Looks like they just want clarification on the practice, not details about the strikes themselves.

Mixolydian Master: I don't know how many of their unamerican stunts I can stand anymore. This shiat is getting old.

How's this for an un-American stunt?

U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners (new window)

Mixolydian Master: I don't know how many of their unamerican stunts I can stand anymore. This shiat is getting old.

The government or the ACLU?

I mean, I understand the practicality of this approach and that the precedent being set requires some pretty specific circumstances that make the target difficult to sympathize with.

However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

I have trouble understanding how we can't do a SEAL Team 6 style extraction, or pressure the sanctuary country to do more to allow us access or be held liable. I am sure part of it is our weakened position following Bush's handling of their nations' "terrorists", but there must be ways to reset or repair these relationships without resorting to defying the constitution.

It's hard to see their passports from way up there

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I thought a drone strike was when postal workers walked off the job

/*rimshot*

Drone strike is Ben Stein's fatality move.

Hey ACLU: We're at farking war. If you're not with us, you're an enemy. The drones are fantastic tools because they let use strike our enemies without having to endanger the lives of our troops.

netweavr: Looks like they just want clarification on the practice, not details about the strikes themselves.

It's all done above board and lawfully. Some secret committee meets and makes a kill list, which the president approves. The people on that list instantly forfeit every right, including the right not to be murdered by the government without charges or trial.

It's all right there in the Constitution under the section titled, "We were kidding about the whole rights thing, just do whatever."

Maybe they yelled, "BROKEN ARROW!"

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mixolydian Master: I don't know how many of their unamerican stunts I can stand anymore. This shiat is getting old.

The government or the ACLU?

I mean, I understand the practicality of this approach and that the precedent being set requires some pretty specific circumstances that make the target difficult to sympathize with.

However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

I have trouble understanding how we can't do a SEAL Team 6 style extraction, or pressure the sanctuary country to do more to allow us access or be held liable. I am sure part of it is our weakened position following Bush's handling of their nations' "terrorists", but there must be ways to reset or repair these relationships without resorting to defying the constitution.

Often, that kind of "extraction" simply isn't feasible. Remember with Abottabad, it was a relaxed city, under the control of the Pakistani military and pretty much a calm, wealthy, resort town. Helicopters might not be common, but are a known object and not some demon to be warded off with your fire-sticks. Additionally, the residents would be better fed and more apathetic.

On the other hand, when you look at Yemen, everyone there is already shooting at each other and is generally more hungry. When a strange helicopter crashes in a city, instead of the residents saying "I say, let us telephone the fire brigade at once, Mortimer," in the fashion of your average resident of Abottabad, they would run towards it, shoot a lot, you get the idea.

That's why people in upscale suburbs get people zip lining out of helicopters while people in sniper infested villages get drone strikes. Can you maybe see the distinction?

gilgigamesh: If you know so much about the rules of war, then certainly you are familiar with what constitutes a war crime.

How does committing war crimes make the situation not a war?

Leo Bloom's Freakout: However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

They received due process. That our due process has become so farked up is a different complaint entirely.

fusillade762: U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners (new window)

FTA: What makes this even more striking is how conservative - almost to the point of inaccuracy - is the Bureau's methodology and reporting. Its last news-making report, issued last July, was designed to prove (and unquestionably did prove) that top Obama counter-Terrorism adviser John Brennan lied when he said this about drone strikes in Pakistan: "in the last year, 'there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we've been able to develop."

That's not a lie. They killed exactly the civilians they meant to kill.

threadjackistan: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mixolydian Master: I don't know how many of their unamerican stunts I can stand anymore. This shiat is getting old.

The government or the ACLU?

I mean, I understand the practicality of this approach and that the precedent being set requires some pretty specific circumstances that make the target difficult to sympathize with.

However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

I have trouble understanding how we can't do a SEAL Team 6 style extraction, or pressure the sanctuary country to do more to allow us access or be held liable. I am sure part of it is our weakened position following Bush's handling of their nations' "terrorists", but there must be ways to reset or repair these relationships without resorting to defying the constitution.

Often, that kind of "extraction" simply isn't feasible. Remember with Abottabad, it was a relaxed city, under the control of the Pakistani military and pretty much a calm, wealthy, resort town. Helicopters might not be common, but are a known object and not some demon to be warded off with your fire-sticks. Additionally, the residents would be better fed and more apathetic.

On the other hand, when you look at Yemen, everyone there is already shooting at each other and is generally more hungry. When a strange helicopter crashes in a city, instead of the residents saying "I say, let us telephone the fire brigade at once, Mortimer," in the fashion of your average resident of Abottabad, they would run towards it, shoot a lot, you get the idea.

