http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/14/a-court-to-approve-drone-strikes Comments On: A Court to Approve Drone Strikes? by Eli Sanders en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 09:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Senor Guy]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:27:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pope Peabrain]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:57:35 -0800 The Stranger
@16 Glad to see you believe everything they tell you without qualification. When has a government ever lied to its citizens?

Posted by dirac]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:55:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CPN]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:52:27 -0800 The Stranger
The problem with drones (as with much of US military action in recent decades) is that it occurs without a formal declaration of war or any definition or limits on who can be targeted. But it's worse than most other such abuses. At least the war in Iraq, immoral and illegal as it was, had a clear target (Saddam Hussein and his cronies in Iraq) and was approved by Congress, if not by a formal declaration of war. But the drone war has no borders, no defined enemies, no standards, no victory conditions, no end. That's why it's bad.
Posted by Cascadian]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:31:36 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Seattle14]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:50:10 -0800 The Stranger
But where's the evidence that Awlaki the elder was involved with terrorism? There's absolutely no public evidence that he was involved in any operations--but he HAS been highly critical of the US government and that's the corpuscle of "evidence" we're offered: nasty Youtube videos by a Muslim. Must be guilty then.
Posted by dirac]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:08:19 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Asbel]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:40:46 -0800 The Stranger
So instead of focusing on individual cases, and trying to dredge up sympathy by citing the victim's age (as if 16 year olds can't be soldiers), let's work on the overall process. Who should be involved in making the decision? What should the standard of evidence be?

It sounds to me like having a court is a step in the right direction of adding more oversight, although secret courts are notorious for rubber stamping administration requests. I don't see any way to have a transparent process when intelligence data is involved, though.
Posted by Asbel]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:38:32 -0800 The Stranger
@10 Well, just because there's precedent doesn't make it right or legal.

First, would be nice to define "known enemy," "surgical," etc. Usually, military euphemisms/obfuscations. The associated information is all secret and according to the "most transparent government ever" we don't have the right to know any of it. Even if you accept that with the dubious neocon justifications provided by this and the previous administration, Congress needs to grow a pair and repeal the AUMF so they at least don't have that lame excuse. The impetus for that would be to have people give a shit...I know it's hard living with the bravery of being out of range.

Also, according to the government the American defendants killed far away from a battlefield (thus are not "combatants") don't have a right to the incriminating information that enables the government to ignore due process and kill 16-year olds.

Also, google "double tap drone strikes"--a terrorist's dream-- used to kill good samaritans, family members, etc.
Posted by dirac]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:22:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Frank Blethen's vodka distiller]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:06:06 -0800 The Stranger
What's the difference between the following things:

1. A group of soldiers in a guerilla-style war killing someone they believe to be the enemy. This has been happening since the World War I.
2. An SAS-style strike team being landed in a hostile environment to kill a known enemy. True since World War II if not before.
3. "Surgical" bombing strikes against known enemies. It's been happening since planes became part of warfare.
4. An un-manned strike against a known enemy controlled by remote military personnel.

In all cases, there is no court to decide whether the targets are actually proven enemies and no review of whether they should be killed.

So why the extra fuss about whether someone is in the plane or not?
Posted by CBSeattle]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:52:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Original Andrew]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:23:11 -0800 The Stranger
Clearly, my representatives in Congress, as dysfunctional as they are a s a group, need to provide the oversight that should keep the Executive Branch primarily within the parameters of International standards of modern warfare.
Posted by God Help Those Fucktards In Congress]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:45:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by anon1256]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:37:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pope Peabrain]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:14:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:07:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Dr_Awesome]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:59:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by gloomy gus]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:40:52 -0800 The Stranger It's about time this action by the Obama Administration is scrutinized. Check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…


Posted by lark]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:39:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Foonken2]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:11:32 -0800 The Stranger