Quote:

---

The legal basis for using drone strikes to kill US citizens has been disclosed in a leaked justice department memo.

US officials can authorise the killing of Americans abroad if they are leaders of al-Qaeda or its allies, according to the document obtained by NBC News.

Lethal force is lawful if they are judged to pose an "imminent threat" and their capture is not feasible, it adds.

US drone strikes against militant suspects in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan are deeply controversial.

Under President Barack Obama the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects, arguing that it is acting in self-defence in accordance with international law.

Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.

Legal framework

The undated 16-page Department of Justice white paper published by NBC gives more details of the justification for the use of drones outside recognised war zones.

It says sovereignty is not deemed to have been violated if the host nation gives its consent, or is unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.

It also sets out a "legal framework" for the use of lethal force against US citizens in foreign countries.

It concludes that such killings do not violate the US Constitution as long as:

-An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US

-Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible

-The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles

The paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?

---

One would hope for some outrage, yes.



... is it really in accordance with international law to assassinate people if the country has not given its consent but is merely deemed unable to take care of the threat?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I notice that nowhere in this memo does it discuss the legality of killing innocent folk who just happen to be near the point where leathal force is 'legally' applied to the folks describen in the memo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
POTUS, both RED and Blue POTUS, have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...............

For those who think the black copters are coming.............


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:

The thing that concerns me is that there doesn't have to be proof of an attack in the works, that means that people might not be correct in who they kill. But I guess that happens. :(

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.

---

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The first problem I have with the whole concept is there is an assumption of guilt without that assumption ever being tested at trial. There was an assumption Iraq had WMDs too - and how did that work out? The second problem I have is the erosion of rights - not just US constitutional rights but human rights. The third problem I have is the death of innocents. The fourth is the blowback we'll face that's already building. Way to go to recruit for the other side guys! Lastly, it doesn't work. Simply eliminating an individual or five here or there won't stop terrorism or terrorists. A 'war' on terrorism is the wrong model to use.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
That's a really good point about how we might not be so eager to go to war if it was right there in our face, like in WWII, I think people bqack then understood more than people do now how a war really is. Everyone at home was involved, whereas wars now are going on _out _there and we don't think about it as much as we should. I think that's a really valid point Quicko. Why though do you dislike me more about my post than Jong or Nick about theirs? At least I'm a little hesitant.

And I definitely agree that the Patriot Act has a lot of crappy stuff in it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Could I kill someone? The answer is yes. I've thought about it and I know I could do it if I needed to. It isn't something I ever hope to do, its not something that I would enjoy at all, it would be really scary. But I think I could do it if I deemed it necessary.

Others? Could you do it? I've actually been thinking of putting up a thread about this very question.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?

How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?

How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."

---

Hello slippery slope argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

....

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

---

Quote:

---

They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.

---

Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.

---

Quote:

---

Now, are Republicans and their phony outrage gonna find a way to muck it up for merely a percieved political advantage?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.

---

Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.

---

Listening to Eric Holder's speech justifying targeting Americans for drone kills reminded me of the Senator Long line in 'JFK'...."like pickin' gnat shit out of pepper"

And watching Jay Carney do the Tennessee two-step dance around reporters' questions about the drone memo was a real hoot.

Joe Biden, a vocal opponent of EITs, just fine with drone kills. Same with new Sec. of State John Kerry.

NBC, ABC, & CBS, relentless against Bush for EITs, silent on drone policy for years.

Democratic Senators and Congressmen against EITs mostly silent on drone policy for years.

And on and on.....there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you. And it's all to cover and protect Barack Obama.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.

---

What scares me is that an argument even exists about the moral justification of killing people extrajudicially.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
They are killing American citizens. That's the key point, and the one you seem determined to miss. Once you've cleared the killing of American citizens without due process, or through a star chamber without oversight or transparency, the matter of "where" is nothing more than a Google Map away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".


Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.

Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.

You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.

So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".


Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.

---

I don't seem to remember the Jews working to destroy Germany or planning terrorist attack. I must have missed that history lesson.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.

Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.

You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.

So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You probably missed all your history lessons, going by the stuff you post.

---