That's why people in upscale suburbs get people zip lining out of helicopters while people in sniper infested villages get drone strikes. Can you maybe see the distinction?

I can, but it still feels intrinsically wrong. Like I started the post, I get the practicality, I really really do. I know these are bad mofo's who would do us harm given the opportunity and that by all accounts would be hung by a jury if they could see trial. Of that, I have little doubt.

I just am uneasy when they aren't afforded that, when what feels like a shortcut is taken in the efforts of justice. I am not sure what solution would be right, especially when, as you highlighted and I knew, that extraction is not a realistic alternative. Or maybe it's just a more bloody to our soldiers alternative... Perhaps when deciding an American needs to die without trial, soldiers should be the only way to approach it. If we are going to execute without trial (no matter the obviousness of the guilt from where we sit), then it should be done with our bare hands, so to speak. With our blood and flesh, so that we can be sure the decision is necessary and not just expedient.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mixolydian Master: I don't know how many of their unamerican stunts I can stand anymore. This shiat is getting old.

The government or the ACLU?

I mean, I understand the practicality of this approach and that the precedent being set requires some pretty specific circumstances that make the target difficult to sympathize with.

However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

I have trouble understanding how we can't do a SEAL Team 6 style extraction, or pressure the sanctuary country to do more to allow us access or be held liable. I am sure part of it is our weakened position following Bush's handling of their nations' "terrorists", but there must be ways to reset or repair these relationships without resorting to defying the constitution.

Lets see if I get this right. You expect someone to maintain their rights and protections as a citizen of the US when they defect to an armed group with a set mission of performing harm to American citizens? I am sorry, but killing defectors has been around a lot longer than the US. It is not like the guys just happened to be sitting in the wrong house down the block from their house. The purposely sought out anti-american groups then left American soil to join them.

Your point on "Terrorists" I agree with. And the quotes are appropriate.

sprawl15: Leo Bloom's Freakout: However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

They received due process. That our due process has become so farked up is a different complaint entirely.

Point taken, I guess since I have been on a bit of an idealistic stance on this topic in the first place, I ended up approaching the idea of due process with that same thought line. All's fair in love and war, and I guess we are more and more in a state of constant war.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: I just am uneasy when they aren't afforded that, when what feels like a shortcut is taken in the efforts of justice.

It's not a shortcut; due process is only equivalent to a jury trial in the civilian jurisdiction. The killing of al-Awlaki was no more or less justified than the killing of bin Laden. However you think about the latter is the same that you should think about the former.

imontheinternet: netweavr: Looks like they just want clarification on the practice, not details about the strikes themselves.

It's all done above board and lawfully. Some secret committee meets and makes a kill list, which the president approves. The people on that list instantly forfeit every right, including the right not to be murdered by the government without charges or trial.

It's all right there in the Constitution under the section titled, "We were kidding about the whole rights thing, just do whatever."

Pretty sure you just described a Bill of Attainder, which is illegal under US law.

Kazrath: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mixolydian Master: I don't know how many of their unamerican stunts I can stand anymore. This shiat is getting old.

The government or the ACLU?

I mean, I understand the practicality of this approach and that the precedent being set requires some pretty specific circumstances that make the target difficult to sympathize with.

However, to draw a comparison to another of Fark's favorite peoples: Just as Westboro shows us the gambit we run with a free speech proviso, these American terrorists stretch the limits of due process.

I have trouble understanding how we can't do a SEAL Team 6 style extraction, or pressure the sanctuary country to do more to allow us access or be held liable. I am sure part of it is our weakened position following Bush's handling of their nations' "terrorists", but there must be ways to reset or repair these relationships without resorting to defying the constitution.

Lets see if I get this right. You expect someone to maintain their rights and protections as a citizen of the US when they defect to an armed group with a set mission of performing harm to American citizens? I am sorry, but killing defectors has been around a lot longer than the US. It is not like the guys just happened to be sitting in the wrong house down the block from their house. The purposely sought out anti-american groups then left American soil to join them.

Your point on "Terrorists" I agree with. And the quotes are appropriate.

I guess what worries me is the idea that someone could be assigned the label of defector. In these instances, as I've said, there's little doubt that these are bad men who are clearly in league with folks who would do us harm. And... to be honest, if they died because they were in the company of folks we were going to strike anyways, and they were collateral because of who they threw their lot in with, I would probably be ok with that.

It's the thought that it's the Americans we are targeting where I run into issues. If we have an issue with our own citizens, no matter how despicable they act, we have conduits for dealing with it. If it's other country's citizens, then we have the other approaches. I feel like it puts us in a precarious place when we throw out noble principles for expediency in good causes.

netweavr: Pretty sure you just described a Bill of Attainder, which is illegal under US law.

