shouldn't be safer for soldiers because...war is bad?
Click to expand...

What's yours? If over 90% of the casualties in war are innocent civilians and soldiers would be "safer" (or perhaps unnecessary) if war becomes a video game for the most part, then that ratio would likely tilt closer to 100%. How about NO wars of any kind?
 
Henry David said:
No, I have not read the work of Charles Manson or John Yoo, and I don't need to. Their public statements make it very clear that they are criminals, and Yoo's public statements make it clear he is a domestic enemy of the US Constitution and an immoral person.

There is nothing that can redeem either of them in my view, except for a public retraction and apology from Yoo. That ain't gonna happen. Those "Constitutional Law Professors" have a way of getting elected POTUS. :(
Click to expand...

I have always found it helpful to read documents, before I comment them. ;)

ps: What exactly did you not find correct in yoo's analysis?
 
Last edited:
If you want to be protected by the US Constitution, STAY IN THE UNITED STATES, don't go wandering all over the world. If you don't want to be targeted by the US Government/Military DON'T SPEND TIME WITH TERRORISTS. It doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
 
Bob0627 said:
What's yours? If over 90% of the casualties in war are innocent civilians and soldiers would be "safer" (or perhaps unnecessary) if war becomes a video game for the most part, then that ratio would likely tilt closer to 100%. How about NO wars of any kind?
Click to expand...

How about everyone just be nice all the time? Good idea!
 
Bob0627 said:
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the 1A doesn't protect any such "right of redress".

It protects the people's right to petition the government for redress.

The distinction is between the right to ask for something (petition for redress) and the expectation that one will actually receive something (right of redress).

The government, through the court, telling a petitioner "no" isn't inconsistent with the 1A.
 
joG said:
I have always found it helpful to read documents, before I comment them. ;)

ps: What exactly did you not find correct in yoo's analysis?
Click to expand...

Yoo's sophistry regarding torture and other unconstitutional actions by the government became the cornerstone of much of the policy of the Bush administration. He, Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey and a host of others made a mockery of the rule of law and turned things upside down to justify the Global War On Terror.

What they set the stage for, Obama has embraced with enthusiasm.
 
Tigger said:
If you want to be protected by the US Constitution, STAY IN THE UNITED STATES, don't go wandering all over the world. If you don't want to be targeted by the US Government/Military DON'T SPEND TIME WITH TERRORISTS. It doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
Click to expand...

I thought you didn't really believe in the Constitution? What with all of those women friendly amendments.
 
Henry David said:
Yoo's sophistry regarding torture and other unconstitutional actions by the government became the cornerstone of much of the policy of the Bush administration. He, Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey and a host of others made a mockery of the rule of law and turned things upside down to justify the Global War On Terror.

What they set the stage for, Obama has embraced with enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

But I thought you never read his "sophistry"?
 
soot said:
To be fair, the 1A doesn't protect any such "right of redress".

It protects the people's right to petition the government for redress.

The distinction is between the right to ask for something (petition for redress) and the expectation that one will actually receive something (right of redress).

The government, through the court, telling a petitioner "no" isn't inconsistent with the 1A.
Click to expand...

You're right. It is a bit hollow though if a judge dismisses a complaint arbitrarily or via some legal convolution. This is especially true when a plaintiff demands a jury trial. But that's a subject for a different thread.
 
Bob0627 said:
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of three American citizens killed by U.S. drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

Lawsuit over American drone strikes dismissed by U.S. judge | Reuters

This is injustice on many different levels.

1. The US government has not declared war on any nation, specifically Yemen.
2. This was a targeted assassination, not a battle in any war zone.
3. It was SPECIFICALLY directed at American citizens, civilians, not foreign troops.
4. In legal terms, the dismissal is a violation of the First Amendment's protected right of redress.

I'm sure there's more but these are some of the main issues.
Click to expand...

How is it conducting war when we are not at war with that country? I have no problem with drones being used to kill people in a country we are at war with.But last I checked we are not at war with Yemen.Hopefully this can be appealed.
 
