Either you forgot /sarcasm or you're posting a threat that may qualify you for targeted assassination as an "associated force" of terrorism. Not sure which one though, I'll leave that up to you
"...does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." Just amazing, given that we have executed innocent people here and that was without all the murkiness and complication involved in determining evidence of something happening across the world. This sounds like the movie Minority Report coming to life.
Problem: Pointing a Gun at an Officer might result in suicide by cop... Solution: Don't point the gun. Problem: Joining Al-Qaeda might result in suicide by drone strike... Solution: Don't join Al-Qaeda. You make some bad choices in life and and results might not be pretty... It's like those morons that go hiking near Iran or North Korea...
So you don't think US citizens deserve the benefit of the doubt to not be murdered for something they haven't been convicted of? When it could be a case of mistaken identity? We invaded Iraq and had a long war there based on bad intel. And you are trusting these guys to make the right call when it comes to individual people? Sorry if I'm skeptical
At certain times in our history, there have been certain roles that might result in death: 1. During the Revoluatoinary War -Sympathizing with the British 2. During the Civil War - Joining the Confederacy 3. During World War 2 - Joining the Nazis 4. During the Cold War - Being a Soviet Spy 5. During the War on Terror - Joining or being associated with Al-Qaeda
Sorry but it is completely different when you are sending a robot to murder somebody halfway across the world in a land we routinely make fuck ups because we don't understand it and our intel is frequently wrong. I generally hate slippery slope arguments but this type of thing really scares me in that once we decide it is ok to kill US citizens without trial it is only going to get easier to justify it.
for some reason, I don't think you'd be particularly adept at accurately identifying any of those undesirables. What is it that makes you so smart?
You'll have to read the entire document because the legal language is more loose and concerning than "joining al-Qaeda", as you put it.
I was thinking about this more last night and it made me think about how many people I am "associated with" and how I have no idea what their ties are apart from their relationship to me. For instance maybe the guy who fixes my car sells drugs on the side. Or my barber is a serial killer. I would hate to think that is the type of "association" that could get me killed over there. I'd like to think they are doing their due diligence but the more you err on the side of caution the less you worry that somebody might be innocent.
"Roles that might result in death"?? Hehe. But, geezus, even if you're on the right side of the issue, these examples aren't very well thunk. You were closer with your "suicide by cop" example. It's a Constitutional question. The Revolutionary War perhaps doesn't work all that well. Likewise, the Civil War. Lincoln at least had the decency to suspend habeas corpus. Whether or not he could. World War II was a declared war, so anyone with a Nazi or Japanese uniform would necessarily be fair game. The Cold War wasn't a "war" per se - just a cute name. But "spying" is a crime. We held trials. War on Terror? Also not a "war." And American citizens enjoy unique protection of their right of "joining or being associated" with anyone they want. We punish our citizens for conduct, not for thoughts. No matter how horrid they may be. If you're in favor of droning American citizens overseas or here at home, you'd be better off focusing on the part that requires they be an "imminent threat" of attack on the US. The only problem I have with this is that there should be SOME sort of process for droning US citizens. Even George Bush's military tribunals that the left hated so much treated US citizens differently.
I think the right answer is to have decisions to target Americans overseas to be reviewed by something like the FISA magistrate. At least there would be someone reviewing the decision. I know the people doing this now think they are doing the right thing, in the right way. But imo you can't leave this kind of thing totally in the executive branch. We do after all have to worry about some future nut job GOP president his henchman, however remote their return to power might seem right now.
Yep. The strange thing about the Right vs Obama warfare going on is that they're usually right when they're coming at him on issues where he is to the right of them.