Bills of Attainder are punishment for crimes. The kill list is based on allegiance to a group Congress has exercised war powers upon. It's no different than picking out which Taliban supply dump to bomb, legally.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: I guess what worries me is the idea that someone could be assigned the label of defector.

There's a very clear risk of abuse as the law is currently worded; the 9/11 AUMF only requires a presidential determination to be considered a target.

Leo Bloom's Freakout: It's the thought that it's the Americans we are targeting where I run into issues.

This is kind of silly, and contrary to the ideals of the Constitution. Rights are innate as human beings, and the Constitution does not act as source of rights, but rather protector; it tells the government what it cannot do in the interest of respecting the rights that are innate to the nation's populace.

Similarly, citizens and non-citizens alike have identical rights. If a person is doing X activity, passport color doesn't matter - due process applies equally. Were an American citizen part of a group of Taliban attacking a convoy, the military would be well within their authority to kill that person. Similarly, were an American citizen hanging out at a Taliban supply dump when it was bombed, there would be no foul on the play.

In this case, due process (such as it was) was satisfied by the President determining - in accordance with the 9/11 AUMF - the target was a valid military target and exercising force authorized by the same AUMF.

IXI Jim IXI: Jillian Rayfield is a Reporter/Blogger for TPM, and started as a News Intern in May 2009. She graduated from Cornell University in May 2008 with a degree in Film, and worked as a Research Assistant for a market research firm in London in between.

"...someone thought she was cute and had a nice ass, so they asked her 'hey, wanna try writing articles?"

She sounds poor and underprivileged.

sprawl15: netweavr: Pretty sure you just described a Bill of Attainder, which is illegal under US law.

Bills of Attainder are punishment for crimes. The kill list is based on allegiance to a group Congress has exercised war powers upon. It's no different than picking out which Taliban supply dump to bomb, legally.

Based on allegiance how? There was no trial. What determines allegiance? Through what process? What prevents Congress from declaring Random Joe is a member of Al Queda and launching a drone strike on his house in Kansas City? That's the basis of the lawsuit. They just want the process outlined in a verifiable way. We live with a system of checks and balances. Where are they?

Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

netweavr: There was no trial.

There doesn't need to be a trial. "Due process" is not synonymous with "jury trial". Jury trials are required before criminal conviction in a court of law; al Awlaki died with no conviction on his record. It's just like how we don't need to convict people at a Taliban supply dump before dropping a bomb on them: due process is satisfied by Congressional exercise of military power.

netweavr: What determines allegiance?

Presidential determination.

netweavr: [1]Through what process? [2]What prevents Congress from declaring Random Joe is a member of Al Queda and launching a drone strike on his house in Kansas City? That's the basis of the lawsuit. They just want the process outlined in a verifiable way. We live with a system of checks and balances. [3]Where are they?

There isn't one, nothing, and there aren't any, respectively. After the determination is made, Hamdi (for citizens) allows one to contest that status through civilian courts. But it's not a material decision the judges make; they don't say if you're a terrorist or not with all the burden of proof that would require, they only say if the government has grounds to consider you one.

netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

I do appreciate you assuming I have that much power, though. I'll let the other four Jew bankers know that you're on to us.

netweavr: Based on allegiance how? There was no trial. What determines allegiance? Through what process? What prevents Congress from declaring Random Joe is a member of Al Queda and launching a drone strike on his house in Kansas City?

Nothing at all, though technically the Congress isn't empowered to do that; however, the Executive is.

netweavr: We live with a system of checks and balances. Where are they?

Ask the group directly charged with oversight of the Executive Branch: to wit, Congress. The check of the courts is what we're seeing now with the ACLU; the problem is it takes longer.

netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

Not necessary. The Congress has already done so.

Due process that established Anwar al-Awlaki's criminal charges and warranted a death sentence: none whatsoever.

Legal distinction between Anwar al-Awlaki, Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Legal obstacles acknowledged by the Obama administration that would prevent them from drone-targeting Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

sprawl15: netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

And what's wrong with asking the Courts to test that justification?

El Pachuco: Due process that established Anwar al-Awlaki's criminal charges and warranted a death sentence: none whatsoever.

Legal distinction between Anwar al-Awlaki, Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Legal obstacles acknowledged by the Obama administration that would prevent them from drone-targeting Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Chances you know what you're talking about: none whatsoever.

El Pachuco: Legal obstacles acknowledged by the Obama administration that would prevent them from drone-targeting Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

This is probably the best argument I've seen in terms of supporting America's drone use.