Henry David said:
Yoo's sophistry regarding torture and other unconstitutional actions by the government became the cornerstone of much of the policy of the Bush administration. He, Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey and a host of others made a mockery of the rule of law and turned things upside down to justify the Global War On Terror.

What they set the stage for, Obama has embraced with enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

That is one opinion, certainly.
 
jamesrage said:
How is it conducting war when we are not at war with that country? I have no problem with drones being used to kill people in a country we are at war with.But last I checked we are not at war with Yemen.Hopefully this can be appealed.
Click to expand...

How do you want to treat persons organizing operations of mass murder from areas, where the warlord or elite protect those persons.
 
joG said:
How do you want to treat persons organizing operations of mass murder from areas, where the warlord or elite protect those persons.
Click to expand...

We are not at war with Yemen.So it doesn't matter what that individual is ALLEGEDLY doing. If we were at war with that country then sure bomb his ass and anyone seeking to harm our troops.
 
jamesrage said:
We are not at war with Yemen.So it doesn't matter what that individual is ALLEGEDLY doing.
Click to expand...

Why does whether or not the US is at war with Yemen important to this discussion?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Why does whether or not the US is at war with Yemen important to this discussion?
Click to expand...

Drones strikes/dropping a bomb on someone are military actions.We have to no business conducting military action in a country we are not at war with.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Drones strikes are military action.We have to no business conducting military action in a country we are not at war with.
Click to expand...

Yet the Yemenese government allows it...so why does it matter?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Yet the Yemenese government allows it...so why does it matter?
Click to expand...
Those in the Yemen government are not the ones getting bombed and I seriously doubt the people in that country approve of such a violation of their sovereignty. I know I would not approve of another country bombing people in the US and any elected official that allowed it would have their head on a silver platter.
 
jamesrage said:
Those in the Yemen government are not the ones getting bombed and I seriously doubt the people in that country approve of such a violation of their sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Okay? The point is the US doesn't need to be at war with Yemen to do that (obviously), the Yemenese government welcomes it. The US is "at war" with the people it's bombing, not the nation of Yemen. It'd be kinda dumb to declare war on the government- a government that is friendly with the US- just to fulfill your very arbitrary criteria, wouldn't it?

"Yeah, we actually get along with you, Yemen, but jamesrage over at debatepolitics.com says we can't conduct drones strikes unless we're at war with you. Oh, yeah, I know you want us to conduct them but...he posted it, so...those are the rules!"
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Okay? The point is the US doesn't need to be at war with Yemen to do that (obviously),
Click to expand...

Again bombing someone is a military action,We have no business taking military action in a country we are not war with.


the Yemenese government welcomes it.
Click to expand...

I am sure our government bribed some government officials in that country to **** their own sovereignty.

The US is "at war" with the people it's bombing, not the nation of Yemen.
Click to expand...

So it is war with the innocent civilians caught in the bombing?

It'd be kinda dumb to declare war on the government- a government that is friendly with the US- just to fulfill your very arbitrary criteria, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

What is dumb to claim we are at war with someone instead of a country.
"Yeah, we actually get along with you, Yemen, but jamesrage over at debatepolitics.com says we can't conduct drones strikes unless we're at war with you. Oh, yeah, I know you want us to conduct them but...he posted it, so...those are the rules!"
Click to expand...

If Yemen is so concerned about terrorists in their country then they can use their own resources to take care of it. We have no business in there.
 
jamesrage said:
Again bombing someone is a military action,We have no business taking military action in a country we are not war with.
Click to expand...

Just because you said so?


I am sure our government bribed some government officials in that country to **** their own sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Hahaha you certainly hope so, don't you? God forbid it was it was actually for the purposes of national interest.

So it is war with the innocent civilians caught in the bombing?
Click to expand...

Yep.

What is dumb to claim we are at war with someone instead of a country.
Click to expand...

Then we agree!

If Yemen is so concerned about terrorists in their country then they can use their own resources to take care of it. We have no business in there.
Click to expand...

Uhhh...no. We'll help while it's in our best interests to. Your dissension is noted, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom