Updated U.S. Drone Policy: Standing Near Terrorists Makes You A Terrorist

Quote from Rebound : We haven't had a repeat of Abu Gharib under this President. The Bush Administration fired a two-star general simply because he was assigned to investigate and he told the truth.

So what?

As if the President himself is responsible for such nonsense. Bush is as responsible for Abu Ghraib as Obama is for soldiers passing in dead bodies.

You may go now.

If America wont kill those terrorists, they would probably kill Americans there or here.
So, whats better, killing them there? or nabbing them here?

Quote from jonsmith74 : Now, why is it not hypocritical for Obama to demand such due process while at the same time designating individuals as terrorists and then killing them?

Me: "Hey, I was arrested and convicted without getting due process!"
Obama: "We wouldn't have these problems if police would just kill people instead of arresting them."

Damn, now I'm going to be on another watch list for writing some hot-button words together. I better stop paying for coffee with cash to not appear shady.

Quote from Bobby_Pro : If America wont kill those terrorists, they would probably kill Americans there or here. So, whats better, killing them there? or nabbing them here?

Which "terrorists?" The innocent people who get killed while standing next to alleged terrorists?

Quote from Deusxmachina : Which "terrorists?" The innocent people who get killed while standing next to alleged terrorists?

Okay, so whats your plan to eliminate those terrorists?

Quote from Bobby_Pro : If America wont kill those terrorists, they would probably kill Americans there or here. So, whats better, killing them there? or nabbing them here?

By all means kill them someplace else.

Please don't interpret my comments as supportive of Obama's due process argument, well, what it was before he started playing judge, jury, and executioner.

Quote from jonsmith74 : How is it relevant to proving that obama kills them instead of detaining them? Are you serious? You need help understanding how a dead person proves that someone was killed?

I am serious. And I do not need proof for that. Clearly a dead person has been killed. If that is all your claim then we have no disagreement. However, you claimed Obama has killed them when he could have captured them.

We have now gone over this several times. Every time I have asked you to provide proof that Obama killed them even though he could have just as easily captured them. And every time you played dumb and said inane things like "do you need proof that dead people are killed." At this point it is clear that you either are unable to provide evidnece for your claim.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Did I not post Obama's own words on due process? Did you not read what I linked to?

I am not disputing that Obama advocated for due process. Show me a quote in which he condemned drone attacks.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Obama condemned bush because detainees were not getting due process as Obama thought they should. Due process in Obama's own words meant the ability to challenge a designation of being a terrorist.

The key word is "detained". Those killed by drones had not been detained.

We have gone over this several times. At this point I am assuming that you are either playing dumb or incapable of comprehending this simple notion.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Now, why is it not hypocritical for Obama to demand such due process while at the same time designating individuals as terrorists and then killing them?

Because Obama did not say that combatants on battlefield are entitled to due process. If you claim he has, bring a cite that shows that.

We have gone over this several times. At this point I am assuming that you are either playing dumb or incapable of comprehending this simple notion.

Quote from jonsmith74 : So what? As if the President himself is responsible for such nonsense. Bush is as responsible for Abu Ghraib as Obama is for soldiers passing in dead bodies. You may go now.

Your analogy is nonsense. Bush had knowledge of the torture and the administration authorized it. I believe it was called "enhanced interrogation [wikipedia.org]".

Quote from CyberGuy : Your analogy is nonsense.

The post was in specific reference to Abu Ghraib, not "enhanced interrogations"; why is his analogy nonsense?

Quote from paperboy05 : The post was in specific reference to Abu Ghraib, not "enhanced interrogations"; why is his analogy nonsense?

When he said Abu Ghraib, it's in reference to what went on there: enhanced interrogations. It's nonsense because the Bush administration condoned whatever interrogation techniques were necessary to extract information from the prisoners whereas there is no evidence to link Obama to authorization of troops to piss on corpses, or more broadly speaking, abuse corpses. Even if there were authorization, those are corpses, so it doesn't matter.

Quote from CyberGuy : When he said Abu Ghraib, it's in reference to what went on there: enhanced interrogations.

How do you know. There was a lot more extracurriculars then just accepted enhanced interrogation techniques.

Quote : It's nonsense because the Bush administration condoned whatever interrogation techniques were necessary to extract information from the prisoners

Linky that shows Bush condoned what went on at Abu Ghraib?

Quote : Even if there were authorization, those are corpses, so it doesn't matter.

Hand wave away.

Quote from TRNT : I am serious. And I do not need proof for that. Clearly a dead person has been killed. If that is all your claim then we have no disagreement. However, you claimed Obama has killed them when he could have captured them. We have now gone over this several times. Every time I have asked you to provide proof that Obama killed them even though he could have just as easily captured them. And every time you played dumb and said inane things like "do you need proof that dead people are killed." At this point it is clear that you either are unable to provide evidnece for your claim. I am not disputing that Obama advocated for due process. Show me a quote in which he condemned drone attacks. The key word is "detained". Those killed by drones had not been detained. We have gone over this several times. At this point I am assuming that you are either playing dumb or incapable of comprehending this simple notion. Because Obama did not say that combatants on battlefield are entitled to due process. If you claim he has, bring a cite that shows that. We have gone over this several times. At this point I am assuming that you are either playing dumb or incapable of comprehending this simple notion.

Moving the goalposts, again. I didn't claim that obama could easily capture them. That is quite irrelevant to my comments.

Obama's complaint about Bush's detention programs was that these people couldn't contest their designation as terrorists or combatants, at least not in a way that wouldn't be acceptable to Obama. I posted a link Obama's statements on this.

Now, to remain consistent on that due process argument and protect a suspected terrorists righteous due process, then obama should not be playing judge, jury, and executioner and whacking the people. That clearly eliminates any ability to challenge their designation as a terrorist or combatants.

That Obama is whacking these people necessarily is inconsistent with his prior statements.

Whether or not these people are easy to capture is irrelevant as that was never a criteria associated with Obama's statement on due process requirements. In fact, it's self evident that capturing these people is not easy at all, so again, it's an irrelevant criterion by which to evaluate Obama's due process statements.

It is also irrelevant if he had condemned drone attacks in this issue. The claim is not that his use of drones is inconsistent with prior positions or statements regarding use of drones.

The claim is about his due process statements that supposedly do not apply to those he summarily executes.

It seems to me that if you have an argument says these people are entitled to due process and criticize the prior administration for not granting such process, then you shouldn't turn around and deny due process to these people. And then have someone like you suggest that well due process goes out the window if you kill the guy rather than detain.... That wasn't Obama's argument.

Quote from CyberGuy : Your analogy is nonsense. Bush had knowledge of the torture and the administration authorized it. I believe it was called "enhanced interrogation [wikipedia.org]".

Abu Ghraib was not about enhanced interrogation techniques. And Bush knw specifically that soldiers were abusing and mistreating detainees there? Cite?

Quote from TRNT : I totally agree with that. But how is that relevant to proving that Obama kills them instead of detaining them? That seems to have been your claim for which I have been requesting evidence. And if you are not claiming that, then what are you claiming. We do not apply due process to combatants on battlefields. Once they are captured then due process applies. And I still have not seen any explanation much less evidence for this alleged hypocrisy.

The problem arises that anyone can be declared a combatant without a court hearing regardless of citizenship and actual affiliation with a terror group (in the US or otherwise), and the globe is considered the battlefield.

A drone flies over the funeral for a terrorist. Someone there is a suspected terrorist, they shoot the funeral with a drone, killing terrorists. These terrorist have funerals, rinse and repeat.

The problem people like me have is in determining combat status, especially when we are the ones sending unmanned drones into sovereign countries that are telling us not to, to kill poorly equipped suspected terrorists that may be planning to attack the US while they are attending funerals or attempting to rescue those hit by a previous drone strike. Were those people really in combat on the field of battle? Basically we are shooting people and saying "Because we shot you, you were on the battlefield. The reason we shot you is because we suspect you'd like to attack us." The reasoning is backwards and troubling.

The reason should be more along the lines of "You were trying to attack us, so we shot you". You know, shooting a guy setting up an IED in a country that nominally welcomes our protection. That's fine. He created the battlefield and presented an immediate threat to our troops or our allies. It's the shooting people in their homes, in public, at funerals, and those rescuing those hurt in a previous drone strike that bothers me.

Quote from Xygonn : The problem arises that anyone can be declared a combatant without a court hearing regardless of citizenship and actual affiliation with a terror group (in the US or otherwise), and the globe is considered the battlefield.

You and I have had this discussion before. You know that I do not consider the world the battlefield. You know that I consider countries that we are at war with and lawless areas from which we are attacked as bartlefileds. You know that I do not endorse sending drones to countries such as France or even Iran.

If you have an argument against atacking combatants, even those who are US citizens, on those specific areas, let's hear it.