El Pachuco: Due process that established Anwar al-Awlaki's criminal charges and warranted a death sentence: none whatsoever.

It's already been explained in small words how wrong you are.

netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

And what's wrong with asking the Courts to test that justification?

Nothing. It's just not required.

El Pachuco: Due process that established Anwar al-Awlaki's criminal charges and warranted a death sentence: none whatsoever.

Legal distinction between Anwar al-Awlaki, Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Legal obstacles acknowledged by the Obama administration that would prevent them from drone-targeting Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Watching the YouTube video of Mitt Romney emerging Terminator-style from the wreckage of a strike from the drone named "Goin' Rogue": Priceless

/There are some things even money can't kill, for everything else, there's Predator drones.

gilgigamesh: If you know so much about the rules of war, then certainly you are familiar with what constitutes a war crime.

As someone who taught classes on LoAC, i can say not necessarily. Targeting the civilians would be a war crime. Targeting enemies that are amidst civilians is not.

If you put a AAA piece on top of a Mosque the AAA piece is a legit target. The Mosque becoming rubble in the process isn't our fault, we didn't put the cannons there.

If you have a bomb factory under an orphanage it's perfectly legal to make a crater of it to get the bomb factory.

El Pachuco: Due process that established Anwar al-Awlaki's criminal charges and warranted a death sentence: none whatsoever.

Legal distinction between Anwar al-Awlaki, Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Legal obstacles acknowledged by the Obama administration that would prevent them from drone-targeting Mitt Romney, and most people in this thread: none whatsoever.

Go be stupid on DailyKOS. Your mind is impervious to reason and evidence, thou partisan sheep. The enemy doesn't get a trial, even if they are US citizens.

sprawl15: netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

And what's wrong with asking the Courts to test that justification?

Nothing. It's just not required.

Then there's nothing wrong with this ACLU lawsuit. It's just the impetus to that Judicial check.

netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

And what's wrong with asking the Courts to test that justification?

Nothing. It's just not required.

Then there's nothing wrong with this ACLU lawsuit.

I never said there was. I just pointed out that this isn't a bill of attainder. Could you describe the strawman you're trying to attack?

sprawl15: netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

And what's wrong with asking the Courts to test that justification?

Nothing. It's just not required.

Then there's nothing wrong with this ACLU lawsuit.

I never said there was. I just pointed out that this isn't a bill of attainder. Could you describe the strawman you're trying to attack?

You're the one arguing with me. Can you explain why you brought up Jewish bankers earlier?

IXI Jim IXI: Jillian Rayfield is a Reporter/Blogger for TPM, and started as a News Intern in May 2009. She graduated from Cornell University in May 2008 with a degree in Film, and worked as a Research Assistant for a market research firm in London in between.

"...someone thought she was cute and had a nice ass, so they asked her 'hey, wanna try writing articles?"

And yet, she's still better qualified than anyone on WND.

netweavr: You're the one arguing with me.

Sort of. I'm correcting you. I wouldn't really call it an argument.

netweavr: Can you explain why you brought up Jewish bankers earlier?

You'll find out as soon as we warm up our earthquake machine.

netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: Unless you want to grant the President the authority to order military strikes against US citizens based on undisclosed reasons.

This already happened. Read the 9/11 AUMF.

And what's wrong with asking the Courts to test that justification?

Nothing. It's just not required.

Then there's nothing wrong with this ACLU lawsuit.

I never said there was. I just pointed out that this isn't a bill of attainder. Could you describe the strawman you're trying to attack?

You're the one arguing with me. Can you explain why you brought up Jewish bankers earlier?

sprawl15: netweavr: You're the one arguing with me.

Sort of. I'm correcting you. I wouldn't really call it an argument.

I'm stating the questions being posed by the ACLU. Your stating the answers being presenting by the government. The Court decides if those answers are valid or if they're inadequate.

netweavr: Can you explain why you brought up Jewish bankers earlier?

You'll find out as soon as we warm up our earthquake machine.

In other words, you're presenting a strawman.

netweavr: sprawl15: netweavr: You're the one arguing with me.

Sort of. I'm correcting you. I wouldn't really call it an argument.

I'm stating the questions being posed by the ACLU. Your stating the answers being presenting by the government. The Court decides if those answers are valid or if they're inadequate.

netweavr: Can you explain why you brought up Jewish bankers earlier?

You'll find out as soon as we warm up our earthquake machine.

In other words, you're presenting a strawman.

I think you are not understanding the what he was saying. The phrasing you used in the conversation accused him of giving the president the power he got as a result of the 9/11 aumf. He was making a joke at your expense, by mocking the "black helicopters" and "new world order" people with their crazy theories about jewish bankers, etc.