Comments

1
Now if only they would authorize a drone strike on the 2016 Republican convention.
2
So we'd feel better if we sent in 16 Marines somewhere dangerous to shoot him in the face, instead? Or just let him go do whatever he's going to do.
3
Is it progress that assassinations are now discussed openly?
4
@ 2, it's not the method of the assassination, it's the fact that these are extra-judicial killings of US citizens. Not that it matters, since we're living in a post-legal world in which our rulers are above the law.
5
Wasn't one of the Americans killed by a drone strike the editor in chief of "Inspire," the English language magazine purposed to recruiting suicide bombers to attack Americans? Is being that some sort of tacit renunciation of citizenship?

Such a sticky issue - I think I'm on the don't do it side but fucking complicated.
6
@4 are you suggesting there was a time when our rulers were not above the law?
7
@5 How about the time we assassinated a 16 year old American citizen with a drone?
8
It's a pity we couldn't just ask the Pakistanis to go "arrest" him for us, isn't it? That would obviate the need for us to violate their airspace and murder several additional civilians "accidentally." Of course, faced with such a request under such terms of extortion, I suppose we'd be violating their sovereignty.

If only we had better relations with Pakistan. Maybe if we hadn't repeatedly fucked up by killing innocent Pakistani civilians time and again. Maybe if their government wasn't viewed as illegitimate by so many of their population who hate the U.S., causing the regime to curry favor by posturing against us.

There's no "win" here. Whatever happened to the time-honored tradition of using foreign mercenaries? At least it's less invidious than remote-control, mass murder machines. And, you would also have the pretense that you were trying to apprehend, not kill, the suspect.
10
@9 That would be perfect. Send Obama a memo.
11
@ 9, you're missing the point, which is that the government isn't supposed to order the murder of US citizens without formal charges and a trial. It's unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical. Extra-judicial executions are also acts that are condemned by our own State Department--when they're committed by other countries.
12
the first rule of drone club should be don't talk about drone club.
13
@11 and @4 and @8...I think you're missing the point. This person, though an American citizen, is known to be in the business of planning the killing of other American citizens, is currently present in an Al-Qaeda military training camp on foreign soil, and is teaching others to build IEDs. Your plan is to wait until we can arrest him and bring him to trial? Just let him go on planning murder of other American citizens, training others to murder, and murdering. You're being willfully ignorant or you're totally immoral.
15
@8
Lets not pretend that the only reason the Pakistani government would have to not go after Al Qaeda is US drone strikes. Elements of the Pakistani Government have been tacitly supporting Al Qaeda and its allies since the early 90's. They'd be as interested in helping as they were in 2001 when they were supposed to be capturing Osama.
They of course took that to mean letting him live 20 minutes down the road from their version of West Point in a Mansion.
16
I'm not really in favor of our government wantonly killing people with drones sans trial.

That said...

When it's obvious what a "trial" would result in (i.e., a conviction and death sentence), is there any point to an arrest and trial? For example, say we had captured Osama bin Laden and put him on trial. Is there any chance whatsoever he would be found not guilty and set free? If not, then what's the point of a trial? For show? To make everyone feel a false sense of civility and smug justification?

If a fair and impartial trial is impossible, if it is 100% certain the suspect will be found guilty and sentenced to death, then what do we do?
17
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -- Fifth Amendment, US Constitution

With Democrats like Obama, who needs Republicans?
18
So our government should only follow the law if it's convenient? Well, they don't even bother with that anymore. What happens when the next president drone bombs the Central District because some alleged anarchists may be plotting against the 1%? Perfectly reasonable according that fatally flawed reasoning. It's amazing how most people are so authoritarian that they're willing to throw all of our supposed rights and values out the window.
20
I think part of the reason for the drones being so popular with the military is the surprise factor. The more notorious the target victim, the more hesitant this victim will be to promote attacks on U.S.A. They want to be known as martyrs but they don't want to die anymore than anyone else. They are cowards.
21
@ 19, He's the president, not an emperor, and that comment is so Nixonian.
22
I don't think I am on board with focusing the complaints directed exclusively towards the executive branch for conducting these rather convenient drone strikes.

If these strikes are arguably legal, shouldn't the legislature delineate these powers and provide the framework to curtail executive overreach?

If these strikes are arguably illegal, shouldn't someone with standing have this in front of the judicial branch?

We have this big fucking piece of machinery called government that is supposed to manufacture this collective "will of the people"TM product; shouldn't the damn thing be expected to work?
23
I think @12 wins this thread.
24
@15,

The non-crazies in the Pakistani government are terrified of the crazies in their government and in Waziristan. I can't say I blame them for that, but the fact is that they're not totally to blame for their refusal to help us round up their own crazies and we're not totally to blame for the situation either (as #8 claims).
25
@13- "...this person is known..." by the people who plan to execute him. The evidence is secret, there is no trial, no judge, no jury. Democracy and justice demand better. I would much rather live with the "threat" posed by some guy half a world away playing with IEDs than I am by living in a country without the rule of law. Because I think America should be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
26
@16- "When it's obvious what a "trial" would result in (i.e., a conviction and death sentence), is there any point to an arrest and trial?"

How is that obvious? We've got scores of terrorism "suspects" detained and haven't managed to get a death sentence on any of them that actually went to trial. We've managed to have a few die in captivity and driven a bunch of them insane, but no death sentences.
27
If the guy doesn't want to get droned he just has to surrender to the authorities. It's pretty fucking simple.
28
@27- Perhaps you are being sarcastic, but I think right now every American living abroad could potential be "the guy" who's about to get droned. It's not like the secret council has released the name of "the guy".
29
@28 Do you know that?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.