• 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!

Can the US drone it's citizens abroad?

can we drone US citizens abroad?

  • extingent circumstances - where immediate response in necessary

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • yes. if we can't go after a US citizen who has participated in killing any other way

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • no - he must be captured or killed by host governments only

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • yes. he is a danger just being able to roam

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,264
Reaction score
10,362
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pakistan has refused US military action on its soil, and the domestic security forces have been unable to go after him thus far. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House

Two US officials described the man as an al Qaeda facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against US citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against US persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." The target must also pose 'a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons' – the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune

my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"
 
Last edited:
should have added a "no", feel free to amend any response - private poll, no close date.

I voted exigent and MISSPELLED IT..lol sorry
 
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune

my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"

Where the danger is not clear and present, you would certainly not want to allow the Executive to kill citizens. No matter what.
How clear and how present the danger must be, is something that does need discussing.
 
Where the danger is not clear and present, you would certainly not want to allow the Executive to kill citizens. No matter what.
How clear and how present the danger must be, is something that does need discussing.

this was a crappy thread (poll) a lot to this issue -i'm going to post in Gen'l Politics, as it's in a couple of different areas of interest ( law/war/politics/national security)
 
It's certainly not ideal to kill anyone that's not about to eat a bag of toddlers, but if we make hard rules like this for ourselves, the only guarantee is our opposition will use it to their advantage.

Should we hold fire if we spot a legitimate target that's holding a "I have a U.S. citizen with me" sign, out of an abundance of caution?

Or is there no such thing as a legitimate target?
 
Using a drone is not something you use for "immediate response". You use drones for surveilance and to attack a location that has a suspected terrorist cell. Not to mention if used in a location where an immediate threat is you are more than likely going to hit innocent civilians also as most terrorists attack public places. So no, for emergency situations I do not condone any drone attack on American Citizens or non-Americans.

For any other situation. I still don't condone it. American citizens have a Constitutional Right to due process no matter where they are at. Enemy Combatant or not.
 
What I would like to see is a process whereby the people who are in league with al Qaeda are stripped of their citizenship.

So much is made of his notion "U.S. citizen" without any thought as to what citizenship entails. This thing is obviously not a citizen in any possible way other than technically so. It's very purpose is to act AGAINST citizens.
 
What I would like to see is a process whereby the people who are in league with al Qaeda are stripped of their citizenship.

So much is made of his notion "U.S. citizen" without any thought as to what citizenship entails. This thing is obviously not a citizen in any possible way other than technically so. It's very purpose is to act AGAINST citizens.
a good idea. it would take a legal action to do this, then it allows at least some oversight; knowing he then could be easily targeted once the legal remedy was in place.

We don't even know whom we are talking about here . This is executive action, not capturing for a trial.
 
This is crap.

Who decides what is 'a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons''?

Some secret committee? The POTUS? Does the public ever see this 'proof'?

What is to stop the POTUS from killing anyone he wants...using the above criteria as justification?

This is a pathetic misuse of power.

Plus, bombing another country is a technical 'act of war'


Anyone that does not find this deeply concerning is staggeringly naive and/or ignorant.


And I will not waste my time debating with those who disagree, because there is no need...

...for (on this particular subject, if you disagree with me) I AM right and you ARE wrong.

Full stop.
 
Well of course we can.

Whether it is right or not is a different question.
 
...for (on this particular subject, if you disagree with me) I AM right and you ARE wrong.

Full stop.

Actually no you are not. Full stop.
 
this was a crappy thread (poll) a lot to this issue -i'm going to post in Gen'l Politics, as it's in a couple of different areas of interest ( law/war/politics/national security)

I don't think it was in any way crappie. It's a pretty important topic and needs discussing.
 
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune

my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"

I say no.Thats mainly due to the fact we are not at war with Pakistan so we have no business sending drones into that country. If this individual was in a country we are at war with and that individual was attacking our troops then sure bomb his ass.
 
US mulls another army action in Pakistan - PakTribune

my problem is the elasticity of "imminent threat" - this would have to be a real threat i.e., "exigent circumstances"

There's nothing in the Constitution that says an American citizen absolutely can't become a military target.

Truth be told, the notion is awkward and doesn't make sense, like having an absolute right to free speech no matter how much it imposes on privacy, property, or public safety.

What is to stop the POTUS from killing anyone he wants...using the above criteria as justification?

Fair enough, but what's to stop al-Qaeda from filling out every cell in their network with a soldier who happens to be a U.S. citizen, as a protective shield against assault?

If killing an enemy combatant who happens to be a U.S. citizen is execution, then most of the countries in the Middle East have a bone to pick with us over extra-judicially killing their citizens.

In the War on Terror, being a terrorist supersedes most of your rights as a citizen. The only way to get them back is to lay down your arms and surrender.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who is a threat to the lives of American citizens can be killed. Now it's a lot easier to capture U.S. citizens in this country because of a number of factors and that's how we'd prefer to do it. However in a foreign country it's more difficult, doubly so when that country is not cooperating. If we must kill them then so bit it.
 
There's nothing in the Constitution that says an American citizen absolutely can't become a military target.

Truth be told, the notion is awkward and doesn't make sense, like having an absolute right to free speech no matter how much it imposes on privacy, property, or public safety.



Fair enough, but what's to stop al-Qaeda from filling out every cell in their network with a soldier who happens to be a U.S. citizen, as a protective shield against assault?

If killing an enemy combatant who happens to be a U.S. citizen is execution, then most of the countries in the Middle East have a bone to pick with us over extra-judicially killing their citizens.

In the War on Terror, being a terrorist supersedes most of your rights as a citizen. The only way to get them back is to lay down your arms and surrender.
I'm fine with exigent circumstances.
Some of the problem are the CIA running the drone program, as it's an act of war to hit foreign countries without their permission.
Why the Pentagon should do this, and why the Pentagon should do it openly - put a "kill notice" ( which we do use) as a military target/ classified, but not clandestine.
 
They probably can. I don't know if they should, but they probably can.
 
The US drone program begun by Bush and placed on steroids by Obama is and has been wretched. The US will pay for these crimes against humanity. Killing innocent people, in the name of protecting innocent people:doh



(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/
 
This is crap.

Who decides what is 'a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons''?

Some secret committee? The POTUS? Does the public ever see this 'proof'?

What is to stop the POTUS from killing anyone he wants...using the above criteria as justification?

This is a pathetic misuse of power.

Plus, bombing another country is a technical 'act of war'


Anyone that does not find this deeply concerning is staggeringly naive and/or ignorant.


And I will not waste my time debating with those who disagree, because there is no need...

...for (on this particular subject, if you disagree with me) I AM right and you ARE wrong.

Full stop.

When it comes to foreign policy, the US is hugely hypocritical.
 
The US drone program begun by Bush and placed on steroids by Obama is and has been wretched. The US will pay for these crimes against humanity. Killing innocent people, in the name of protecting innocent people:doh



(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.


Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com
Who cares? They're Pakistani. These people couldn't find Osama bin Laden when he was living in a giant military complex in the middle of a city and nobody in the government thought it was the least bit suspicious. I'm sure the citizens can't tell the difference between drone bombs and rain.
 
Any American citizen who is engaged in actions against the USA and its citizens has signed his own death warrant.
 
Back
Top Bottom