Posted on 08/07/2016 4:34:59 PM PDT by Enchante
The policy document, known as the President Policy Guidance, or PPG, says counterterrorism operations, including lethal action against designated terrorist targets, "shall be discriminating and precise as reasonably possible" and says "direct action" against "high value targets" "will be taken only when there is near certainty that the individual being targeted is, in fact, the lawful target and located at the place where the action will occur."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
“I am pretty good at killing people”
— obama
I will tell you how to pick targets.
General area of bad guys?
Kill.
He is but a shadow compared to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Would like to know if all approve of flying drones into sovereign countries with intention to assassinate a said “bad guy” without:
Due process
Official declaration of war
Approval by sovereign gov’t that we’ve not declared war with to assassinate one of their citizens.
Are these drone assassination operations military or intelligence operations?
HUNDREDS of innocent civilians have killed in mistaken “collateral damage” events.
Terrorists get Huge recruitment boosts from reports and on the scene images of charred women and children.
*We really gotta think thru the exact scope and objectives as lethal military drone use expands to other nation states.
Russia, China and other potential adversaries are taking careful note of the precedent we set for eliminating individuals.
A very likely scenario in the near future may have a foreign gov’t launch a drone assassination of a citizen on US soil because of a war crimes accusation.
Not to mention US gov’t drone use against it’s own citizen “belligerents” (terrorists) on our own soil...
RE: “Too restrictive, a drone attack should be fine against any terrorist target so long as there is judged a high likelihood that SOME terrorist(s) will be present. To require “near certainty” that one particular target is present is to demand more knowledge that is going to be available in many plausible cases. As long as we are killing jihadists, that should be enough.”
are the drones legally marked as USAF or US Navy?
if civilians are involved in these killings,
they are war criminals
We need to declare war.
Then we need to use our WWII approach, bomb entire cities into ashes. Lots of cities.
OR
GET THE HELL OT OF THERE.
...
...and near certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed.
In other words, we're out of the drone strike business. Really? At least 3 reviews, plus no non-combatant casualties? Just how often does that come up? As I understand it, we don't get notice of targets weeks or even days in advance. If we're lucky, maybe a few hours. The thing about terrorists is, there's always civilians around. That's their thing - they intentionally operate embedded within the civilian population.
This may come in useful........"A Guide To Spotting And Hiding From Drones
“Then we need to use our WWII approach, bomb entire cities into ashes. Lots of cities.”
Seems to be the only way wars have been successfully ended in recent history. Why was a sure method of ending war discontinued? Is it not profitable enough for the military industrial complex? Is it more politically correct to prolong war? What am I missing here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.