This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

This morning the country is reading about a tragic shootout in the quiet suburban neighborhood of Watertown Massachusetts. From the New York Times:

The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings led police on a wild and deadly chase through the suburbs here early Friday morning that ended in the death of one of the suspects as well as a campus police officer; the other suspect remained at large while hundreds of police officers conduct a manhunt through Watertown, about five miles west of downtown Boston.
The scenario that played out late last night is exactly the type of situation the Obama administration has said qualifies for drone strikes. If the Boston Marathon suspects had been connected to al-Qaeda, would it have been OK to just drone them in Watertown, Massachusetts? According to the administration's supposed criteria for kill lists, the President could have ordered the suspects killed.

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

The Boston Marathon suspects easily met Attorney General Eric Holder's criteria to justify a drone strike ((1) “that U.S. Government has determined after a thorough and careful review that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;” and (2) “capture is not feasible;”). Obama himself said killing a suspect with a drone is appropriate when “. . . a threat that is serious and not speculative. It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.”

The Boston Marathon suspects were obviously "operational." They had already attacked and had bombs and weapons with them. Capture certain seemed not feasible considering one suspect is dead and the other escaped. Other Americans have been droned for less, such as cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki's 16-year old son, who was not suspected of any crime, much less terrorism. Then there's al-Awlaki himself, who the administration claimed was "operational" only after they droned him. (There is convincing evidence to the contrary considering al-Awlaki was on the kill list long enough for the ACLU to bring a lawsuit to have him removed.)  Regardless, the threat from the Boston Marathon suspects certainly appears more "imminent" than the threats from many of the 3000+ victims of American drone strikes.

Even Holder's reassurance to Senator Rand Paul that there would not be domestic drone strikes has a pretty gaping loophole that the Boston Marathon suspects fit through easily. Holder wrote Paul with an answer to one specific question "'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no." (emphasis added). If the Boston Marathon suspects were not American (news reports said they had only been in the U.S. for about a year), and were "engaged in combat," there is nothing in the Obama administration's criteria that would prevent a drone strike in Watertown.

If people are comfortable droning Americans far from any battlefield based on the Obama administration's criteria, then they should be comfortable with a drone strike in Watertown, Massachusetts, and with all the collateral damage that would come with such a strike.

If people are not OK with a drone strike in Watertown, then people should be raising hell at next week's drone hearing.  

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.