Posted on 02/07/2013 3:57:54 PM PST by TurboZamboni
The Justice Department memo makes a case for the legality of drone strikes to kill Americans abroad who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack.” This is a reference to “self-defense.” Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.”
The “inherent right of self-defense” is another clear reference to moral reasoning on war as represented by Just War theory.
The problem is, the Justice Department memo doesn’t limit the legality argument to what would be commonly understood as “imminent threat” and thus the justification of “self-defense,” but in fact so expands “imminent” as to redefine it completely and undercut the notion that the targeted killing is in self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Depends on who is running the show.
The new policy is shoot first, find evidence later.
I don’t like it.
“inherent right of self-defense” unless that involves a white citizen with a CCW.
If it is "just targeted killing," as I think it is, me neither.
I don’t have any issue of taking out known terrorists overseas like this even if they are Americans. I do have a serious problem with taking out “possible” terrorists.
I’m also concerned about the next step on American soil. It was only a few years ago that we were told that there would be no drones flying over America. How long before someone decides the best way to deal with groups like the Hutaree is to simply kill them and create evidence later.
From a political standpoint the Obama Administration asked for this. They insisted on looking for a legal route and justification. They are twisting themselves up in legal knots instead of treating foreign terrorist camps as military targets.
It’s difficult to imagine a regime which labeled the Ft. Hood massacre ‘workplace violence’ and refused to rescue four Americans in distress in Benghazi and sending F-16’s to Egypt but not Taiwan one which uses drones for a ‘war on terror’.. I say this is opening the door to eventual DOMESTIC targeted killings merely by adding the word ‘domestic’ to the directive on targeted killings of Americans overseas. This is the regime laying the ground work as assault weapons bans is a precursor to an eventual total gun ban.
A terrorist responsible for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi openly sits at a pub, bragging about his exploits. Sounded like the perfect opportunity for a drone strike, based on Obama’s rules of engagement.
How long before Conservatives or TEA Party members?
It’s too much to expect consistency from a Liberal.
I don’t like the idea of a group of spooks (CIA, NSA, etc.) and political hacks in the Administration being trusted with this decision without true judicial oversight. At a minimum they should be required to be through a public judicial proceeding to strip these people of their US citizenship first. I see three judicial tracks for judicially stripping citizenship with differing burdens of proof required:, one for birthright citizens who do not have dual-citizenship, one for those born in the US to non-citizen parents, and one with almost automatic approval for naturalized citizens who acquired their citizenship as adults and took an oath.
American citizens who wage war on the US deserve to die, and I don’t care how and where we waste them, so let’s drop the sanctimonious pontificating on this issue.
What we want is a realistic drone policy based on facts, good intelligence, accurate targetting, and DOA results.
Now this appears to people operating overseas. Here at home, we have another problem: DOJ and DHS calling some acts of terrorism as “workplace violence”.
This kind of BS thinking has got to go and be replaced with something realistic.
I’ve got news for some anti-drone people, they have been used in one form or another in the US for years. I would rather send a drone out into the desert wastelands of Arizona and New Mexico to search for drug-smugglers and terrorists than send an underarmed Border Patrol agent who can’t shoot back at criminal trespassers.
We have got to grow up and realize that our enemy has evolved, but we haven’t. Drones are an amazing weapon in the fight against terrorists, organized armed forces, and even drug-smugglers.
The only issue is how to do it properly, with well defined usage doctrines.
“inherent right of self-defense” unless that involves a white citizen with a CCW.
Exactly my first thought when reading the article.
A terrorist responsible for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi openly sits at a pub, bragging about his exploits. Sounded like the perfect opportunity for a drone strike, based on Obama’s rules of engagement.
No, the pub is not appropriate venue. His auto coming or going is appropriate
Just another action that seems reasonable and might do some good but if you look at the longer issue (time), it is up to those in charge to make decisions. Who are you going to trust 20 years from now much less Obama now...
This is one of those feel good, sounds good things that will eventually bite you in the ass. Just look to the Constitution for relevance - then it is not so ambiguous!
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.