Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Wyden plans tough questions for Brennan on targeted killings. ACLU files suit in the matter (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Three Americans have been killed overseas (0+ / 0-)

    All three were engaged with Al Queda.

    Case closed.

    •  One was the son of someone engaged (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hayate Yagami

      with al-qaeda.  And no explanation was given as to why he was killed.  Must be nice to live in a world where the government doesn't need any checks on it's right to kill.

    •  Had ONE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Walt starr

      Of these "terrorists" pulled off their planned attacks, we'd be screaming about not stopping the attacks.

      We can't have it both ways- we expect to be kept safe, but when people are flushed out as enemies, we leave them? Do you expect them to surrender?

      And if you denounce your country, plot to destroy it, don't give yourself up, should you expect rights?

    •  Who said they were? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, roadbear

      Where is the evidence? Obama's? Or some underling on the government's payroll?

      Did they pose a immediate  threat by plotting an "imminent" attack? If so. where is the evidence?

      Where is the evidence that a 16 year old boy, traveling in a country that is an ally of the US, on a US passport, with a visa,  was an Al Qaeda leader?

      Did you trust Bush and Cheney about WMD's, too? The justification for torture?

      "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013

      by TheMomCat on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:41:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They recorded videos recruiting (0+ / 0-)

        and making threats against the US.

        Killing them was 100% justified.

        And I am proud Obama gave the order to kill them.

        I am even more proud they could be killed without putting a single American soldier or pilot in physical danger.

        •  So now a video can get you assassinated? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ek hornbeck, Hayate Yagami

          Where is the immediate threat? Where is the plan to attack? Not there.

          Where is the evidence against a 16 year old boy?

          If McCain was president and ordered this, what would you say? Did you support the justification for torture? The justifications are the same.

          We either have a rule of law in this country and a constitution we abide by, or we have a monarchy.

          "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013

          by TheMomCat on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:21:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have ZERO problems with it. (0+ / 0-)

            And I am a part of the majority of Liberals on this issue, too.

            I had no problems when Bush used drones.

            I would have no problems with a hypothetical president McCain or a hypothetical president Romney or a hypothetical president Rubio using drones.

            End of discussion.

            •  The you had no problems (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ek hornbeck, Hayate Yagami

              with war crimes.

              "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013

              by TheMomCat on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:46:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Use of drones is no war crime (0+ / 0-)

                and hyperbolic statements to the contrary do not constitute war crimes.

                •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ek hornbeck

                  and so do others:

                  quotes from a statement by the UN special rapporteur (pdf) on counterterrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson, announcing an investigation into the use of drones and targeted killings.

                        …There are those who contend that outside situations of recognized international armed conflict, the applicable framework is international human rights law, under which it is unlawful to engage in any form of targeted killing.  The standards set out in 3 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and particularly the provisions of Article 6, which protects the right to life, permit the use of lethal force only where it is strictly necessary as a matter of immediate self-defense. Under this analysis States wishing to take action against suspected terrorists located outside a recognized situation of international armed conflict must first try to effect an arrest, and may use lethal force only if the person they are seeking resists arrest and it proves strictly necessary to use firearms.

                          At the other end of the spectrum the analysis that has been promoted by international lawyers in the United States, and by John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, to the effect that Western democracies are engaged in a global [war] against a stateless enemy, without geographical boundaries to the theatre of conflict, and without limit of time.  This analysis is heavily disputed by most States, and by the majority of international lawyers outside the United States of America. [emphasis added]

                  and from Human Rights Watch
                     …In particular, the use of lethal force is lawful if the targeted individual presents an imminent threat to life and less extreme means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, are insufficient to address that threat.  The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides that the “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”  This standard permits using firearms only in self-defense or defense of others “against the imminent threat of death or serious injury” or “to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life” and “only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives.”  Under this standard, individuals cannot be targeted for lethal attack merely because of past unlawful behavior, but only for imminent or other grave threats to life when arrest is not a reasonable possibility. [emphasis added]
                  Not to mention that the US does not have permission from the Pakistan government for these attacks and has been put on notice by their Ambassador that drone attacks cross a "red line" and are a recruiting tool for terrorists.

                  But you go ahead and live in your safe little bubble believing that this president can do no wrong and this will stop an another attack on the US. You have no idea how the minds of the people in this region work, or how patient they can be.

                  I find it wildly disconcerting that the injustice of these actions is not just ignored but defended on this site by so called "liberals" and "Democrats."

                  Have good night, Walt

                  "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013

                  by TheMomCat on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:35:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site